For some reason I was thinking back to the Rodney King riots many years ago. I sort-of-remember a sequence shot from a helicopter showing a group of shopkeepers fending off rioters by using firearms - handguns and machine pistols, I think. They certainly hurt and probably killed a few rioters. It left me wondering if in America, there are any legal limits to the weapons they could have used, assuming the weapon is legally held. What about an antique machine gun? Home-made (on the spot) napalm? What if one of them had a tank, they all got aboard and made their escape, crushing and killing rioters in the process? I’m sure the authorities would have taken considerable interest if they’d killed hundreds or even dozens, but would it have been a case of, “Too bad, you shouldn’t have been rioting”?
Here in the U.K., you can only use reasonable force, and reasonable is determined by hindsight.
It probably varies by state, but the laws regarding self defense typically refer to using “deadly force” or a “deadly weapon” without specifying the exact type.
AFAIK, the states that allow machine guns treat them the same as other firearms when it comes to self defense.
Assuming legitimate self-defense and legal possession, you are generally permitted to use anything at your disposal to defend your person or property. Even if it’s an RPG (however you’d be liable for collateral damages/“friendly fire,” so probably not a good idea:)).
In some cases you have a duty to retreat if you can do so safely and only use reasonable force if you must defend yourself. As noted this is determined in hindsight.
In other states, notably Texas, they have the Castle Doctrine which means if someone is robbing your neighbor (not threatening you) you can chase them down and shoot them in the back legally.
You are mistaken about the weaponry. The shop-keepers were armed with handguns and shotguns. You are also mistaken about the number of injuries to rioters. IIRC, there were zero instances of rioters being shot by shop-keepers protecting their stores. The display of force was enough.
Burned-out store, burned-out store, Koreans with guns, burned-out store…
None of them owned machine guns, and nobody had napalm. Both are rather strictly controlled, no matter what Hollywood tells you.
As mentioned, the specific laws vary by state, but in general I don’t believe the type of weapon enters into the picture as such. The question is always whether the level of force used was a reasonable response to the threat. Even if you are completely unarmed, it is possible to use unreasonable force in “self-defense” – for example, if you were a heavyweight boxing champion and beat a much smaller person senseless to stop them from slapping you.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, it’s quite possible to shoot an unarmed person to death in clear and legitimate self-defense. I recall a case in Seattle somewhat recently, in which a man was assaulted and knocked to the ground by some crazy guy. The assailant kept coming, so the victim drew his pistol and shot him (fatally, as it happened). Police agreed that it was a legitimate self-defense shooting, and that was the end of it.
Different states have different ways of phrasing the requirements for use of force, and, as Whack-a-Mole says, some places impose a duty to retreat if it can be done safely, but I’m not aware of any local law that makes the specific weapon used a consideration, except in the hindsight sense of “was this a non-excessive way to end the threat?”
Any weapon in the right hands will work. Several years ago our then 13 year old daughter came running into out bedroom about 1:30 AM. Said “guys speaking spanish” were trying to break in. The closest firearm I had access to was .22 cal. They don’t get any smaller. Long story short, ours was the last house they ever tried to invade. Fortunately for me, I emptied my clip of the four rounds I had in it before #2 turned and ran. Had my clip been fully loaded, and I shot #2 as he was turned and running away, I would have been arrested. Turns out he ultimately met the same fate as his partner, just 50’ later. DA took 6 months to clear me. Bottom line, at least here in CA, a homeowner, in fear of his and/or his familiy’s safety, is permitted to use dealy force (with the exception noted above). This is especially true after forceable entry.
PS: House alarms are of no use in situations like this. Neither are the police (no offense meant).
That’s not how I read it. He’s speaking hypothetically about what would have happened had he shot #2 as he was running away – he would have been arrested. Since he’s saying that’s not what happened, I conclude that he fired all four shots while they were confronting him, some into #1 and some into #2. #1 dropped right there, while #2 made it 50’ away before going down.
After re-reading, guess I could have been clearer.
I fired four rounds. Each took two: #1 took the first two and died instantly and #2 took three and four, but was able to turn and run. He collapsed/died about 50’ from our home. With adrenalin flowing I don’t know if I would have had the self control to stop squeezing the trigger after #2 turned and ran. In hindsight I was probably lucky the clip wasn’t fully loaded.
What states allow machine guns? I know some licensed federal weapons dealers can own them but not sell. You can find some at ranges that let you shoot automatic weapons for fun. I don’t know any where that fully automatic weapons are legal. I’m not talking about semi-auto weapons that look like military weapons. I reserve the right to be wrong.
What varies greatly from state to state is rights to defend property. I know of no place that does not allow self defense when life is at stake. Many or most do not allow deadly force in defense of property. Or at least put big restrictions on it. A lot of this comes from legal precedence rather than statute.
I don’t know which states are Class 3 states. You are correct that in some states one can be a Class 3 dealer, but it’s illegal for a non-Class 3 dealer to own machine guns. In such states, dealers can sell to law enforcement and military. In Class 3 states it’s perfectly legal to own a machine gun as long as Federal laws are complied with. I think Oregon is such a state, as is Nevada. Here in Washington machine guns are prohibited, but silencers may be owned – as long as they’re not used.
Self-defense statutes usually require that you have a real (or at least reasonably perceived) threat to yourself from the person you attack. Some area-effect weapons are going to cross the line of strict self-defense based on that. If you’re spraying a mob with machine guns and napalm, or throwing molotov cocktails and grenades, it’s pretty hard to insist that each and every injured person was a real threat to you.
It’s a little like the rules against using booby traps. You might argue that only a thief would try to sneak in through your window, but the booby trap is a mindless device that isn’t able to perceive a threat and react to it.
As an interesting aside to this: a friend of my family owned a WWII-era 20mm anti-tank gun legally until CA laws changed in the 90’s and he gave it up. During the LA riots, we were joking about the reaction if he set that thing up on top of a store.
If you mean that audible alarms don’t necessarily scare off intruders, I agree. However, don’t alarms that give you at least some notice that someone’s breaking in gain you valuable seconds?
In my State the type of weapon used is irrelevant in lawful self-defense so long as the weapon is legally possessed at the time of the incident. In fact, anything from no weapon to using a motor vehicle as a weapon is covered - again, so long as it’s lawful self-defense and the weapon is lawfully possessed.
It also does not matter in my State if the person you lawfully kill is armed or not - anyone who believes that an unarmed person is not capable of brutally killing you with their bare hands - especially if there is the case of a large man versus a small woman - is living in a Hollywood fantasy world.
One thing which I learned in my classes, however, is that the self-defense law in my State is treated very exactly with respect to who you can shoot - if you shoot at an assailant and you miss and hit an innocent bystander, the attorney general will “come down on you like a ton of bricks.” This pretty much precludes the use of “area weapons.”
The answer is that most of them permit the ownership of automatic weapons, specifically:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
39 of the 50 states permit ownership and possession of automatic weapons provided they were initially registered in accordance with the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. No post-May 1986 automatic weapons are allowed to be transferred to civilians in any state although the police and other law enforcement or protection agencies and specially licensed dealers may possess post-ban weapons.
:eek: