What Level of Force Can Be Used to Prevent or Escape a Kidnapping

[Mr.Slant]

Foreword: I’m in the US.
I know that if my life is credibly and seriously threatened, I can use deadly force to prevent loss of life, in any state in the union.
I know that if I was a woman, and perhaps a man, in many if not all states I can use deadly force to prevent forcible rape when forcible rape is credibly and seriously threatened.
I know that if I can use less than deadly force to prevent loss of life or forcible rape, in many if not all situations in many if not all states, I am required to use less than deadly force.
Wow. That was a long qualifier.
Ok, here’s the question:
How much force can I use if I am credibly and seriously threatened with kidnapping?

This is NOT a request for legal advice related to a specific real-life situation. I am not being kidnapped. I do not expect to be kidnapped. I am not planning on using any force at any point in the future, deadly or otherwise.

[Bear_Nenno]

I think pretty much everywhere the laws will be similar to this:

“A person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”

Forcible felonies include “treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.”

Quotes are from Florida SS. 776 Justifiable Use of Force.

[StarvingButStrong]

One heck of a lot of kidnap victims end up dead.

Personally, I’d assume an attempt to kidnap me was nothing more or less than an attempt to get me somewhere I can be killed (probably after rape) with less chance of interference/witnesses, and so I’d feel justified to do whatever it took to stop it.

And if I killed my assailant, and some DA actually prosecuted me, and a jury actually convicted me…so be it. I’d much rather do some time than be one of those bodies found years later under a pile of leaves in some forest.

[Badge]

@Bear_Nenno

I think pretty much everywhere the laws will be similar to this:

“A person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”

Nope, the law isn’t the same everywhere. Washington state does not allow the use of deadly force to prevent a “forcible felony”. It is only allowed for the first two instances.

As the the OP: I don’t think that there is any specific statute to cover this, but I believe that a person being kidnapped would be in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. So I think that deadly force would be justified.

Of course, specific circumstances may change this.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

IANAL, but lawyer friends have told me that you should compare it to the maximum possible sentence if the person were convicted of this crime. (They did mention that there can be a whole lot of exceptions, altering circumstances, etc. – they are lawyers, after all.) But this can be a general guideline.

So, for example, in most jurisdictions, you can’t shoot a fleeing burglar dead, because burglary is not a capital crime. [If the burglar isn’t fleeing, but turns and threatens you with a deadly weapon, that makes a big difference.]

But kidnapping is a capital crime (Federal Lindberg law, I think), so in general you can use force all the way up to deadly force to resist a kidnapping attempt.

The authorities might say you should use the minimum amount of force needed to resist, but you can always say that was what you attempted to do: “I aimed for his leg, to disable him, but under this stress I’m not a good shot, and I hit him in the heart.” Obviously, if you can stop the kidnapping with less than deadly force, it’s better: even though a jury would likely find you justified eventually, you will go thru a lot of hassle in the meantime.

[Little_Nemo]

The relevant section of the New York State Penal Code:

Section 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person (excerpt)

A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person … unless … he reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery

Three states down; forty seven to go.

[MEBuckner]

@Badge

Nope, the law isn’t the same everywhere. Washington state does not allow the use of deadly force to prevent a “forcible felony”. It is only allowed for the first two instances.

As the the OP: I don’t think that there is any specific statute to cover this, but I believe that a person being kidnapped would be in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. So I think that deadly force would be justified.

Of course, specific circumstances may change this.

That doesn’t quite sound like how I would read Washington’s laws. (IANAL) RCW 9A.16.050:

Homicide – By other person – When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

 (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

 (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

That really seems awfully broad, in fact. On the face of it, it sounds like you could off someone for trying to write you a bad check, so long as it was for at least $251. :dubious:

The “slayer”? Do you have to use a stake through the heart?

[BrotherCadfael]

@StarvingButStrong

One heck of a lot of kidnap victims end up dead.

Personally, I’d assume an attempt to kidnap me was nothing more or less than an attempt to get me somewhere I can be killed (probably after rape) with less chance of interference/witnesses, and so I’d feel justified to do whatever it took to stop it.

And if I killed my assailant, and some DA actually prosecuted me, and a jury actually convicted me…so be it. I’d much rather do some time than be one of those bodies found years later under a pile of leaves in some forest.

“Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.”

[Lemur866]

@t-bonham@scc.net

The authorities might say you should use the minimum amount of force needed to resist, but you can always say that was what you attempted to do: “I aimed for his leg, to disable him, but under this stress I’m not a good shot, and I hit him in the heart.” Obviously, if you can stop the kidnapping with less than deadly force, it’s better: even though a jury would likely find you justified eventually, you will go thru a lot of hassle in the meantime.

But this is wrong. Shooting someone, even in the leg, is using deadly force. There is no way to shoot someone that is not deadly. It is easily possible to kill someone by shooting them in the leg or arm. I don’t understand why people think that you can use a gun in a non-deadly way. A gun is lethal force, always. A knife is lethal force, always. Threatening someone with a gun is using lethal force, even if you threaten to shoot them in the leg.

Shooting someone is always lethal force, even if they don’t happen to die. Here’s an easy example. Suppose you shot at someone and missed. Could you claim that since the bullets missed you weren’t using lethal force? Of course not. Shooting someone in the leg is using lethal force. If you aren’t justified in using lethal force it is certainly not a defense if you shoot someone in the leg instead of the center of mass. There is never a legal situation where you would be justified in shooting someone in the leg but not the heart. If you are justified in shooting them it doesn’t matter where you were aiming at or where you hit them or if you hit them. Likewise if you aren’t justified in shooting them.

Once again, using a gun is always using lethal force, even if you don’t kill the guy.

[brane_damaj]

@Lemur866

I don’t understand why people think that you can use a gun in a non-deadly way.

What if you’re using it to prop up the short leg on your table?

[pravnik]

At common law, you may use deadly force in self defense if you are yourself without fault, your attacker is using unlawful force against you (i.e., force that consitututes a crime or a tort), and you reasonably believe that you are faced with death or imminent bodily harm. Whether or not you had such a belief and whether or not it was reasonable would be a fact question for a jury. Given the inherently dangerous and violent nature of most kidnappings and the measure of fear they are likely to provoke in victims, I feel pretty confident that it would be easy to make such a showing a pretty fair amount of the time. It is possible that kidnapping could even be considered imminent bodily harm as a matter of law, but I don’t believe that to be the case.

Some states provide more protection and/or guidance than the common law by specifically naming some forms of kidnapping as a justification for deadly force in self defense (I would be surprised if any states provided less protection that the common law). The Texas staute reads:

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other’s use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

		(B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of 

aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

Aggravated kidnapping in Texas (as opposed to simple kidnapping, which is merely abducting someone for any reason), is:

§ 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits
an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person
with the intent to:
(1) hold him for ransom or reward;
(2) use him as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the
flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse
him sexually;
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental
or political function.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly
weapon during the commission of the offense.
© Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may
raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in
a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative
by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the
second degree.

So if you reasonably believed that you were being kidnapped for any of these reasons, or the kidnapper used a deadly weapon, you would be justified in using deadly force in self defense. However, if you were being abducted by your frat brothers and forced to go to a keg patry when you have a test the next day, you most likely wouldn’t.

[Bear_Nenno]

MEBuckner, the reason for the conflicting statement and dubious statute is that Badge is explaining how things are in practical application. Statutes can be misleading if you’re not aware of all the ones relevant to the matter. And a lot of the time, they’re not even in the same chapters. (FL sex crimes are my favorite example)
Plus, their wording can get pretty crazy. Notice the redundancy: “or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company”. Why not just say “any person in his presence”? Wouldn’t that include relatives??

Anyway, combined with other statutes on the matter (which you may or may not be missing. see below) and much Case Law, courts agree that you can use deadly force to stop a forceable felony “if such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury”. Again with the redundancy!! Why even mention forceable felonies at all. It wouldn’t matter what crime was being committed since the prevention of death or great harm was present. Sigh. Damn lawyers.
Badge, being a detective, would know to arrest a person who used deadly force when it was unecessary even if it was in the defense of a felony. Not sure what the charge would be there, but here it is not second degree murder, it would be a manslaughter. And, if there was another felon present who lived, that felon would be charged with felony murder for the death of his buddy.

I mentioned that you might be missing some statutes, because I know Florida has some overlapping ones. For simplicity, I gave the Justifiable Use of Force one above. But here are a couple more that deal with it. Again, you have to take the totality of statutes and case law to come to badge’s correct conclusion that one can use deadly force If And Only If preventing death or great bodily harm to himself or another person.

Here’s one that claims any felony.
“782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.–The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.”

If you were going by this statute alone, you could kill someone for any felony. Obviously they are trying to lessen the restrictions for justifiable homocide in your home - Castle Doctrine. But 782.02 says “any felony upon him… OR upon or in [his] home” Always pay attention to the "or"s and "and"s! This is not limiting simple felonies to inside the home. Conflicting, yes.

And here’s the biggy. Despite what three other statutes mention about being allowed to use deadly force to prevent simple felonies or forcible felonies or jay walking, or whatever, the state has this little gem:

“782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.–Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree.” (italics mine)

So there we have it, in all it’s redundant and dubious glory! You have to let the jury decide what’s necessary. But likely than not, the will agree that killing is only “necessary” to prevent death or great bodily injury. Back to square one. There might be a statute like this in Washington that you’re missing, or it could be soley on case law alone.
Regardless of what’s written in the statute. I don’t think any court anywhere in the states would say killing someone to prevent him from substantially damaging a publice telephone (SS. 806.13(3)) was ok because the books say you can use deadly force to prevent felonies…

[SPOOFE]

I don’t understand why people think that you can use a gun in a non-deadly way.

That’s strange, it happens approximately 2,000,000 times a year…

[gbrohman]

I teach Personal Protection (NRA education and training division) and it is part of the requirements for the Concealed Carry Permit here in Minnesota.

In this course we teach the student to “Shoot to Stop” we Do Not shoot to kill or shoot to wound.

I would strongly advise anyone that has even the slightest thought of useing a firearm, (long or hand) for personnal protecton to seek an NRA or other training course. (gun sight, IAFSI etc.)

I have had career (retired) lawenforcment officers come through my training, and WE All Learned Something Important.

[Bear_Nenno]

In this course we teach the student to “Shoot to Stop” we Do Not shoot to kill or shoot to wound.

Doesn’t matter what your intent is, if you shoot at someone, you are using “deadly force”. You can shoot to stop, shoot to kill, shoot to light his cigarette, it’s still deadly force.
Firing in the direction of a person to “scare” him or even a cop shooting at a suspects car to “stop it” (in FL at least). That’s deadly force. I’ve seen on those Fox shows where the cop shoots the tires or some John Wayne shit like that. I don’t believe any of that would fly around here. Unless of course it was necessary to “prevent death or great bodily harm”.