So, I didn't see a thread surprisingly about the use of force when it comes to a self defense claim. Now, I want to make if clear, I am not advocating for people to go out and willy nilly kill people and claim it was in self defense. If you neighbors have a party and they are playing loud music, that is not a reasonable excuse to open fire on the party goers. But if there is an angry violent mob outside your house, you have every right to use what is called reasonably necessary force. But I completely will defend someone who has exercised his right to self defense depending on the circumstances. So not only are you allowed to kill an attacker who is say threatening you with great bodily injury, but also in the case of stopping a rape or defending your property: What do you think?
I believe every person has the right to self defense. I would disagree with this statement: Is the mob on my property? Are they being violent towards me? What are they angry about? I mean maybe I agree with the mob.
Each state has a variation of this theme. Some have a duty to retreat, some do not have a "only the force necessary" clause, etc,
Since there is no way of knowing if a rapist will try to kill his only witness, killing the rapist should always be considered justifiable. The same with property, if someone breaks into your home, how can you know the criminals true intentions? One of the examples is confusing: There is no way to kick a burglar. If you are within kicking distance, its not burglary; its a home invasion robbery.
The mob is there to protest you. The mob believes you are an evil vile person and a racist. The mob believes you are a Nazi. They believe that all Nazis should die. Yes, they are not only on your property, but are harassing you with loud noise and flashing lights. They threaten you saying, "you don't know what we have pointed at you!"
You should only shoot someone if it is necessary to save someone's life or prevent an assault or an arson or rape. I don't think we should allow you to shoot someone because they are stealing your toaster.
The New York State penal law is confusing. It seems to suggest you can use deadly force to stop a burglary in commission. And you can use deadly force to prevent a burglar from escaping. So I really don't understand.
If you force entry into a home, any reasonable person can safely assume you mean them great harm and act accordingly.
Would depend, but by law, that point of mercy ends the moment you force entry into an occupied dwelling.
Well that's some real evil immoral disgusting ****. If you have an intruder who has given up and is on his knees begging you not to kill him and you kill him anyway in my mind that is murder and you are going to hell
Could be a ploy to drop your guard and buy time for other attackers, if that happened he would have about 2 seconds to hit the door.
@Ronstar You just want to smear me or do you have some response? It's evil to think some criminal trash should be able to invade your home.
You have made the situation clearer now. It appears as though there might be an threat. How is "you don't know what we have pointed at you" a threat? If I don't know what something is how do I know if it is an actual threat? If I was in the situation you describe I would have my gun concealed and handy and would call law enforcement. I am always ready to defend myself if a situation calls for it. Knowing when self defense is called for is what keeps one out of jail. In the given situation what would you do?
If there are protesters outside your house you do not have the right to threaten them with a firearm unless they are threatening violence and are armed with weapons, which includes rocks and bottles. only when they appear to actually be about to use such weapons do you have the right to shoot them
The point is if you are going to use a firearm your fear of violence against you must be a reasonable one ones that a jury of your peers will agree was a reasonable fear that violence is being used against you or is about to be used against you and therefore deadly violence was necessary to defend yourself or someone else.
People yelling at you and flashing lights at you is not a reasonable reason to threaten violence against them. You might want to point a gun to them but that does not mean our laws allow it
So, there, you and the law are out of synch. If you don't like the law, work to change it. If you're the guy with the toaster though......
So, this really is the issue. You ignore the break in, the trespass, the assault on the home, etc. You ignore that toaster stealer is statistically armed, and that, again, statistically, will have brandished the weapon at the home owner. Now, looting with intent to arson, that's an entirely different set of circumstances, but you seem awfully wiling to ignore the number of potential crimes someone stealing your toaster would have had to commit in order to posse the toaster. And why diminishes the heist on purpose? If there wasn't anything in the house to steal, chances are, the person gets angry and starts destroying the place. More, the person is probably, against statistically most likely, high on drugs or in need of money to buy drugs. You're for drugs, aren't you... So, spare us the trotted up hyperbole. No one here is buying it from you.
in what state can an inanimate object, be assaulted? the use of deadly force should only be used to protect life. that means protect yourself or someone else from an imminent violent attack, or prevent an arson. however, if a robber or burglar is armed, one could justify the use of deadly force, unless they are trying to escape or have surrendered.
Well, if the toaster wasn't on anyone's property, you might have a point, but if you stole the toaster, it had to come from somewhere, no? I built the case for what you ignored, and you've now ignored that too. Funny how that works....