Should there be a limit to the level of force used in self defense?

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by M.A. Survivalist, Mar 7, 2020.

  1. M.A. Survivalist

    M.A. Survivalist Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2020
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Should there be a limit to the level of force used in self defense? Once you've stopped an attacker you must stop your use of force, you can't continue to beat on somebody once they're down. That makes sense, and is reasonable if you ask me. However, what I find questionable is whether or not you should get in trouble for using the level of force that you used before you stopped your attacker. The idea that there should be no limit to the level of force you can use against your attacker before you stop them, is that a good idea?
     
  2. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    As with most questions, context is important. If two husky men get into a tussle, it is one thing. If a brawny man attacks a little old lady, it cannot be compared.
     
  3. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,499
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once an individual makes the conscious decision to initiate violence against another, for the purpose of violating their rights through committing them physical harm, why should they ever be given the benefit of the doubt, or otherwise provided with legal protections simply because they wound up finding themselves in a situation that went beyond their ability to control? Why should the aggressor ever be provided a legal situation where they can automatically become the victim, and the victim becomes the aggressor, just because some intangible threshold has been crossed?

    What is the legitimate purpose of such a notion? So that prosecutors are able to successfully bring charges against a victim of assault and prosecute them for their actions? So that a prosecutor may push a political narrative and punish members of the public simply because they do not like the actions the individual took when defending themselves from a perceived threat? Should a prosecutor be allowed to being charges against someone engaged in self defense, not because their actions were illegal, but because the prosecutor believed the use of force was too excessive to be considered legal and/or justifiable? Such is the reason that duty to retreat laws are being repealed across the united states, to inform the law abiding members of the public that the criminals do not have more legal protections than they do.

    Let the criminal element fear for its own safety and existence. Let each individual criminal believe that the very next target they lock on may be the one who will kill them where they stand without fear of legal repercussions. Perhaps it will deter some of them from engaging in crime to begin with.
     
    James California, roorooroo and Ddyad like this.
  4. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the initial moments you do not know the strength and skill of your attacker. You should immediately react using the most deadly strikes you have in your arsenal, and only think about it after your attacker is completely subdued. This is why Sensei always commanded you "do not think!!!" after your opponent caught you thinking and easily knocked you bruised to the mat.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
    James California and roorooroo like this.
  5. M.A. Survivalist

    M.A. Survivalist Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2020
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Alright, the question is, should somebody get in trouble with the law for doing what you suggest?
     
  6. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,499
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again. What is the legitimate purpose of such a notion? So that prosecutors are able to successfully bring charges against a victim of assault and prosecute them for their actions? So that a prosecutor may push a political narrative and punish members of the public simply because they do not like the actions the individual took when defending themselves from a perceived threat? Should a prosecutor be allowed to being charges against someone engaged in self defense, not because their actions were illegal, but because the prosecutor believed the use of force was too excessive to be considered legal and/or justifiable? Such is the reason that duty to retreat laws are being repealed across the united states, to inform the law abiding members of the public that the criminals do not have more legal protections than they do.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  7. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,245
    Likes Received:
    10,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There should not be a limit. When someone demonstrates an intention to do you harm, you have the right to end their ability to escalate the harm by whatever means necessary. What i mean is- if they're attacking you with hands/feet, that doesnt mean they don't have a more lethal weapon readily available, or won't kill you once they've KO'd you. Waiting to see what they have and what they can do is how you get killed. When someone initiates violence, lethal or not, lethal self defense is warranted.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
    roorooroo likes this.
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    15,920
    Likes Received:
    4,723
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, that's the law in many states.
    The complicating issue, which a lot of people do not realize, is often there is no way to stop an attacker except with serious deadly harm.

    If someone has a gun for example, police will generally shoot to kill. They don't try to merely just incapacitate the person when that means greatly increased chance of risk to themselves.

    It can, I think, depend somewhat on the seriousness of the crime.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
  9. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,073
    Likes Received:
    1,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny says, "Dat's right...

    ... smack `em inna nuts...

    ... den run like Hell!"
     
  10. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    10,386
    Likes Received:
    7,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you have a concealed firearm, you are not under any obligation to get beaten to death by someone who doesn't have one.

    On the other hand, you may not simply shoot someone who shoves you or gives you an open-handed slap.

    You also may not use deadly force against someone who does not have the capability to do serious harm to you.

    And if you are losing a fight that you started, the law is not likely to be on your side if you resort to deadly force.
     
    jay runner and James California like this.
  11. Capt Nice

    Capt Nice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    5,954
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Am I 19 years old wearing my jump boots or am I an 85 year old man (which I am) with difficulty walking any distance? There are too many variables to give a solid answer.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  12. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No law exists in those initial moments. Completely subdue your attacker first and survive. Then worry about any legal ramifications. The law can't help you if you are dead or hospitalized. And you ARE no. 1.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
  13. M.A. Survivalist

    M.A. Survivalist Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2020
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    So lets say somebody slaps me and I shoot them once and they fall to the ground, incapacitated. At that point I cannot proceed to shoot them some more as they are no longer a threat and so I don't shoot them anymore. I stopped my use of force once I stopped them so would I get in trouble for taking the first shot? When I took the first shot, after all, they were attacking me, they were not incapacitated, and they were a threat.
     
  14. M.A. Survivalist

    M.A. Survivalist Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2020
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    You've got a good point there but the issue isn't whether or not the law can help me the issue is whether or not I would get in trouble with the law. I do agree with you about stopping the attacker and surviving, what I disagree with is when the system punishes people for refusing to be victims.
     
    jay runner likes this.
  15. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    10,386
    Likes Received:
    7,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your going to hate my answer, because it is nebulous.

    Remember, what you're asking me is if you can use deadly force to defend against non-deadly force - a slap. A slap my sting, it may leave a red mark, but it doesn't kill. So to justify the use of deadly force, it is going to boil down to "the totality of the circumstances." Many questions and their answers create the "totality of the circumstances."

    The other question that has to be answered was whether or not the use of deadly force was objectively "reasonable" given the totality of the circumstances. And whether or not you think it is reasonable, that will be decided by others, not you.

    Generally speaking, a person may use deadly force against another when they reasonably believe they are in danger of serious bodily injury or death. If they believe they are in danger of serious bodily injury or death, but that belief is not objectively reasonable, the shooter could be looking at a manslaughter charge.

    It would be by far easier to show that deadly force was reasonable if (1) the shooter is not the instigator of the problem, (2) the attacker was armed with or using a weapon, (3) there was more than one attacker, (4) the shove or slap was the start of a sustained and more serious attack, (5) the attack was for the purpose of committing some other serious crime like rape or robbery, (6) the shooter is incapable of physically defending themself (size and strength difference, age, gender), (7) the shooter is defending their home from invasion, (Eight) the shooter is defending someone else from serious physical injury or death, and finally, (Nine) if possible, some attempt at warning is given. The display of a firearm can be a powerful deterrent.

    Seth
     
  16. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    3,937
    Likes Received:
    3,776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ Now look at this comment ... Here we go again with common sense logic. Can you believe it ...?

    "Shoot twice. Worry later."
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2020
  17. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Technically there is. In all Western based legal systems the use of force has to be A) Reasonable and B) Proportionate to the threat (perceived). BTW its the 'perceived' bit that clouds the issue.
     
  18. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    6,495
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Generally the test is, are you in fear of you or another’s life or suffering great bodily harm to justify a lethal defense. However, that test is one where you are judged on the basis of whether your fear is reasonable to anyone in that position. But, if someone is retreating and you pursue, you become the aggressor. But, if you initiated the violence, you are likely to be seen as the one from which self defense is warranted.
     
    Capt Nice likes this.
  19. willburroughs

    willburroughs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,273
    Likes Received:
    322
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not to hear some f-*****, including on this thread. Some people apparently feel fully justified in killing somebody for a non-lethal, innocuous action (ex. shove or slap), and try to justify their feces-stain reasoning with a bunch of what ifs. If you get into an argument with somebody and they push you, and your reaction is to shoot them, you are not only in jeopardy of a lengthy prison stay, but are a grade a kitten to boot.
     
    Monash likes this.
  20. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So you fell a slap justifies shooting someone? Seriously? Does that include little old ladies in shopping malls, maybe an irate toddler in a play ground?

    If it was someone like Mike Tyson you might be justified in stepping back and drawing a firearm but if the offender stops at that point its over. You just have to suck it up, 'wear' the slap and get local law enforcement to take over.

    Because legally your response HAS to be proportionate to the perceived threat. And if slapped you are entitled to use equal or such additional force as is necessary to push the offender away and/or otherwise place physical distance between yourself from the offender. Not put a bullet into someone. Who the hell taught you taught you firearms discipline and self defense? Rambo?
     
  21. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    97,112
    Likes Received:
    31,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes and no

    most of this is based on the person using self-defense describing it after the fact, always get a lawyer imo

    always remember... anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you

    sometimes it's all in the wording
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2020
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    97,112
    Likes Received:
    31,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am of the belief if someone is committing a violent crime against someone like rape, ect.. that if the victim goes into a fight or flight extreme crazy panic mode, it's really the attackers fault as the victim had no control over that

    but obviously if a little old frail lady pushes someone and they beat her to a pulp, that is excessive, and they should go to prison

    so hard to give a yes or no on this one
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2020
  23. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    ALL defenses to allegations of criminal misconduct occur 'after the fact'. That's why they are called 'defenses'. As for the rest, that's where the idea of 'proportional' comes into play. Someone defending themselves from a violent attack i.e attempted sexual assault ( for example) faces a clear and immanent risk. In those circumstances the issue of self defense is pretty cut and dried. The problem is with the vast majority of other confrontations i.e. the personal arguments, pushes and shoves etc that escalate until someone being shot.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2020
  24. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Its actually pretty easy. And you answered it yourself. Defending yourself from a violent crime? No problem. Shooting someone over a petty dispute or in circumstances where the 'threat' was manifestly not present (i.e. the old lady or child)? Not justified. You simply have to ask yourself - what would the average reasonable person do in the same circumstances? If the answer is to not pull the trigger, well you have your answer. Of course then lawyers get involved and out the door goes reasonable.
     
  25. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Not to be a wise guy, but I would say if someone attacks another, we might have to consider context. If anyone attacks my wife, I don't give a 'fig' about consequences, the "m.f." is likely to die.
     

Share This Page