# Legal issues of self-defense **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 20, 2011, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479 "2011-08-20T23:57:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/21 "2011-09-22T16:58:08Z")
> [@thatguyjeff](#): > > One may place a violent suspect under “citizen’s” arrest in most jurisdictions, and attempt to hold them at gunpoint - depending on local gun laws - but never fire a shot or give chase if they attempt to flee. Even using physical force in an attempt to restrain someone from fleeing before the police arrive is a bad idea. 1. “Holding someone at gunpoint” while you cannot “fire a shot or give chase if they attempt to flee” does not make sense. 2. If you see someone being killed, should you be allowed to use physical force to restrain the murderer from fleeing? ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/22 "2011-09-22T17:58:29Z")
> [@thatguyjeff](#): > > Read up on “duty to retreat,” “stand your ground,” and “castle doctrine” laws. > > Every state is different with respect to using deadly force to defend oneself. In general, most states are either a duty to retreat state - meaning you are not legally justified in using deadly force if there was a reasonable opportunity to flee. Or, there are stand your ground states where there is no expectation to flee because you have the right to “stand your ground” wherever you are otherwise legally allowed to be. > > Castle doctrine applies to your home and generally differentiates between the justified use of lethal force on any intruder vs. an intruder who is armed vs. an intruder who presents an immediate lethal threat to you and/or anyone present in the home. Sometimes a castle doctrine may only apply to an actual residence or any privately owned building, and sometimes your car too. > > Couple things that no one should EVER do: > > 1. Use lethal force against an assailant who is fleeing. > 2. Give chase to an assailant who is fleeing. > > One may place a violent suspect under “citizen’s” arrest in most jurisdictions, and attempt to hold them at gunpoint - depending on local gun laws - but never fire a shot or give chase if they attempt to flee. Even using physical force in an attempt to restrain someone from fleeing before the police arrive is a bad idea. > [@](#): > > …duty to retreat state - meaning you are not legally justified in using deadly force if there was a reasonable opportunity to flee… Pardon my ignorance, but do you mean to tell me that there are states that require a person to flee from an intruder, as opposed to standing firm and protecting your loved ones and possessions? :dubious: :mad: Cite, please? > [@](#): > > Couple things that\*\*\* no one should EVER do\*\*\*: > > 1. Use lethal force against an assailant who is fleeing. > 2. Give chase to an assailant who is fleeing. (emphasis mine) So your advice to the world is to just stand there, **and watch the bad guy** , _ **run away?!** _ _ **WTF?!** _ :eek: I’m sorry, but if I **clearly observe** someone commit a violent crime against an innocent person, I feel that it’s **my duty** , as a law abiding citizen, to do everything that is within my power, to… 1. Detain that person, 2. With **whatever** force, that is required to do so, 3.Up to and including, administering a healthy dose of lead. (Healthy for society in general, unhealthy for the ‘perp’.;)) Terr > [@](#): > > If you see someone being killed, should you be allowed to use physical force to restrain the murderer from fleeing? You should _ **never do that** _, according to _some_ people. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/23 "2011-09-22T18:31:03Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > Remember, the reason for carrying a gun is to keep your self from getting killed, nothing more. You have no police powers or duties. > > Once the threat is over, your need for self defense is over. I totally _ **disagree** _, as per my previous post. So your stance is, ‘As long as the homicidal maniac doesn’t come after me, everybody else can just fend for their self.’? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/24 "2011-09-23T00:55:05Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 1. “Holding someone at gunpoint” while you cannot “fire a shot or give chase if they attempt to flee” does not make sense. It may not make sense, but he’s absolutely right. You are not a police officer, and if he flees you have to let him go. You will be judged on your actions, and shooting a fleeing assailant in the back will go a long way to making your particular case that much more difficult for yourself. > [@](#): > > 1. If you see someone being killed, should you be allowed to use physical force to restrain the murderer from fleeing? That is an entirely different thing. A murder is a violent crime, whereas a robbery/mugging where you were able to deter the crime with a weapon is (probably) not. To repeat, you are not a police officer, and you will be judged on your actions. That cannot be repeated enough. Exercise bad judgment and you will be the one going to jail. ---
**Author:** ![thatguyjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6de8d8/32.png) [@thatguyjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thatguyjeff)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/25 "2011-09-23T16:52:52Z")
> [@JBDivmstr](#): > > Pardon my ignorance, but do you mean to tell me that there are states that require a person to flee from an intruder, as opposed to standing firm and protecting your loved ones and possessions? :dubious: :mad: > Cite, please? > > (emphasis mine) By “intruder” I’m assuming you mean someone unlawfully entering your home. Duty to retreat vs. stand your ground laws generally apply to when you’re in a public place. A castle doctrine is what would apply in your home. And yes, there are states which do not have a castle doctrine. Just because someone enters your home illegally does not always equal justified homicide. There are states in which the prosecution could prove that you and your family had a reasonable opportunity to escape and you could be convicted. > [@JBDivmstr](#): > > So your advice to the world is to just stand there, **and watch the bad guy** , _ **run away?!** _ _ **WTF?!** _ :eek: Absolutely. You’re not a cop - at least I’m assuming you’re not. It’s the police’s job to pursue and apprehend criminals. Taking action in order to prevent the commission of a crime or protect someone is one thing. But once the crime is done and the assailant is leaving the scene, any forceful attempt to apprehend and detain them could result in criminal charges against you. Again, every state is different. > [@JBDivmstr](#): > > I’m sorry, but if I **clearly observe** someone commit a violent crime against an innocent person, I feel that it’s **my duty** , as a law abiding citizen, to do everything that is within my power, to… > > 1. Detain that person, > 2. With **whatever** force, that is required to do so, > 3.Up to and including, administering a healthy dose of lead. (Healthy for society in general, unhealthy for the ‘perp’.;)) > > Terr > > You should _ **never do that** _, according to _some_ people. :rolleyes: While many of us may feel morally obligated to do just that, we’re talking about the law here, not morality. Everyone is responsible for their actions. If a criminal is injured or killed as a result of your actions, it’s up to the police - who may not have witnessed anything - to decide whether or not your actions were justifiable. Take that a step further and you could face a jury trial and have to convince a jury that you had no other reasonable alternative. It’s not always innocent until proven guilty. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/26 "2011-09-23T18:29:36Z")
> [@MacTech](#): > > … > > No, once the immediate threat is over, the gun should be out of play > > … IANAL, YMMV, this is not the baggage check mentioned in the Warsaw Convention. This sounds about right. Once the threat of danger is diminished, normal legal avenues of justice apply again and the “correct” thing to do is have the guy arrested and brought before a judge and a full jury and give him his day in court to determine what is to be done with him. The right to use deadly force is an exception to the rule that proper legal channels must be followed to condemn or punish someone for their unlawful behavior. Along the same vein, you normally can’t shoot petty thieves/shoplifters, crack dealers, check forgers, welfare cheats, and people with out-of-date vehicle registration stickers - those things have to be formally investigated by the law in order to determine what, if any, action should be taken. One guy with a gun doesn’t have the right to make that choice. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/27 "2011-09-23T18:33:24Z")
Damn,there go my plans for jaywalkers! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/28 "2011-09-23T18:54:41Z")
> [@thatguyjeff](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m sorry, but if I clearly observe someone commit a violent crime against an innocent person, I feel that it’s my duty, as a law abiding citizen, to do everything that is within my power, to… > > > > 1. Detain that person, > > 2. With whatever force, that is required to do so, > > 3.Up to and including, administering a healthy dose of lead > > While many of us may feel morally obligated to do just that, we’re talking about the law here, not morality. Everyone is responsible for their actions. If a criminal is injured or killed as a result of your actions, it’s up to the police - who may not have witnessed anything - to decide whether or not your actions were justifiable. Take that a step further and you could face a jury trial and have to convince a jury that you had no other reasonable alternative. It’s not always innocent until proven guilty. Well, it actually still is innocent until proven guilty, because that’s the standard that hypothetical jury will be applying to judge you in that hypothetical trial. As a general principle, defense of another is analyzed in precisely the same way as self-defense: > [@](#): > > Like self-defense, the circumstances in which the protection of others may be raised as a defense are carefully circumscribed so as to preclude such a claim in situations where one has instigated the fray in order to provide an excuse for assaulting or murdering his enemy. In a majority of jurisdictions, a person asserting a claim of defense of others may do so only where the person to whose aid he or she went would have been legally entitled to defend himself or herself. 40 Am.Jur.2d Homicide § 171 (1968). Thus, the right to defend another “is commensurate with selfdefense.” From _Foster v. Commonwealth_, 412 SE 2d 198 (Va Ct App 1991). ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/29 "2011-09-23T19:20:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, it actually still is innocent until proven guilty, because that’s the standard that hypothetical jury will be applying to judge you in that hypothetical trial. > > As a general principle, defense of another is analyzed in precisely the same way as self-defense: > > From _Foster v. Commonwealth_, 412 SE 2d 198 (Va Ct App 1991). I think what that means, in a nutshell, is that you can’t avoid legal liability for murder (e.g. say “it isn’t murder”) by first firing several shots in their direction that you, secretly, intend to miss, waiting for the victim to pull a gun and return fire, and then “OMG he is shooting at me!”, and pulling the trigger a final time to put a bullet straight through his head. ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/30 "2011-09-23T21:36:58Z")
> [@thatguyjeff](#): > > By “intruder” I’m assuming you mean someone unlawfully entering your home. Duty to retreat vs. stand your ground laws generally apply to when you’re in a public place. A castle doctrine is what would apply in your home. And yes, there are states which do not have a castle doctrine. Just because someone enters your home illegally does not always equal justified homicide. There are states in which the prosecution could prove that you and your family had a reasonable opportunity to escape and you could be convicted. … thatguyjeff > [@](#): > > In general, \*\*\*most states are either \*\*\*a duty to retreat state - meaning you are not legally justified in using deadly force if there was a reasonable opportunity to flee. Or, there are stand your ground states where there is no expectation to flee because you have the right to “stand your ground” wherever you are otherwise legally allowed to be. (emphasis mine) Not trying to nitpick, but your statement is a little confusing. Which doctrine do ‘\*most states’ \*subscribe to, “stand your ground” or ‘tuck tail and run’ (“expectation to flee”)? And again, can you provide a cite or case precedent for these statements? Please? thatguyjeff > [@](#): > > Absolutely. You’re not a cop - at least I’m assuming you’re not. It’s the police’s job to pursue and apprehend criminals. Taking action in order to prevent the commission of a crime or protect someone is one thing. But once the crime is done and the assailant is leaving the scene, any forceful attempt to apprehend and detain them could result in criminal charges against you. Again, every state is different. You are correct in your assumption that I’m not a LEO, also, IANAL. You’re also correct, in that every state is _probably_ different. Criminal charges could be brought “against me”? 😕 What for?! Unlawful detainment? :dubious: IMHO, it’s \*\*\*everyones responsibility \*\*\*to assist law enforcement authorities, whenever possible. thatguyjeff > [@](#): > > If a criminal is injured or killed as a result of your actions, it’s up to the police - who may not have witnessed anything - to decide whether or not your actions were justifiable. It is most definitely _ **not** _ … “up to the police - who may not have witnessed anything - to decide whether or not your actions were justifiable”. _ **That** _ decision can only be made by a judge and jury. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/31 "2011-09-23T21:47:42Z")
> **[Castle doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_positions)** > > A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the United De... ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/32 "2011-09-23T22:41:17Z")
thatguyjeff > [@](#): > > Read up on “duty to retreat,” “stand your ground,” and “castle doctrine” laws. > > Every state is different with respect to using deadly force to defend oneself. _ **In general, most states are either a duty to retreat state - meaning you are not legally justified in using deadly force if there was a reasonable opportunity to flee.** _ Or, there are stand your ground states where there is no expectation to flee because you have the right to “stand your ground” wherever you are otherwise legally allowed to be. … (emphasis mine) As per \*your \*suggestion, I **did** “Read up on “duty to retreat,” “stand your ground,” and “castle doctrine” laws.” Apparently, _ **you did not** _. :mad: (According to Wikipedia) No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place. Also known as “Stand your ground” laws. 17 states. No duty to retreat if in the home. Also known as “Castle laws” or “Castle doctrine” laws. 25 states. No specific “Castle laws” or weak “Castle laws”. 8 states. 17 states with “Stand your ground” laws, and 25 states with “Castle laws”. Hmmm… Let’s see now, 25 plus 17 equals… well, what do you know, 42! How in the world did you come up with the idea, “In general, most states are either a duty to retreat state”? :dubious: I find that the definite majority, are _ **NOT** _ “duty to retreat” states?! ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/33 "2011-09-24T00:02:35Z")
Interesting that my state of Wisconsin isn’t on any of the three lists of states, yet the lists add up to 50. ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/34 "2011-09-24T16:16:37Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Interesting that my state of Wisconsin isn’t on any of the three lists of states, yet the lists add up to 50. That’s because the District of Columbia is included in the list of states. 😕 The state of Wisconsin **is** mentioned, directly preceding the lists of states. ---
**Author:** ![thatguyjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6de8d8/32.png) [@thatguyjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thatguyjeff)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/35 "2011-09-26T18:28:07Z")
> [@JBDivmstr](#): > > IMHO, it’s \*\*\*everyones responsibility \*\*\*to assist law enforcement authorities, whenever possible. > > It is most definitely _ **not** _ … “up to the police - who may not have witnessed anything - to decide whether or not your actions were justifiable”. > > _ **That** _ decision can only be made by a judge and jury. No citizen is “responsible” for assisting LEO’s with anything resembling force/lethal force. Ask any cop and they’ll tell you they would rather you just stayed out of the way. They’re trained to intervene, you and I are not. Throwing civilians into the gun play mix recipe for innocent people being harmed - and I’m not talking about stray bullets. I’m talking about you, the armed concerned citizen who wants to do nothing more than to protect themself and their family from having to face dubious charges and defend themselves in court. The decision about whether you will be charged with a crime and be forced to spend time and money defending yourself against those charges is most certainly up to the police. You’re correct about the conviction. But I’ll stick my neck out there and say that I don’t think anyone wants to face a jury in a homicide case, justifiable or not. Police get things wrong/make mistakes. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. If you shoot and wound (not kill), do you think the criminal you just shot is going to be 100% honest about what happened? > [@JBDivmstr](#): > > thatguyjeff(emphasis mine) > > As per \*your \*suggestion, I **did** “Read up on “duty to retreat,” “stand your ground,” and “castle doctrine” laws.” > > Apparently, _ **you did not** _. :mad: > (According to Wikipedia) > > No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place. > Also known as “Stand your ground” laws. > 17 states. > > No duty to retreat if in the home. > Also known as “Castle laws” or “Castle doctrine” laws. > 25 states. > > No specific “Castle laws” or weak “Castle laws”. > 8 states. > > 17 states with “Stand your ground” laws, and 25 states with “Castle laws”. Hmmm… Let’s see now, 25 plus 17 equals… well, what do you know, 42! > > How in the world did you come up with the idea, “In general, most states are either a duty to retreat state”? :dubious: > > I find that the definite majority, are _ **NOT** _ “duty to retreat” states?! Blame my poor punctuation on that one. I intended to note that most states have clear laws and are one or the other - either a duty to retreat OR stand your ground state. With respect to the original post question - this is going to have the largest impact on what you’re legally allowed to do. I say the “majority” of states have clear laws (either being a stand your ground OR duty to retreat state) because some states are neither - as in their laws are vague and do not expressly state if someone has the legal right to stand their ground or if any reasonable opportunity to flee must be taken. Minnesota is one such state. Self-defense/justifiable homicide laws here are really subjective. You’re in Texas. I’m in Minnesota, but I’m not some teary-eyed northern liberal. I’m all for citizens arming themselves and defending themselves. I think we both agree in that. The point I’m trying to make is that many laws are very different in different places and are largely misunderstood. The “shoot first and ask questions later” philosophy will probably bring about 1. lots of questions from the police, 2. possibility of charges being brought against you, and 3. the possibility of some sort of criminal conviction, even if in reality - you are truly innocent. Don’t get yourself into trouble. ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479/36 "2011-09-26T22:00:17Z")
> [@thatguyjeff](#): > > No citizen is “responsible” for assisting LEO’s with anything resembling force/lethal force. Ask any cop and they’ll tell you they would rather you just stayed out of the way. They’re trained to intervene, you and I are not. Throwing civilians into the gun play mix recipe for innocent people being harmed - and I’m not talking about stray bullets. I’m talking about you, the armed concerned citizen who wants to do nothing more than to protect themself and their family from having to face dubious charges and defend themselves in court. > > The decision about whether you will be charged with a crime and be forced to spend time and money defending yourself against those charges is most certainly up to the police. > > You’re correct about the conviction. But I’ll stick my neck out there and say that I don’t think anyone wants to face a jury in a homicide case, justifiable or not. > > Police get things wrong/make mistakes. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. If you shoot and wound (not kill), do you think the criminal you just shot is going to be 100% honest about what happened? > > Blame my poor punctuation on that one. I intended to note that most states have clear laws and are one or the other - either a duty to retreat OR stand your ground state. > > With respect to the original post question - this is going to have the largest impact on what you’re legally allowed to do. > > I say the “majority” of states have clear laws (either being a stand your ground OR duty to retreat state) because some states are neither - as in their laws are vague and do not expressly state if someone has the legal right to stand their ground or if any reasonable opportunity to flee must be taken. > > Minnesota is one such state. Self-defense/justifiable homicide laws here are really subjective. > > You’re in Texas. I’m in Minnesota, but I’m not some teary-eyed northern liberal. I’m all for citizens arming themselves and defending themselves. I think we both agree in that. > > The point I’m trying to make is that many laws are very different in different places and are largely misunderstood. The “shoot first and ask questions later” philosophy will probably bring about 1. lots of questions from the police, 2. possibility of charges being brought against you, and 3. the possibility of some sort of criminal conviction, even if in reality - you are truly innocent. > > Don’t get yourself into trouble. I appreciate that you took the time and effort to clarify your statements, and I was about half way finished with a pretty good response. Then the screen went blank! :smack: Crap! :mad: And now I must attend to other, more pressing, matters. I will come back to this later this evening. Y’all have a good day, and a better tomorrow! 😃 (Trouble? Me?! Hell’s bells! If it’s illegal, immoral, immodest, impertinent or fattening, it’s got _my_ name, written all over it! ;)) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-issues-of-self-defense/593479.md?page=1)