Losing Self-Defense Rights If You Refuse to Comply with Attacker’s Demands

[AAllen]

Someone asked an interesting question on the Friends of the NFOA facebook page and I thought I would bring the discussion over here as well, since not everyone follows that.  The Question is:

Is this author correct that Nebraska compels someone to obey demands of an assailant or loose the right to defend one's self with lethal force?

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/29/losing-self-defense-rights-if-you-refuse-to-comply-with-attackers-demands-to-abstain-from-conduct/#.Ufg5sibFsaY.facebook

I’ve long been curious about the “duty to comply with negative demands,” an analog to the duty to retreat suggested by the Model Penal Code (based on the Restatement (First) of Torts) and implemented in Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. (Alabama and Pennsylvania had such a rule, but recently repealed it.) Under this doctrine, a defendant loses the right to use lethal force in self-defense if he knows that

    he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take.

That always struck me as shockingly broad — read literally, if Vic tells Don, “stop seeing my ex-girlfriend or I’ll kill you,” Don must stop seeing the ex-girlfriend or else lose the right to use lethal force to defend himself against Vic. Likewise, if Vic tells Don, “stop burning this flag / displaying this cartoon of Mohammed / picketing with this sign, or I’ll kill you,” Don must abandon his First-Amendment-protected activity or else lose the right to defend himself with lethal force against Vic. Perhaps prosecutors agree, and are skittish about using this theory, because I’ve found only one case in which it seemed to have been argued, State v. Savage, 573 A.2d 25 (Me. 1990); I thought I’d pass along an excerpt and see what people thought

[AWick]

I posed this question to the forum a while ago in another thread and I think what it comes down to is this:

1. In order to use lethal force in any situation you must be in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury.

2. If the bad guy (bg) points a gun at you, has a knife in hand, etc. and demands that you surrender something that he has now a asserted a claim on you are not only in immediate danger but then have to have 100% confidence that the bg is going to honor is word and suspend his lethal endangerment against you on an honor system.

 3. I don't think I would take my chances with the BG code of "honor" and believe 100% that I would be free from danger. The BG has already decided to break the law by trying to rob me, attack me, compel me with force against my will, or any other outcome that they illegally wish to compel against me. So how could I know that I would be free from harm should I comply?

[AAllen]

Awick, this gets into another area that we have not discussed.  The bad guy makes a demand that you do not do something that you do not need to do. 

Example: he demands that you do not notify the police (there is no requirement that you do) and if you do he will kill you.  After you contact the police (home invasion and he had stepped out of the room and you called and got caught) he tries to use deadly force because you did, because you could have avoided this conflict by not notifying the police this piece of the statute actually says you have waived your ability to defend yourself when he returns to exact his revenge.

[ProtoPatriot]

There is also another factor that needs to be addressed:

The right to defend property as well, not just your life.

To require you give into demands would violate this.


4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Sure the 4th amendment is targeted against government as the Constitution is bindings on government not the individual... but if we have the right to be secure in our effects from the government, we damn sure do have the right to be secure in our effects from each other.

Last I checked, giving into demands of anyone, especially while under duress (coercion of law, coercion in general, threats, etc), is pretty damn unreasonable.

We are to be secure in our effects, not just our persons.

And I know I know... "is your property worth your life?" well that's wrong and obviously a trick question because the answer is guaranteed to be "no"....but the correct question that is not being asked is this:

"is it worth the life of the one trying to take it?" and the only way to find this out (as the only one that can answer this is the one trying to take it) would be to challenge their claim by asserting yourself, your rights, and defending yourself by any and all means necessary right then and there at the time.

[Kendahl]

I think you are reading more into this than is intended. Your interpretation would put a criminal above his victim in the same way, although not as far as, a police officer is above a civilian. What does make sense to me is that you can't use deadly force unless you are in serious danger.

If someone picks your pocket and runs, you can't use deadly force because you aren't in danger and have no duty to recover your wallet.

In the example of threats by an ex-boyfriend, the threat is for future, not imminent, harm. If he tries to make good on his threat, you are now in danger and are entitled to defend yourself. On the other hand, arguing with him would be considered escalation and would compromise, if not eliminate, your right to self defense. (Rory Miller, in his book Facing Violence, calls this the "chicken dance".)

As far as requirement to comply with a criminal's illegal demands is concerned, you might not be able to respond to the demand with deadly force. However, his attempt to "punish" you for "disobedience" would be justification.

In the case of a home invasion, you have no duty to retreat. Therefore, whether you could have avoided the need for deadly force is irrelevant.

[bkoenig]

Self defense law is ridiculously confusing.  I think I'm going to curl up in my bathtub with my dog and my AR.

[AWick]

Self defense law is ridiculously confusing.  I think I'm going to curl up in my bathtub with my dog and my AR.

best. sentence. ever.

This is a segment from 28-1411. Use of force for protection of property.

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1411

(6) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:

(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other felonious theft or property destruction and either:

(i) Has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily harm.

so written distinctly according to 28-1411 section 6(a)(i) if a person threatened deadly force against you in attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery, or other felonious theft or property destruction you are then justified under that section to use deadly force. They are able to simplify it down and make justification more broad by using "either" (a) or (b) and in the case of (b) it is again an "either/or". It also seems that (ii) gives more benefit of the doubt to the actor/defender should force other than deadly force end up putting the defender or another person at a greater risk of harm.

[bkoenig]

Section (b) does seem to give a fair amount of leeway to the person defending themself.  I was always under the impression that simple robbery or burglary was not sufficient justification for deadly force, unless they threatened you with grave bodily harm.

[AWick]

I'm no lawyer type but I have tried to understand the different circumstances and scenarios that might play out and how to best legally respond to a threat against me or my family. Chris Z (for those that don't him here is a shameless plug http://www.neccwtraining.com/)explained different scenarios in my CHP class really well. Also,  if some one is yelling at you the most you can do is yell back. If a BG points a gun at you, you are in an imminent threat of death or bodily harm and are justified as codified in section (b). That is at least my understanding. Somebody correct me if I seem off at all.

[Kendahl]

if some one is yelling at you the most you can do is yell back

It's a good idea not to yell back. If the situation turns into a defensive shooting, that might be considered escalation on your part. The picture you want to paint is that you were the good guy trying to avoid trouble and he was the bad guy who wouldn't leave you alone.

[ProtoPatriot]

I think you are reading more into this than is intended. Your interpretation would put a criminal above his victim in the same way, although not as far as, a police officer is above a civilian. What does make sense to me is that you can't use deadly force unless you are in serious danger.

If someone picks your pocket and runs, you can't use deadly force because you aren't in danger and have no duty to recover your wallet.

In the example of threats by an ex-boyfriend, the threat is for future, not imminent, harm. If he tries to make good on his threat, you are now in danger and are entitled to defend yourself. On the other hand, arguing with him would be considered escalation and would compromise, if not eliminate, your right to self defense. (Rory Miller, in his book Facing Violence, calls this the "chicken dance".)

As far as requirement to comply with a criminal's illegal demands is concerned, you might not be able to respond to the demand with deadly force. However, his attempt to "punish" you for "disobedience" would be justification.

In the case of a home invasion, you have no duty to retreat. Therefore, whether you could have avoided the need for deadly force is irrelevant.

I'll put this up top: ALL OF THIS IS OF COURSE WITHIN REASON AND ALL THINGS MUST BE HANDLED WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION.

Ok, yes, I should have been more clear, it should say "immediate threats" (was writing right before work, so it was written quick).

Define "serious danger"...because every individual and every individual situation will have a different definition. Not to mention, screw "serious danger", it's a matter of rights violation. Someone breaking into your house does not necessarily put in you "serious danger" but it damn well is a violation of your right to be secure in your house and effects. So, yes, put a bullet in their head (a dead "criminal" is not a loss). An attack on someone's property is an attack on the person.

In no way does it put the "criminal above the victim" because the initial attacker is always the "criminal" (which is really a poor term to use, because until a person has been convicted, they are not a criminal, "attacker" or "aggressor" would be a better term) and that does not change... It's saying, if someone is attacking you (regardless if a weapon is shown initially or not and robbery is an attack), you have every right to do what you deem fit to protect yourself and your property. If no weapon is brandished by the attacker, call them on it by pointing your weapon at them (I know I know...the idiots claim that is "escalating the situation" and so what, it should be called taking the upper hand or gaining the advantage, best defense is a good offense after all). Until the weapon is actually used (i.e. trigger is actually pulled), "deadly force" (this is as stupid of a term as "assault weapon" is) has not truly been used (I know, this contradicts the retard politicians words they put into the law).

The ONLY one that can decide whether any kind of force is needed in a situation, is the one being victimized, the rest of us have no business determining otherwise as there is no way to truly replicate the exact circumstances, nor is it possible to truly explain them. It's easy to say "no, that wasn't reasonable" from a 3rd person point of view, sitting so nice and safe in your living rooms or a court room and only seeing what the lawyers want you to see... it's a whole another story to actually be the victim and in the situation.

Everyone is so caught up in this "deadly force" crap that they forget the real problem is that the attack/crime is occurring and someone is victimized in the first place.

Which brings up 3 other points...
first point: the law basically states those declaring self-defense must prove their innocence... well that is wrong on so many levels. That's the same as saying "guilty until proven innocent" when it is "innocent until proven guilty" and burden of proof rests solely on the state and that never changes regardless of the situation.
Second point: the family of the "criminal" has no right let alone business suing the victim, they were not involved and they did not make the choice to violate someone else's rights.
Third point: the "criminal" has no right or business suing the their victim for any injuries and such they may incur during their crime (and yes this has happened and the "criminal" actually won the case... declared kind of [using this example because I can't think of the word I want to use right now] like the issue of having a swimming pool on your property, kids trespass and go swimming, someone gets injured or dies, they hold you responsible; which is complete BS, the homeowner is not responsible in anyway), which of course is the whole reason to kill them.

As for the whole crap about "no duty to...", it is not a matter of "duty", if you can get your property back on your own, do so... the victim has more "duty" not to mention RIGHT to recover their property than anyone else... but of course that is the individuals choice to do so.

Does this mean chasing them down the street, maybe.
Does this mean firing of a shot at them as they run away, maybe, depends if you are putting others in danger in the process or not (a crowded street would be a "no" but an empty street or field the answer could be "yes")
Does this mean running into the person on the street a few days later and going after them, ABSOLUTELY NOT (no guarantee you got the right person).

No one else has any "duty" to get your property back either, not even the LEOs. You also have no right to place someone else in harms way for your sake and that is exactly what you are doing when you involve other's. So, if you can recover it on your own, with a guarantee to get the right person (which would require you do so immediately and also only use as much force as necessary to recover it), go right ahead. However, once the person has gotten away, the immediate situation has now ended, that is where the sheriff and courts come in and their purpose: to make sure the correct person gets punished ("it's better to let a criminal go free, than punish an innocent person").

And no, LEOs ARE NOT "above the civilian" in any way, neither are politicians or anyone else... they deserve no further protections than anyone else, they are nothing more than other people. LEOs have no business breaking laws or anything in the process of enforcing laws either, no exceptions/exclusions, they have to obey all the same laws just the same way the rest of us do (and again I know I know, they already have put in exceptions, exceptions that are completely ridiculous and invalid). Neither do they have any business stripping you of your weapon during any interaction unless you are being placed under official arrest with probable cause of committing a crime (i.e. you were the pick pocket, the "aggressor").

And there is NO DUTY TO COMPLY WITH LEOs either... that crap is beyond ridiculous... in fact it is the duty of citizen to challenge all government officials (especially LEOs, which means making their job as difficult as possible) in their duties to ensure they don't violate someone's rights and are following the law themselves (and there is no valid exception/exclusion for anyone).

One thing I love asking LEOs.... "and who is going to protect us from you?"

if some one is yelling at you the most you can do is yell back.

True, because words are no reason to use physical action as they have no power in themselves to do anything, so physical action must occur first...but as Kendahl pointed out they will claim that stupid "escalating situation" crap if you yell back.

[ProtoPatriot]

Now of course my last post went off topic, it was a reply though...so lets get back on topic.


Yes, the laws are beyond screwed up.

The current laws are setting people to be easier victims by setting nearly impossible standards to defend oneself, that way even if you defend yourself in accordance of this law being brought up, you may be prosecuted either way.

Side bit...By saying "comply with attackers demands", wouldn't the government become an accomplice to the crime being committed? Just a thought...

By holding the standard at "grave bodily harm" or "serious danger", you basically have no choice but to comply unless a weapon is used...well great, if an attacker tries to rob a female (or smaller/weaker male), even if they are armed,  and the robber brandishes no weapon but has the physical ability to restrain/force them through non-"serious danger/harm" methods, they can't really defend themselves much.

They write the self-defense laws to be a double-edge sword, they are meant to push you to be a victim and dependent on the government.  That is kind of what stand-your-ground and Castle Doctrine counter... though even they have ridiculous requirements in them.

Now as was pointed out by AWick, the one law is relatively broad as you can act on "Has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or"

But do they have to brandish a weapon first to meet this "threat of deadly force"? They would definitely say yes, but just because they haven't brandished it yet, doesn't mean there isn't a weapon... not to mention, can bare hands not be used to kill or cause "serious bodily harm"?

(6) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:

(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other felonious theft or property destruction and either:

(i) Has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily harm.

But the problem is looking at only one or two laws, there are many that must be taken into account. If they can't get you with one, they get you with the other. This is possible because they don't go back and amend previous laws or completely close the gaps in the defense laws.

Not to mention, when claiming self-defense (should you be taken to court), they are forcing you to prove your innocence and place the burden of proof on you. Well that changes things from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" which is abhorrent to the whole founding of our legal system (as corrupt as it is).

Also, by "not complying" with the attackers demands, they may try to claim that was "escalating the situation"....see how easily they turn things around?

[AWick]

It's a good idea not to yell back. If the situation turns into a defensive shooting, that might be considered escalation on your part. The picture you want to paint is that you were the good guy trying to avoid trouble and he was the bad guy who wouldn't leave you alone.

Oh, I agree. I should have been more clear. I meant in regards to any confrontation and what each side can be justified as a response. It is always a good idea to defuse a situation even it requires you to be the better person and admit a fault even if it isn't. The idea that I was saying was what Proto highlighted by saying that yelling at someone doesn't give that person the justification to punch them.

Proto, I think it only takes one valid statute to determine if you are justified in the use of force. If two statutes directly contradict each other and you are convicted under one then I think you'd have a fairly substantial appeals claim.

Also, another question, does the claim of right refer to perhaps a repo man exercising a claim of right repossessing a car as an example? Basically saying that, hey you can't kill a repo man for "stealing" your car... or is that not correct?

[Dan W]

I would think that any claim a robber or other perpetrator might make is invalidated if it is not a legal claim.

I can't imagine that a frivolous claim to my car, wallet or home could not be legally refused, and that if an assailant ups the ante with the threat of deadly force after my refusal, I would have every right to defending myself with deadly force

[unfy]

I think I'm going to curl up in my bathtub with my dog and my AR.

You are Legend!

[ProtoPatriot]

Proto, I think it only takes one valid statute to determine if you are justified in the use of force. If two statutes directly contradict each other and you are convicted under one then I think you'd have a fairly substantial appeals claim.

Also, another question, does the claim of right refer to perhaps a repo man exercising a claim of right repossessing a car as an example? Basically saying that, hey you can't kill a repo man for "stealing" your car... or is that not correct?

You would hope so...sadly that actually would come down to the state you are in. Here in Nebraska, you probably won't have much issue (as in the Walgreens case a few years ago). But if you were in New York, California, Illinois, DC, etc. you may find a completely different story... not to mention it largely depends on how good your attorney ends up being.

As for the repo-man...being that a repo-man is not "stealing" the item in question as you would have had to default on the loan your received, which makes you in the wrong. The contract when signing for a loan/lease directly states repossession is fully within the right of the bank. So, no there is no defense aspect there at all. And being that you are paying the loan, you would be aware of it's non-payment well ahead of the actual repossession, especially since they don't repo after the first missed payment, you are first sent many notices over a course of multiple weeks and even months before the repo would even occur.

We must look at who is in the wrong first.

[Kendahl]

Define "serious danger"

This is actually well defined in law. You are entitled to defend yourself using deadly force if a reasonable person in the same situation would fear that he was about to be seriously injured or killed. Your assailant need not necessarily be armed. If he is bigger or stronger or sucker punches you or has help from accomplices, that's called "preponderance of force" and is justification. An example is football player Scott Baldwin's attack on Gina Simanek eleven years ago. His size, strength and the viciousness of his attack were sufficient to justify deadly force to stop him. (Massad Ayoob has several articles about the Zimmerman case on the Backwoods Home web site. They are worth reading for general information about self defense law as well as details about the case.)

Someone breaking into your house does not necessarily put in you "serious danger"

In Nebraska, that's considered home invasion, not just burglary, and you are automatically presumed to be in serious danger. Quite a few years ago, a home owner in the Miller Park neighborhood shot and killed a burglar who turned toward him. The burglar turned out to be an unarmed, 15-year-old kid who was very big for his age. The kid was identified only after the grandmother who was raising him reported him missing. Because Nebraska does have a "castle doctrine", the homeowner was not charged with any crime.

An attack on someone's property is an attack on the person

I agree. I had to spend personal time working to pay for my property. If someone steals or destroys my property, I have to work to replace it. That's a piece of my life I will never get back. Even if I have replacement insurance, I have to work to pay the premium. However, like it or not, the concept that a thief's life is worth more than the property he stole is deeply entrenched in law and isn't going to change. I can live with that. What I couldn't live with is the notion that the assailant's well being outweighs that of his victim. At least in Nebraska, we are far from that point.

In no way does it put the "criminal above the victim"

This thread started with the hypothesis that the law, as written, requires you to comply with an assailant's illegal demands if that will ensure your personal safety. It doesn't make sense to me for the law to require obedience to an assailant's orders since he has no authority to issue them. Several years ago, a career criminal broke out of the Tecumseh prison and kidnapped an Omaha teacher before being recaptured. I can't believe there would have been any legal repercussions had the teacher availed himself of an opportunity to take out the escapee.

"Deadly force" does have a well established legal definition.

The ONLY one that can decide whether any kind of force is needed in a situation, is the one being victimized, the rest of us have no business determining otherwise

If you get drafted for jury duty in a self defense case, that's exactly the job you will be stuck with unless you can get yourself excused. Would you prefer to be replaced by someone unsympathetic to a defender?

Everyone is so caught up in this "deadly force" crap that they forget the real problem is that the attack/crime is occurring and someone is victimized in the first place.

When someone is injured or killed by a deliberate act, there needs to be a review of its justification. Otherwise, who would there be to question a "criminal's" claim of self defense after he kills his victim?

the law basically states those declaring self-defense must prove their innocence

Zimmerman didn't prove himself innocent. The prosecution failed to make their case against him. One of the jurors said she wanted to convict him but couldn't given the evidence and the judge's instructions. What's absurd is that it took so much effort and expense to reach the same conclusion as the investigating officers did shortly after the incident.

the family of the "criminal" has no right let alone business suing the victim...........the "criminal" has no right or business suing the their victim

I agree. I just wish I knew how to implement this. How do you differentiate legally between a "criminal" who has forfeited his right to sue and someone who is legitimately a victim of negligence or malice? At some point, it requires a legal judgment that the dead/injured party brought this on himself by committing a crime.

LEOs ARE NOT "above the civilian" in any way

Yes, they are. It is a crime to disobey a police officer's orders. The place to argue their legitimacy is in court, not on the street. That isn't to say you have to give them permission. You are not allowed to physically stop them from, for example, performing an illegal search but any evidence they find will be inadmissible.

[Kendahl]

By holding the standard at "grave bodily harm" or "serious danger", you basically have no choice but to comply unless a weapon is used...well great, if an attacker tries to rob a female (or smaller/weaker male), even if they are armed,  and the robber brandishes no weapon but has the physical ability to restrain/force them through non-"serious danger/harm" methods, they can't really defend themselves much.

No. Read Massad Ayoob about "preponderance of force". Football player Scott Baldwin's attack on Gina Simanek is a perfect example of a situation where deadly force against an unarmed assailant would have been justified to terminate the attack.

[ProtoPatriot]

This is actually well defined in law. You are entitled to defend yourself using deadly force if a reasonable person in the same situation would fear that he was about to be seriously injured or killed. Your assailant need not necessarily be armed. If he is bigger or stronger or sucker punches you or has help from accomplices, that's called "preponderance of force" and is justification. An example is football player Scott Baldwin's attack on Gina Simanek eleven years ago. His size, strength and the viciousness of his attack were sufficient to justify deadly force to stop him. (Massad Ayoob has several articles about the Zimmerman case on the Backwoods Home web site. They are worth reading for general information about self defense law as well as details about the case.)

You missed the point.  Everyone has a different level in which they would feel such they would be in "serious danger". The problem here is that I may not find the circumstance you were in as all that dangerous, but you did....so who is right? The one sitting in the cushy chair or the one being victimized?

And this whole thing of "reasonable person"... well, what you deem reasonable and what I deem reasonable are two completely different things. "Reasonable person" has no real bearing anyway. That is basically saying, would someone else do the same in an identical situation...well, the answer could be either yes or no depending on who this other person is. Not to mention who are these "reasonable" people? That varies greatly by individual. This "reasonable person" is subject to societal whims and as stated before, a person's rights are not based on or subject to society's whims, wants, emotions, etc.

The group has no rights, only the individual has rights.

In Nebraska, that's considered home invasion, not just burglary, and you are automatically presumed to be in serious danger. Quite a few years ago, a home owner in the Miller Park neighborhood shot and killed a burglar who turned toward him. The burglar turned out to be an unarmed, 15-year-old kid who was very big for his age. The kid was identified only after the grandmother who was raising him reported him missing. Because Nebraska does have a "castle doctrine", the homeowner was not charged with any crime.

As I noted, Castle Doctrine type laws counter such things even though they place some hard to meet requirements in some cases. So, no argument there. I was just pointing out that it can easily be twisted and they will try.

I agree. I had to spend personal time working to pay for my property. If someone steals or destroys my property, I have to work to replace it. That's a piece of my life I will never get back. Even if I have replacement insurance, I have to work to pay the premium. However, like it or not, the concept that a thief's life is worth more than the property he stole is deeply entrenched in law and isn't going to change. I can live with that. What I couldn't live with is the notion that the assailant's well being outweighs that of his victim. At least in Nebraska, we are far from that point.

I never said anything close to "the assailant's well being outweighs that of his victim"...it doesn't... What I was saying was that if you are getting robbed or such, make it worth THEIR life to take your property.

People need to start thinking along the lines that EVERY SINGLE CHOICE AND DECISION THEY MAKE COULD MEAN THEIR LIVES... because well, it does. Basically saying, is what you are doing really worth it.

This thread started with the hypothesis that the law, as written, requires you to comply with an assailant's illegal demands if that will ensure your personal safety. It doesn't make sense to me for the law to require obedience to an assailant's orders since he has no authority to issue them. Several years ago, a career criminal broke out of the Tecumseh prison and kidnapped an Omaha teacher before being recaptured. I can't believe there would have been any legal repercussions had the teacher availed himself of an opportunity to take out the escapee.

"Deadly force" does have a well established legal definition.

I know that hence my second reply. No it doesn't make sense, but they can easily twist and turn it around to try and make it seem as such. As I said, they could claim that not obeying the demands would be a form of escalation...I could see this easily done in places like New York, California, DC, Illinois, etc.

Yes, we are here in Nebraska, great (the laws still need serious work along with some completely voided and abolished)...but do you spend every day here in these borders? I doubt it, you may go to another state for vacation...well, there is still a good chance you will have to defend yourself in those places. So, beware that just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean it won't happen.

But the problem with your example here is that you had a convicted criminal, who had escaped (not legitimately released, thus not returned to innocent status yet).So, no matter the outcome, the escaped criminal was in wrong 100%.

If you get drafted for jury duty in a self defense case, that's exactly the job you will be stuck with unless you can get yourself excused. Would you prefer to be replaced by someone unsympathetic to a defender?

When someone is injured or killed by a deliberate act, there needs to be a review of its justification. Otherwise, who would there be to question a "criminal's" claim of self defense after he kills his victim?

Did I say no review? I just said that everyone is caught up on this "deadly force" aspect, like it matters how things are done or how the crime is committed. It doesn't matter HOW it's done, it matters WHAT was done. Whether it was done by bare hands, a knife, a bat, or a firearm is meaningless, neither makes the issue any worse or different.

What you may be seeing as me saying "no review" is actually me saying that we shouldn't focus on whether or not "deadly force" was necessary, but that the focus should be on who was the victim and who was the aggressor. If the person is found to be the aggressor, then they can be brought up on whatever charges.

The person that initialized things is the one that is in the wrong, the one responding is not.

Zimmerman didn't prove himself innocent. The prosecution failed to make their case against him. One of the jurors said she wanted to convict him but couldn't given the evidence and the judge's instructions. What's absurd is that it took so much effort and expense to reach the same conclusion as the investigating officers did shortly after the incident.

As I noted, that is what stand-your-ground laws and such are meant to counter, but that is not the case in other states. Also, even in the stand-your-ground laws they have some very hard standards to meet.

I agree. I just wish I knew how to implement this. How do you differentiate legally between a "criminal" who has forfeited his right to sue and someone who is legitimately a victim of negligence or malice? At some point, it requires a legal judgment that the dead/injured party brought this on himself by committing a crime.

In case of homes, homeowner trumps instantly, no question.

In case of the street, whoever is determined to be the victim trumps, no question.

Everyone is responsible for themselves, they get hurt on someone else's property, that is their problem...not the owner of the property (this stupid crap of "oh, I slipped and banged my head on your deck" or "Oh, I tripped over your rug" happens too often). The owner of a property has no duty to make you safe, nor do they have any duty to protect you.

Yes, they are. It is a crime to disobey a police officer's orders. The place to argue their legitimacy is in court, not on the street. That isn't to say you have to give them permission. You are not allowed to physically stop them from, for example, performing an illegal search but any evidence they find will be inadmissible.

No, they are NOT above the people. The people are the highest in this country... the government, the courts, the LEOs, etc. work for us. Only upon commission of crime does that change (but only does it change for the individual that committed the crime, criminals are the lowest rung of society and they should be treated as such) and the state must prove it first. Giving such status to them by saying "LEOs are above the people", you might as well just slap the shackles on now. And if LEOs are above the people, they don't have to follow the laws like the rest of us do now do they? If they are above the people, that would require them to cease to be part of the people. Sorry, but no, LEOs are not above the people and they are not above the law.

Neither is an LEOs safety a single iota more important than anyone else's... THE ONLY time they are allowed to disarm you or put cuffs on you is if you are going to be arrested, nothing else (I know what the stupid law says). Again, who is going to protect us from them? The courts? They are on the same side and corrupt.

They are nothing more than other people... that we have granted them certain abilities, not rights, abilities (you receive all rights at creation (conception), you can not be given them by other people). They are not better trained (I know a ton of people that have never been in the military or law enforcement that know the law better and shoot better on top of it). And no, they have no duty nor any responsibility to protect, defend, or anything for you (in fact your precious courts ruled stating that would be a violation of their rights). They are the government's cronies and enforce the law, that is it, nothing more (though they are supposed to take the people's side in things when a conflict arises, not the government's side...but we have already seen how that goes).

The courts and LEOs can't be trusted anymore than a politician, lawyer, doctor, etc.

That so called "law" saying it's illegal to disobey is ridiculous, THE ONLY time that law has ANY basis at all is when they are arresting someone for committing a different crime, beyond that it has no basis. The LEOs, along with all other government officials, need to remember who they work for and that is the people. The government is merely the HR department (which has become bloated and involved in things it has no business being involved in).

So, if a LEO says "don't run into that burning building and pull people out"...are you going to listen to them? I know I would tell them to go to hell.

Thanks for that reminder on how subservient people in this country are and how easily they can be manipulated now days though...

But go ahead and believe that when you are being beaten by them, when they come knocking on your door for your firearms, executing everyone around you for nothing, etc... (and don't even say "oh no that will never happen here..." that is complete BS, because such things have already happened here and such things will again and much worse).

Don't forget, everything done by the police/government in Germany or any of the other numerous countries that committed democide did so under the same premise and was completely legal under their law. And guess who was used to carry out the democide? The LEOs.

And again, the PEOPLE are the final arbitrators, NOT THE COURTS. We don't find a law fit or Constitutional, we are fully in our right to disobey it... the problem is people are too scared and timid to take any risks now days (think prohibition: if the people just obeyed the law, do you really think it would have changed? No, it wouldn't have)... no one truly wants to fight for their freedom anymore, they think they can just "talk things out"...yeah good luck with that, been seeing how that has been working lately. Yes, to get a law stripped in this way would be very risky and require a large number of people to disobey it...but it is fully within our right do so.

People put way too much trust into a system and other people.

People really need to start taking their lives into their own hands and taking responsibility for it as well.
People really need to start handling their own problems on their own and stop making their problem everyone else's.
Your safety is YOUR concern/responsibility and yours alone... no one else's.

These government officials are not better and should not receive a single iota better protection or anything else than anyone else.

Security/safety provided by others is nothing more than tyranny coming in the back door.

[AWick]

How about we try staying on topic? This is getting a bit out of hand but I guess by saying that just means I'm one of those subservient idiots you speak of...