Are there limits to what force can be used in a certain situation?
Obviously if a person is threatening to kill you and has you at gunpoint, and you pull an old Chuck Norris on him it would be perfectly legal.
But what if a person broke in, no weapon, and all they wanted was your big screen TV? Would they be eligible for a serious ass whooping? What amount of force could you legally use on the TV knapper?
How do they determine in court that an act was self-defense?
It depends on the state. In Louisiana, you can use force to protect property and deadly force if the person enters your house regardless of any weapons or immediate physical threat. In the latter scenario, you wouldn’t have too many legal problems and people in the state excercise that right when the sitaution warrants it. If the person isn’t in your house, the situation is a little grey but people have used deadly force then too and not gotten charged with anything. Carjacking also gives someone the automatic right of deadly force.
This is key. Every state has different laws on this subject. In many states one cannot use force to protect property. We just had a case here where a guy shot someone trying to steal his car. Car owner just got sentenced to prison for that.
Ironnicly, even though California has some of the strictest gun laws we have some of the most open minded self defense laws epsically when it comes to home invasion.
Frequently (some states) allow for self defense only to the extent that you are no longer in danger. Ex. Random bad guy hits you in mouth. You hit random bad guy in nuts, he goes down and starts screaming. The 2nd thru n kicks are assault.
Who is the judge of whether someone is a danger to you? If I kick a guy in the nuts, and he goes down, I can guarantee he is not getting up again until the paramedics pick him up. Standing there waiting to see if the one kick was enough is a good way to re-establish your status as a crime victim.
Unfortunately for you, that could be assault. Though it would ultimately be up to the courts to decide, this is one example of the reasoning that gets used (note number 2):
The burden of proof falls upon the one using force that the actions of another were such that it was reasonable to use force. Unfortunately many areas don’t consider a break in enough, in and of itself, to justify force, especially lethal force, against a burglar.
You can look up the phrase “Castle Doctrine” to find the states that allow lethal force against an intruder in your home. It sure beats having to ask “Pardon me, but are you here to rape and kill my family, or did you just want the DVD?”
Gun control is the odd idea that a woman dead and raped in an alley is somehow morally superior to one explaining to a police officer how her attacker got those gunshot wounds.
Yes, it is. That’s why you’re expected to run away. Unless you’re in your house or car (in some states), the amount of force you’re allowed to use in self-defense is the amount that’s reasonably sufficient to let you flee.
You’re better off reading up on your state’s penal code regarding the application of force in defense of self, others, and property. Information online regarding the topic–here and elsewhere, and particularly in regard to people who bandy around terms like “Castle Doctrine” and “Stand Your Ground Law”–is notoriously inaccurate. No prosecutor or judge is going to offer leniency because you got bad advice on a message board.
There is a book called “How to Own a Gun and Stay out of Jail”, they do a version for each state updated every year or so IIRC. It covers just about all of the use of lethal force doctrines for the state in question.
Example
On further checking there may only be a CA version…