Self defense questions

[sarisataka]

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2019, 11:38 AM - Edit history (1)

There have been several incidents in the news lately where the initiator of a physical struggle has been injured or killed and/or third parties injured. This creates a whole series of questions about self-defense that have been addressed in law may deserve to be revisited.
Edit to add> I am not so much asked what the law is but what it should be

Assuming an unprovoked physical assault:
-is there a right to self-defense?
it has been suggested that "it is better to be a victim than to risk escalating situation"
-is there a right to use lethal force?
can a victim defend themself proportionally if the assault has the potential to cause serious bodily harm
-does lethal force include the use of a firearm?
may the victim use a knife, baseball bat, car, any other improvised weapon but not a firearm due to the greater risk of lethal injury

The answers to those lead to two additional questions:
-If the answer to any of the above is no, at what point does the victim become responsible for the wellbeing of their assailant?
essentially at what point does the paradigm reverse and the assailant becomes the victim
-Even if all of the above are answered yes, who is responsible for any injuries to third parties?
will the assailant always be responsible for any injuries as those injuries would never have occurred without their illegal action, or may the victim take on responsibility even though the injury to a third party was done inadvertently while protecting themself

[rampartc]

1. i do have a right to self defense, and state law varies

i guess the defense must be somewhat proportional to the attack, but an old man can probably be justified in using a gun vs a younger, stronger assailant.

the 3rd party injury is an interesting question, and the answer might rest somewhere in the proportionality of the defense.

if the original attack was a felony, and if any 3rd party, including an accomplice, dies the original assailant can probably be booked with felony murder.

all answers are my opinion only, but in Louisiana i would be on solid ground.

[sarisataka]

6. Thank you

Opinion is exactly what I am asking
Before any action can be considered self-defense we must establish the rules for self-defense

[inwiththenew]

2. It depends on the state for the exact details but legally you do have a right to use deadly force

if the requirements have been met. Those are typically:

1. Fear of grave bodily harm or death from the attacker - this could also be used in defense of another
2. You can't have escalated it to this point
3. There is no option to retreat

3 gets more complicated in states with stand your ground laws or castle doctrines. Ohio for example you have a duty to retreat, if possible, if you are in public. If you are in your home or vehicle though there is no duty to retreat. That's a very basic overview.

[sarisataka]

4. I added a clarification

That I am more questioning what the law should be for self defense rather than what it currently is

[inwiththenew]

7. Ahh my bad

[Hoyt]

3. Too many gunners think it was OK for George Zimmerman

to leave his home in a huff after a fight with his wife, spot an unarmed skinny teenager, grab his gun, stalk him, intimidate him and ultimately kill him.

?resize=1150%2C647&ssl=1

Further, gunners seem to think it is OK to blast away at an unarmed "assailant" in a crowed store , and that any other innocent parties wounded/killed are just collateral damage.

[sarisataka]

5. So are you saying no

To any self defense or no to using a firearm in self-defense?

As I included in the OP, the assumption is a unprovoked physical assault rather than a debate of any specific incident.

[Hoyt]

9. I think most gunners stock up on weapons and tote in public for reasons unrelated to

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2019, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

self-defense, although they want us to believe otherwise.

Most people can defend themselves just fine without guns.

I do think someone has a right to defend themselves, but ultimately it's for law enforcement and courts to decide if proper defense was used in relation to the threat.

Do you have a specific case in mind, or are you concerned people are catching on that "stand your ground" and similar laws are not in society's best interest.

[sarisataka]

10. I am not thinking of any specific case

Nor considering duty to retreat/stand your ground/castle laws.

What I am asking is what should the basic laws be that will guide law enforcement and the courts to determine if an act of self defense is justified or illegal. Other laws may have bearing on the final judgment if the act was justified or excessive.

[jayfish]

8. Bah, too much contemplation.

Just say the attacker reached for his/her waistband and that you feared for your life. Employ disproportionate force and be done with it.

[Hekate]

11. Women are not taught to stand their ground. In fact based on the evidence, we are not allowed...

...to use deadly force. Nor are black men, for that matter. Could Trayvon have stood his ground and killed the man who in fact killed him?

Reading about Trump's rape just about did it for me. The description was ...graphic. Other women have described how he slammed them up against a wall -- a columnist for some social magazine who was sent to interview the Trumps right after Barron's birth and take pictures of the garish penthouse. After Melania exited, he toured the reporter around pointing out its features and asked if she wanted to see Ivanka's bedroom. Bam! Up against the wall for a good groping.

He's always been big and heavy, and he used to have muscles. He might not be able to get mini-trump up in his current state of obesity and ill-health, but he still could slam a woman against a wall and show her who's boss. And if she used deadly force on him, she is the one who would be punished by the law.

[sarisataka]

12. So is the solution

To say self-defense is illegal in order to level the field?
Either everyone has the right or no one has it?

[Hekate]

13. Just a description of what IS, not what ought to be.

You tell me what the solution is. Right now, we have a sick and serious problem.

[sarisataka]

14. I agree there is a clear disparity

In how the law is applied. That solution is beyond me except to do what I can to lobby for equality.