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.
But doesn’t it say that:
Wow. Such complex answers to such a simple question.
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
Depending on the state, that situation and its aftermath would have played out differently.
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/
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.
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
Keep in mind that Bernie Goetz was acquitted on the shooting charges, but went to jail for the firearm possession charge.
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?
The reasonably believes language in these laws is not what you “reasonably believed” at the time, it’s the reasonable person legal standard, correct?
Subject to the facts at trial, 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!
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 what you mean. It is worthy to note that at one time my State was a “must retreat” State.
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.
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?
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.
From The Simpsons
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
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.
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.
The state of Texas, in chapter 9 of the Penal Code, specifically says:
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.) Those statutes can be found at Section 9.41-9.43 of the Penal Code, found here.
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.
That’s not robbery at all. That’s just theft.
Here’s Florida’s definition of robbery:
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.
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.