Self defense rights

[SeaCat]

Do you know your rights in a self defense situation where you live and/or work? You should.

Here is the law where I live. (Florida):

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm

Yes I have read it.

How about where you live?

Cat

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Any stranger found in your home at night is presumed to be a threat to your life and the lives of your family. Fire at will!--California

 

[bronzeage]

In my state, I can shoot and kill anyone on my property that I believe to be a threat. The threat does not have to be reasonable, or credible. The person does not have to enter, or attempt to enter my house.

This has been upheld as a justified killing, many times.

The same type of law applies to a person resisting a car jacker. As far as I know, the "I thought he was a car jacker, so I shot him," defense has never been tested in court.

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK I am allowed to use reasonable force to evict an intruder but the courts' interpretation of "reasonable force" suggests that I have to ask the intruder to leave first. If he/she doesn't, then my use of force must be proportionate. If I use a weapon, it must be a weapon of opportunity such as a broom. I cannot keep a baseball bat or pickaxe handle by my bed, and certainly not a knife or gun.

In practice, if the intruder has been taking illegal substances and therefore doesn't feel pain, any effective use of force is likely to be considered disproportionate and I could be arrested, charged and convicted of assault.

The law is mad. It doesn't allow a property owner to defend himself/herself, the family or possessions without facing the risk of a criminal conviction.

As the UK law now stands, the safest legal course of action when faced with a drugged-up intruder in your house is for you and your family to flee from the house clutching your mobile phone. When a safe distance away, call the Police, who will take some time to arrive.

Politicians have promised a review of the law of self-defence but promises are cheap. Action takes effort.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

I have no idea. I've never had my home invaded nor do I know anyone who has.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In Vietnam the SOP was 3 verbal challenges, 2 shots in the air, and one for effect. Generally speaking we did the SOP in reverse order.

 

[R. Richard]

In the UK I am allowed to use reasonable force to evict an intruder but the courts' interpretation of "reasonable force" suggests that I have to ask the intruder to leave first. If he/she doesn't, then my use of force must be proportionate. If I use a weapon, it must be a weapon of opportunity such as a broom. I cannot keep a baseball bat or pickaxe handle by my bed, and certainly not a knife or gun.

In practice, if the intruder has been taking illegal substances and therefore doesn't feel pain, any effective use of force is likely to be considered disproportionate and I could be arrested, charged and convicted of assault.

The law is mad. It doesn't allow a property owner to defend himself/herself, the family or possessions without facing the risk of a criminal conviction.

As the UK law now stands, the safest legal course of action when faced with a drugged-up intruder in your house is for you and your family to flee from the house clutching your mobile phone. When a safe distance away, call the Police, who will take some time to arrive.

Politicians have promised a review of the law of self-defence but promises are cheap. Action takes effort.

Og

I hope that you will pardon my saying it, but the situation(s) you describe are the product of insanity. What needs to be done is to have the politicians/judges who wrote the law examined by a psychiatirst and put where their insanity can't cause harm to others.

 

[R. Richard]

In Vietnam the SOP was 3 verbal challenges, 2 shots in the air, and one for effect. Generally speaking we did the SOP in reverse order.

I have had some experience in maintaining order. Despite the fact that I can never remember if it's, "Halt or I fire, boom!" or "Boom, halt or I'll fire!", I'm still a very effective maintainer of order.

 

[R. Richard]

I have no idea. I've never had my home invaded nor do I know anyone who has.

You do now. I had my home invaded by a drug addict, apparently looking for money, no matter what the cost to others. When the scumbags finally showed up, they denied drug addict the right to a speedy and fair trial.

 

[sr71plt]

I sense some big talkers (and that's about all) on this thread.

(If I'd ever shot first when I thought there were intruders, there would have been some dead bodyguards who had been assigned to protect my home/family.)

 

[oggbashan]

I hope that you will pardon my saying it, but the situation(s) you describe are the product of insanity. What needs to be done is to have the politicians/judges who wrote the law examined by a psychiatirst and put where their insanity can't cause harm to others.

I know. I don't like it but that is the law in England.

I can't blame the judges. They think it is mad too. As far as they can, they give the householder the benefit of the doubt but by the time it gets to a judge the householder has been arrested, charged, and appears in court as the defendant.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

Any stranger found in your home at night is presumed to be a threat to your life and the lives of your family. Fire at will!--California

That might be the law, but don't count on things working out that way in either Berkeley of SF.

 

[jomar]

Well, feel free to shoot first with the understanding that if it turns out to be some unarmed, drunk college kid breaking in your basement to sleep it off on the couch you will probably go to jail. Unless, of course, you frame him with the drop piece you're bound to have.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, feel free to shoot with the understanding that if it turns out to be some unarmed, drunk college kid breaking in your basement to sleep it off on the couch you will probably go to jail. Unless, of course, you frame him with the drop piece you're bound to have.

No fingerprints. No powder on his hands. So put the drop piece in his hand, put on gloves and pull the trigger. Make sure the trajectory on the bullet backs up your story. Hope every one else in the house is willing to cover for you.

Oh yeah. With luck he's not left handed. And make sure he or she doesn't bleed on you.

Drat. Let's hope he doesn't have reliable character witnesses as well as a previous criminal record.

Damn! Covering mistakes is tricky.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well, feel free to shoot first with the understanding that if it turns out to be some unarmed, drunk college kid breaking in your basement to sleep it off on the couch you will probably go to jail. Unless, of course, you frame him with the drop piece you're bound to have.

If that what really happened, I would be horrified--afterwards! Breaking and entering is a felony all by itself. And when we go to bed the doors are locked even in this safest and most placid of suburbs.

 

[jomar]

dp- wonky browser

 

[jomar]

No fingerprints. No powder on his hands. So put the drop piece in his hand, put on gloves and pull the trigger. Make sure the trajectory on the bullet backs up your story. Hope every one else in the house is willing to cover for you.

Oh yeah. With luck he's not left handed. And make sure he or she doesn't bleed on you.

Drat. Let's hope he doesn't have reliable character witnesses as well as a previous criminal record.

Damn! Covering mistakes is tricky.

Got to think these things through!

Actually, states differ on the threshold for using deadly force if someone is breaking into your home.

 

[stephen55]

It makes your life so much easier.....

As a good friend who happens to be a senior RCMP officer once told me, if you shoot someone who's broken into your house, be damned sure to kill. That way it's your word against the other guy's.

Or as another bud once commented, fire a well aimed shot to the center chest, then yell "Freeze!!" and fire a warning shot into the floor.

 

[jomar]

If that what really happened, I would be horrified--afterwards! Breaking and entering is a felony all by itself. And when we go to bed the doors are locked even in this safest and most placid of suburbs.

Yes. Where I live the home occupant must "reasonably believe" harm is imminent even after the intruder breaks in in order to use deadly force. I think you and Cat live in state where the law says that someone breaking in itself presumes imminent harm.

I lock the doors too.

 

[bronzeage]

Well, feel free to shoot first with the understanding that if it turns out to be some unarmed, drunk college kid breaking in your basement to sleep it off on the couch you will probably go to jail. Unless, of course, you frame him with the drop piece you're bound to have.

Not in Louisiana.

If a person breaks into a dwelling where people sleep, the law assumes deadly intent. It can be day or night. Anyone inside the dwelling can use deadly force without warning against the intruder.

The intruder does not actually have to intrude, or even be an intruder. He can be shot from a window. The only critical element is the dwellers state of mind. If the dweller feels threatened, they can use deadly force.

 

[Handley_Page]

I know. I don't like it but that is the law in England.

I can't blame the judges. They think it is mad too. As far as they can, they give the householder the benefit of the doubt but by the time it gets to a judge the householder has been arrested, charged, and appears in court as the defendant.

Og

There was a case where a bloke right out in the middle of nowhere had been raided three times (the forth time he got out his trusty shotgun and got one of them.

He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and the public were not impressed and a review ordered. The sentence was cut short.

I think the pendulum of 'defending your home' is moving away from the criminal's side. Some folk are now thinking of 'Natural Justice' so the miscreant gets the thicker end of the stick.

 

[oggbashan]

There was a case where a bloke right out in the middle of nowhere had been raided three times (the forth time he got out his trusty shotgun and got one of them.

He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and the public were not impressed and a review ordered. The sentence was cut short.

I think the pendulum of 'defending your home' is moving away from the criminal's side. Some folk are now thinking of 'Natural Justice' so the miscreant gets the thicker end of the stick.

He was sentenced because he shot them AS THEY WERE RUNNING AWAY.

Wiki: Tony Martin


Og

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think the fact that they were outside had something to do with it, too. In California that is a very strict measure. If you shoot someone outside your home, you'd better be prepared to justify in great detail why you felt in fear of your life. But once the perp is inside your walls, that assumption is written into the law.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Got to think these things through!

Actually, states differ on the threshold for using deadly force if someone is breaking into your home.

FL has a stand your ground law. If you threaten me I can kill you where you stand.

 

[SeaCat]

Here's what I can find on California Law:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/calpenalcode197.html

Cat