# Is lethal force a valid response to 'Are you threatening me? Yes'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 13, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164 "2010-08-13T16:20:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/21 "2010-08-14T06:53:21Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I should also clarify that my State allows deadly force to prevent someone from entering your home or **occupied** \* vehicle, even if their life and limb are not threatened. That is not what your cite says. **Force** , not deadly force, is justified when necessary to prevent an invasion. Deadly force is only justified when it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. I’m not sure exactly how “no duty to retreat” works out in these cases. > [@](#): > > 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon such person’s dwelling or occupied vehicle. > > ``` > (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another. > > (c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/22 "2010-08-14T07:11:04Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > I think you might be thinking of Florida, which passed just about the most obscene self-defense law ever. > > Here’s the reasoning: > Stage 1: Argument. > Stage 2: Fight. > Stage 3: Mild to severe injury. > Stage 4: Permanent injury to death. > > In most states, you cannot use deadly force until Stage 2 or 3. Florida is the only state that allows deadly force to be used in Stage 1. Yes. Stage 1. If you THINK a fight where somebody MIGHT get hurt is ABOUT to occur, you can kill the other person. > > I guess they’ve never seen AI. > > Edit: I went to check, and [here’s what Florida says.](http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html) > > I like how one part contradicts the other part and the summary. > > Go, go Florida. But doesn’t it say that: > [@](#): > > Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety? > > A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/23 "2010-08-14T07:13:24Z")
Wow. Such complex answers to such a simple question. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/24 "2010-08-14T07:53:44Z")
There was a famous case in Louisiana where a man shot and killed a Japanese teen who had showed up at the wrong door (that is an understatement). The man said he felt threatened and killed the teen. The shooter was charged but not convicted. [Killing of Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori) Depending on the state, that situation and its aftermath would have played out differently. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/25 "2010-08-14T09:16:11Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > [More info.](http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=107276) > > Apparently it’s called the “stand your ground” law and several pro-gun states have refused to adopt it. In at least one of the cases mentioned in the article, the court didn’t accept that the law applied. In the case of the tow truck operator and the man who was trying to drive his car off the lot without paying, the bullet entered through the passenger window, which undermined the defendant’s argument of self-defense. [http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/may/18/judge-rejects-stand-your-ground-defense-fatal-shoo/c\_1/](http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/may/18/judge-rejects-stand-your-ground-defense-fatal-shoo/c_1/) The judge is hardly a bleeding heart liberal. He upheld the “stand your ground” law when a bicyclist shot and killed a man that was beating him. [http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/stand-your-ground-defense-clears-thonotosassa-bicyclist-in-fatal-shooting/1032920](http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/stand-your-ground-defense-clears-thonotosassa-bicyclist-in-fatal-shooting/1032920) From my experience in Orange County, Florida, even under the old self-defense laws, the DA would often not press charges in cases that didn’t strictly meet the definition of self-defense under those laws. I don’t know if this was because of his political convictions or that he thought it would be difficult to get a conviction and politically unhealthy. I should also point out to foreign visitors that it is illegal for them to purchase or possess except for some narrow exceptions. [http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nonimmigrant-aliens.html](http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nonimmigrant-aliens.html) Keep in mind that Bernie Goetz was acquitted on the shooting charges, but went to jail for the firearm possession charge. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/26 "2010-08-14T11:02:49Z")
By the same token, if you are in Wisconsin, & ask about threatening, & are trespassing on private property, \*a very different result \*may happen. So, do not trespass in Wisconsin, m’kay? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/27 "2010-08-14T12:00:36Z")
The _reasonably believes_ language in these laws is not what you “reasonably believed” at the time, it’s the [_reasonable person_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) legal standard, correct? [Subject to the facts at trial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person#Personal_circumstances), i.e. a dwarf being attacked by five professional wrestlers would have a different burden for the reasonableness of their use of lethal force under the _reasonable person_ standard than a professional wrestler being attacked by five unarmed dwarves. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/28 "2010-08-14T13:10:51Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > That is not what your cite says. **Force** , not deadly force, is justified when necessary to prevent an invasion. Deadly force is only justified when it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Thank you for the correction - since I posted the full text it’s silly that I mangled my sentence; I was trying to address two different points. Good thing I posted the text too or it would have been really stupid of me. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure exactly how “no duty to retreat” works out in these cases. I’m not sure what you mean. It is worthy to note that at one time my State was a “must retreat” State. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/29 "2010-08-14T13:14:12Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Wow. Such complex answers to such a simple question. Part of the complexity is these sorts of laws are governed by the States, not the Federal government, so you may as well think of the US as a Union of 50 (or 51 entities). My experience with British expatriates here and British people online is they really do not understand how independent the States really are. They are much closer to being independent countries than you may understand. So your question is akin to me asking “what are the laws on speeding in Europe?” Or to throw the question back entirely - can you cite the law which says you are allowed to defend yourself or a third party with deadly force in England? Perhaps comparing the laws of your country with my State might be illuminating. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/30 "2010-08-14T16:42:07Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > I think you might be thinking of Florida, which passed just about the most obscene self-defense law ever. > > Here’s the reasoning: > Stage 1: Argument. > Stage 2: Fight. > Stage 3: Mild to severe injury. > Stage 4: Permanent injury to death. > > In most states, you cannot use deadly force until Stage 2 or 3. Florida is the only state that allows deadly force to be used in Stage 1. Yes. Stage 1. If you THINK a fight where somebody MIGHT get hurt is ABOUT to occur, you can kill the other person. > > I guess they’ve never seen AI. > > Edit: I went to check, and [here’s what Florida says.](http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html) > > I like how one part contradicts the other part and the summary. > > Go, go Florida. I read the link and wasn’t as upset as I expected to be. About the only “loophole” I saw (compared to the basic idea that one can take the life of another only to prevent the death/great bodily harm to another) is the idea that deadly force can be used to prevent a robbery. What is a robbery? I interpret it to be someone stealing property belonging to another. So I have been robbed if someone comes into my driveway and steals my car or into my back yard and steals my lawn furniture. But neither rise to the level of a rape. So, what is the legal definition of a robbery? ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/31 "2010-08-14T16:54:17Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > > [@KneadToKnow](#): > > > > This is not true in all jurisdictions, it’s worth noting. > > I did, by saying “my State,” and by quoting the code. > > > [@](#): > > > > I should also clarify that **my State** allows deadly force to prevent someone from entering your home or occupied\* vehicle, > > (emphasis added) I was merely adding a contrasting point so that people would be aware how varied actual practice could be. If you felt I was intentionally stepping on your toes, I’m sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/32 "2010-08-14T16:58:26Z")
From _The Simpsons_ > [@](#): > > Chief Wiggum) Now sideshow bob can’t get in without me knowing and once a man is in your home anything you do to him is nice and legal. > > Homer) Is that so? > > [Homer leans out window and calls to Ned] > > Homer) Oh Flanders, won’t you join me in my kitchen? > > Chief Wiggum) Uh, it doesn’t work if you invite them in. > > Ned) Hidely Hey! > > Homer) Go home > > Ned) Toodly Doo! This Simpsons moment has been brought to you by Markxxx, because not having a full time job makes me very bored… And now back to your regularly scheduled thread ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/33 "2010-08-14T17:40:54Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Wow. Such complex answers to such a simple question. Hey, it’s not called the “United States” just for fun or tradition. If you break into my house, I’m allowed to shoot the holy hell out of you. I can shoot you in the back if I like. I can shoot you if you’re pregnant or if you’re holding your felonious six year old child in front of you. If you make it back out the window first, though, I can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/34 "2010-08-14T17:43:27Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Wow. Such complex answers to such a simple question. Just to emphasize this, there’s no complexity about what the answer is to your simple question. “When, exactly, am I authorized to use deadly force” is a bit of a complicated question, but “Can I do it if they say yes after I ask ‘are you threatening me’?” has a very simple answer: you can’t. **Superhal** , it is not true that in Florida you can shoot somebody at “1. Argument.” That isn’t true anywhere. Everywhere in the United States, in order to raise a defense of use of lethal force for self-defense, you have to show a reasonable belief that there’s an imminent threat of harm, or in some cases of the commission of a felony inside your home. “Argument” is never, ever, under any circumstances, enough to show that it was reasonable to believe the other person was immediately prepared to inflict serious bodily harm on you. Where Florida breaks from the norm is that there are already special rules that apply to an encounter with an intruder inside one’s own home, and in Florida some of those rules apply outside the home, as well. These rules are special exceptions to the general rule that force should be avoided if possible. In most places, there is a duty to retreat from an encounter if one can safely do so rather than using force, _unless_ the encounter is inside the home. Florida says that there’s no duty to retreat in certain cases _outside_ one’s own home. But in all of these cases - whether or not a duty to retreat applies - the predicate is that there’s an imminent threat to one’s person or sometimes to one’s personal property. An argument is never a threat to one’s person or property (although an argument could _arise_ from such a threat), and so these rules are irrelevant to a situation where there’s a mere argument going on. Question one is (ignoring the inside-the-home bit): is there something happening that could give rise to somebody’s reasonable belief that they’re immediately about to come to physical harm? If the answer to that isn’t yes, there’s nothing complicated that needs to be discussed. Which makes intuitive sense, right? Don’t hurt anybody else unless you have to to keep them from hurting you. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/35 "2010-08-14T19:32:25Z")
The state of Texas, in chapter 9 of the Penal Code, specifically says: > [@](#): > > ``` > § 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in > > ``` > > Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against > another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is > immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or > attempted use of unlawful force. > (b) The use of force against another is not justified: > (1) in response to verbal provocation alone; > (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows > is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace > officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or > search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under > Subsection (c); > (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or > attempted by the other; > (4) if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted > use of unlawful force, unless: > (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly > communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing > he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and > (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts > to use unlawful force against the actor; or > (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or > discussion with the other person concerning the actor’s differences > with the other person while the actor was: > (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section > 46.02; or > (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in > violation of Section 46.05. > (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is > justified: > (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the > peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts > to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; > and > (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably > believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself > against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use > of greater force than necessary. > (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this > subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. > > Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. > Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, > 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. > § 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person > is justified in using deadly force against another: > (1) if he would be justified in using force against the > other under Section 9.31; > (2) if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation > would not have retreated; and > (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the > deadly force is immediately necessary: > (A) to protect himself against the other’s use or > attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or > (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of > aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual > assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. > (b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not > apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time > of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the > habitation of the actor. > > Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. > Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff. > Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. > 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. > § 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in > using force or deadly force against another to protect a third > person if: > (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably > believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 > or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against > the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes > to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and > (2) the actor reasonably believes that his > intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. > > Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. > Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, > 1994. > § 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is > justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another > when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is > immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide > or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself. > (b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly > force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes > the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the > other’s life in an emergency. > > Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. > Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/36 "2010-08-15T04:29:02Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > The state of Texas, in chapter 9 of the Penal Code, specifically says: [lengthy quote from §§9.31-9.34] Since it might be applicable to the OP, and since it usually throws people in other states for a loop, you might want to add the circumstances where Texas allows you to use deadly force to protect your property, and the property of a third person. (Paging [Joe Horn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy).) Those statutes can be found at Section 9.41-9.43 of the Penal Code, found [here](http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.41). Briefly, in certain circumstances, deadly force may be used to safeguard personal property, like your vehicle. Read the cited statutes for more information. Regardless, the OP’s situation still isn’t one where one could reasonably feel their life was in imminent danger, necessitating deadly force to stop the threat. ---
**Author:** ![Erasmus\_Darwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@Erasmus\_Darwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erasmus_Darwin)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/37 "2010-08-15T08:05:07Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > What is a robbery? I interpret it to be someone stealing property belonging to another. So I have been robbed if someone comes into my driveway and steals my car or into my back yard and steals my lawn furniture. That’s not robbery at all. That’s just theft. Here’s Florida’s definition of robbery: > [@](#): > > “Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. As you can see, robbery involves a direct act against the person being robbed. Stealing your car out of your driveway isn’t robbery. Taking your car keys from you at gunpoint is robbery. Florida isn’t Texas. Texas is pretty unique in its “lethal force to protect property” laws. In Florida, the circumstances under which lethal force is permitted generally all trace back to some sort of threat to a person. Even when Florida added the castle doctrine laws allowing you to shoot someone who breaks into your home, it was under the presumption that such a person represents a threat to your life. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/38 "2010-08-15T14:02:24Z")
> [@Erasmus\_Darwin](#): > > > [@rbroome](#): > > > > What is a robbery? I interpret it to be someone stealing property belonging to another. So I have been robbed if someone comes into my driveway and steals my car or into my back yard and steals my lawn furniture. > > That’s not robbery at all. That’s just theft. > > Here’s Florida’s definition of robbery: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. > > As you can see, robbery involves a direct act against the person being robbed. Stealing your car out of your driveway isn’t robbery. Taking your car keys from you at gunpoint is robbery. > > Florida isn’t Texas. Texas is pretty unique in its “lethal force to protect property” laws. In Florida, the circumstances under which lethal force is permitted generally all trace back to some sort of threat to a person. Even when Florida added the castle doctrine laws allowing you to shoot someone who breaks into your home, it was under the presumption that such a person represents a threat to your life. thanks. I realized I didn’t know what the term robbery meant when I saw the context above. Now it is clear. So, “I’ve been robbed!” carries a whole new meaning to me. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164/39 "2010-08-15T14:22:39Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Or to throw the question back entirely - can you cite the law which says you are allowed to defend yourself or a third party with deadly force in England? Perhaps comparing the laws of your country with my State might be illuminating. Unfortunately, it’s not just one law. The Criminal Law Act of 1967 superceded the old common law self-defense provisions, for the most part, and says, in relevant part: “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.” The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008 further refined the provisions (and definitions of “reasonable force”, etc.) There are also several dozen court cases in which specific aspects are more closely defined. Deadly force _can_ be justified, but rarely so; for example, the classic case is Trevor Palmer, a Jamaican who killed a gun-wielding home intruder with a sword. Although the act of picking up the sword and striking the invader was ruled to be legal, Palmer kept stabbing after his opponent was disarmed and helpless. At that point, his use of deadly forced ceased to be reasonable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-lethal-force-a-valid-response-to-are-you-threatening-me-yes/550164.md?page=1)