Thank you - you stated the correction much better than I would have.
I missed this one earlier.
I did not miss that one earlier.
“The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating;”
Lays it out fairly clearly that a person may not use deadly force if they know that they can avoid doing so and all players remain intact (i.e.e no victims are harmed). The cases that you lay out are clear-cut. If a baby is about to get hacked up, then clearly they are in present danger and justification of use of deadly force in defense of another is warranted.
However, the question raised was, “Can you show me one state where a person does not have a right to use deadly force in defense of another? Just one will do.”
And I did. A person does not have the right to use deadly force, unless there are exceptions. Therefore, there is not inherent right to use deadly force in defense of one’s self or others.
So you’re saying I’m wrong because my question asked about the right to defend others, and you’re pointing out that New York law establishes limits to the right to defend others? This is beyond pedantic.
Plus you are still wrong. The words bolded by Martin Hyde show in plain English that a person doesn’t have a duty to retreat if another person would be left in danger.
But thank you for the citation that demonstrates exactly what I understand the law to be.
Again, you specified deadly force. That’s what I’m trying to point out. Using a gun is considered deadly force. If someone is just punching someone in that state and you shoot them, then you’re in the wrong according to state law. It becomes your burden to prove that the person punching was punching with deadly force.
That meets, by the letter of the law, the standard you wanted me to show you.
So you’re saying that in New York, a woman who shoots her live-in boyfriend after he punches her in the face and is about to do so again will go to jail for murder?
I find that preposterous.
Are you saying that if we are in New York State and someone is attacking me with a knife, and you pull your gun, that New York’s duty to retreat means that you are obligated to leave me to face my attacker alone? And that if you did use your gun in that situation, that you could face criminal charges, “depending on the prosecutor,” or that you may end up owing civil damages to the attacker? Because it’s such a “sticky” situation, as you alleged in post 25?
No?
Then your citation of New York law in support of your post #25 is ridiculous.
It’s not the most preposterous thing ever.
You have to provide proof that you were scared for your life, beyond all reasonable doubt. Otherwise you open yourself to lawsuit. And, even then, you open yourself to lawsuit–at least in California.
Read the link I sent him. You may be sued for civil damages in some states, regardless of your position.
As for the example you cite there, again you’re looking at a threat where a deadly weapon is already involved. Therefore your use of deadly force is already warranted. The “sticky” situation occurs when they’re not using a deadly weapon, but you do.
Nobody has ever claimed that a person in the process of committing a felony has a right to self defense. Are you aware that this cite shows that a burglar cannot act in self-defense? That has nothing to do with what anyone is saying. The fact that a criminal lunatic is not prohibited from filing a lawsuit has no bearing on the actual civil liability of another person who is defending himself from a criminal.
Since you cannot maintain even the slightest but of coherence in what you are arguing versus what you are citing, I see no need to continue this debate any further. Literally every cite you provide supports the exact opposite of what you stated in post 25. I’m done.
Honestly, why do you care? It’s not like that scumbag will be missed.
If you threaten someone’s life in the commission of a felony, I don’t think you get to call “time out” or “no backsies” just because your carjacking didn’t go as planned.
“Fleeing” is not surrendering. Are they fleeing to get the heck out of there (and then go rob someone else) or are they fleeing to find some cover so they can turn around and continue fighting? I’d rather have the forensic examiners tell me after the fact in their report.
The same reason I care about a lot of other things that don’t affect me directly. It’s an interesting mental exercise, and I like to think about situation like this in the unlikely event I ever end up in one. Given that there have been 40+ posts about the topic, I wasn’t the only one to find it interesting.
While I personally am fine with said scumbag shuffling off this mortal coil, I am sure some of his friends and family would prefer he not be dead.
No, they’d both be charged, though the driver would only have been charged with manslaughter. That includes Florida.
ETA: Actually, that depends a bit on whether the state follows the agency theory for the felony murder rule, and prosecutorial discretion.