The Right to Self Defense

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by PatriotNews, Sep 18, 2020.

  1. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why would someone value my toaster over their life?
     
    Rucker61 likes this.
  2. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,288
    Likes Received:
    48,690
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  3. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there is a special place in hell for anyone who would kill someone over a toaster.
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  4. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you suggesting that if a person perceives something as a threat it is OK for them to open fire?
     
  5. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,808
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does the dude stealing the toaster go to hell for stealing? Just curious how that works...
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  6. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so you're saying a toaster is as valuable as a human life?
     
  7. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the perception of a deadly threat, must be rational and reasonable.

    otherwise u going to prison. :)
     
  8. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the problem with statutes. They subvert natural law for legal positivism, and that confuses everyone.
     
  9. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,808
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you supply a quote of me saying so?
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is entirely possible for this to be the case.
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  11. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perception can be reality.
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  12. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that perception has to be reasonable

    if you tell a jury that a man winked at you and you perceived this to be a deadly threat, so you opened fire, the jury is gonna send you to the chair
     
  13. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Absolutely. Agreed. But each situation is different. For someone to post a scenario in an internet forum and expect people to reach the same foregone conclusion that the poster reached is a little simplistic. Each person is different; each situation is different. I like to believe that if I were in a situation as described in the OP I would handle it nonviolently. That said, I am always ready to defend myself if that is called for.
     
  14. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Three hours of surrounding you home, invading you space, loud noise, bullhorns, flashing lights, harassing, tresspassing is a threat. The police should not have let that mob do that.
     
  15. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "i shot them cause they were making loud noise and bright lights".



    LOL!!!!!
     
  16. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is a special place in hell for someone who values my toaster over their own life, that's their decision.
     
  17. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yeah good luck with that one.

    God-"why did you kill that man?"

    You- "well, my lord, he stole my toaster!"

    God- "and you felt that justified taking his life??"

    You- "yes sir, it was a nice toaster".

    God- "ok well here's your toaster back, it can keep you company in Hell".
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  18. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Strawman. He didn't shoot anyone.
     
  19. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I see where this is going.

    god if he existed- "This one is really stupid and Darwin was right, if he gets dealt with he gets dealt with".

    Me- "well, he chose this path poorly".

    Problem solved! Everyone wins!
     
  20. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He pointed a gun, which is a crime if no reasonable threat existed.
     
  21. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they weren't out there bothering him for three hours there would be no pointing. Where the heck were the police for 3 hours?
     
  22. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe the homeowner never called them
     
  23. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Let me give you some actual jury instructions to illustrate how the law of self-defense works in a trial.

    My state of Virginia follows the common law definitions of self-defense which we inherited from England. We have two types of self-defense: 1. Justifiable (no-fault) and 2. Excusable (at-fault)

    Justifiable (no fault) self-defense is a “stand your ground” defense:

    THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT if you believe that the defendant was without fault in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, and that the defendant reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in danger of harm, then the defendant had the right to use such force as was reasonably necessary to protect himself from the threatened harm. If you further believe that the defendant used no more force that was reasonably necessary to protect himself from the threatened harm, then you shall find the defendant not guilty.

    Excusable (at fault) requires the person to “retreat”:

    THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT if the evidence showed the defendant was to some degree at fault in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, and if you further find that when attacked:

    1. He retreated as far as he safely could under the circumstances;

    2. In a good faith attempt to abandon the fight;

    3. Made known his desire for peace by word or act;

    4. He reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in danger of bodily harm; and

    5. He used no more force that was reasonably necessary to protect himself from the threatened harm, then you shall find the defendant not guilty.

    In addition, Virginia recognizes the “defense of others.” I do not have a jury instruction handy for this, but here is a case which explains the defense:

    Thus, under the majority view, in order to justifiably defend another, the defendant must reasonably believe that the person being defended was free from fault; whether the defended person was, in fact, free from fault is legally irrelevant to the defense in those jurisdictions. This view is based on the principle that one should not be convicted of a crime for attempting to protect one whom he or she perceives to be a faultless victim from a violent assault. Under this approach, the policy of the law is to encourage individuals to come to the aid of perceived victims of assault. We find this position to be well-grounded in principle and policy. Accordingly, we hold that the law pertaining to defense of others is that one may avail himself or herself of the defense only where he or she reasonably believes, based on the attendant circumstances, that the person defended is without fault in provoking the fray. Foster v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380, 386, 412 S.E.2d 198, ___ (1991)

    The presence of malice is required for a conviction of murder in Virginia. Broadly speaking, malice is defined as the intentional doing of a wrongful act to another without legal excuse or justification at a time when your mind is under the control of reason. Heat of passion excludes malice. In addition, self-defense and defense of others is a legal excuse or justification which negates malice.

    Now regardless of which form of self-defense or defense of others you are claiming, these defenses are always the defense of necessity, and therefore the use of deadly force is restricted to a reply to the threat of deadly force:

    THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT the amount of force used in self-defense must be reasonable in relation to the harm threatened, and that the defendant is not allowed to use deadly force in self- defense unless he reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in danger of being killed or that he was in danger of great bodily harm.

    This is an important limitation on the right. If a jury finds that you did act in self-defense, but it finds you used deadly force when it was not justified by a threat of deadly force against you, then this negates the malice necessary to convict you of murder but the excessive use of force can still cause you to be convicted of the lesser felony of manslaughter—which—broadly speaking—is an intentional killing done in the heat of passion and/or in the absence of proof of malice.

    Malice can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon (this instruction further defines “deadly weapon”):

    THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT you may infer malice from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon unless, from all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether malice existed. A deadly weapon is any object or instrument, not part of the human body, that is likely to cause death or great bodily injury because of the manner and under the circumstances in which it is used.

    This is not an automatic presumption, however. Virginia recognizes a “right to arm”:

    The Court instructs the jury that when a person reasonably apprehends that another intends to attack him for the purpose of doing him serious bodily harm, then such person has the right to arm himself for his own necessary self-defense and if he has reasonable grounds to believe that an attack will be made upon him then no inference of malice can be drawn from the fact of such preparation.

    These would be the self-defense instructions you might see if you were a juror in a Virginia case.

    Self-defense is referred to as an “affirmative defense”—which means it must be raised by the defendant. But there is no burden of proof—that is—the defendant need not prove he acted in self-defense. At first this sounds counterintuitive, but you have to understand the defendant is presumed innocent. A defendant is not charged with “not acting in self-defense.” He is charged with a crime which is made up of one or more factual elements, and a not guilty finding is always required unless the government proves every factual element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

    When self-defense is raised as a possibility in a case, all that is required for a not guilty finding is that the evidence create a reasonable doubt about whether the crime was committed. Any amount of reasonable doubt about it requires a not guilty finding. If the defense of self-defense is raised in a murder case, for example, you can only be convicted of murder if the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder and the claim of self-defense has zero merit. If a jury cannot tell whether it was murder or an act of self-defense, then the verdict must be not guilty. In that sense, a not guilty verdict need not be viewed as a belief that the incident was self-defense. Either collectively or individually the jurors may really believe it was self-defense, but they do not make an actual finding that it was. What they find is the government failed to overcome the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Finally, Virginia law does not permit the use of deadly force—or even the use of a threat of deadly force—solely to defend personal property. But Virginia recognizes the “castle doctrine,” also referred to as the “defense of habitation”:

    The use of deadly force to prevent threatened harm to property is never justified except in defense of habitation. . . The use of deadly force, in defense of "property" can also be justifiable, but the classic formulation lists only arson or burglary as crimes against property which can justify the use of deadly force. . . . Even then the use of deadly force must have been necessary. Defense of habitation and justifiable self-defense overlap in the "castle doctrine" which states that one may, without retreating, use force, to include deadly force if necessary, to keep aggressors out of his own house. This part of the castle doctrine is one aspect of defense of habitation. . . . [T]he justification exists in the curtilage as well as the castle. Roger D. Groot, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Virginia 114 (3rd ed. 1994). Alexander v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 771, 780, 508 S.E.2d 912, ___ (1999).

    Now your state’s laws may be different. I just offer this to give you some flavor of what it would be like if you were a juror and asked to apply this law to whatever factual scenario you can come up with.
     
  24. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Generally, in instances where the force of self defense is measure proportionally, you can ethically (notice I didn’t use the term ‘legally’) use only the level of force to end the threat. Once the threat is ended and you continue to apply force, you have crossed the line to being the aggressor. If someone is on their knees begging for their life, the threat is ended, shooting someone at that point would be hard to justify being done for self defense.
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  25. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah but it's his word against mine.
     

Share This Page