Stabbing / Shooting in Self Defense (Legality)

[jimboston]

Apparently it’s not always legal to defend yourself.

So there was a case of some guy in NYC who was attacked in his convenience store… the dude attacked was a smaller old guy, his attacker a bigger young man. The old shop keeper was able to defend himself long enough to get his hand on a knife. He then stabbed the attacker in self-defense, and the attacker later died.

He was arrested and the NYC DA wanted to prosecute… but I think public outcry (and luckily a video) saved him.

I ‘heard’ on a podcast I think… a story of a man who was shot, who defended himself and was able to wrest control of the gun away from his assailant… he then (in obvious defensive) fired and killed the attacker. I heard he was also being prosecuted… but I can’t find the details of this story. Any ideas?

[bigtoughralf]

Isn't the whole point of self defense that it's supposed to be proportionate to the threat? In your presumably rare case of the American who shot and killed another American, if the former is being prosecuted then maybe it's been judged that once he'd got the gun off the attacker the situation had de-escalated enough that his life was no longer in danger and he didn't need to kill the attacker.

It's also possible that the guy being prosecuted is black.

[jonesthecurl]

Also, if you kill someone in 'self-defence' that may be a sufficient reason. But perhaps it sometimes needs to be tested in court.

[saxitoxin]

In my state you're allowed to use reasonable force, versus proportional force, to defend oneself from an actual or imminent threat, which supposedly means the minimum amount of force that is both effective and available. If a 4'11" 98 pound woman who happened to be carrying around a .357 Magnum was accosted by a 6'5" 300 pound Olympic judo medalist who started punching her in the face, she would not have to limit herself to proportionally responding by getting into a fistfight with the guy. She could blast him with the .357!

You're also allowed to use reasonable force to prevent yourself becoming the victim of a felony. If I'm carrying a gold bar and set it down for a moment to tie my shoe and someone comes up and tries to grab it and run away I could BRING THE HEAT since that's grand larceny, a felony. But if Ralf set down his old used second-hand Fleshlight, jim could run up and grab it without ralf having any self-defense recourse since that's only petty larceny.

You also are required to terminate use of force if the person you're applying it against attempts to retreat or withdraw in a way that his intent is obvious.

[bigtoughralf]

You also are required to terminate use of force if the person you're applying it against attempts to retreat or withdraw in a way that his intent is obvious.

Nice gendered language there, dinosaur.

[mookiemcgee]

You also are required to terminate use of force if the person you're applying it against attempts to retreat or withdraw in a way that his intent is obvious.

Nice gendered language there, dinosaur.

[saxitoxin]

You also are required to terminate use of force if the person you're applying it against attempts to retreat or withdraw in a way that his intent is obvious.

Nice gendered language there, dinosaur.

I FORGOT ralf gets frequently beat up by girls.

[jimboston]

I was wondering if anyone else had heard the story and had link/details.

This is a link to the first story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/nyre ... s-nyc.html

I understand every state has a different standard/rule… some states have the “stand your ground” rule; others “proportional force”, and others a “duty to retreat”.

New York has a “duty to retreat” rule. This means that if someone breaks into your home and starts stealing your shit, you aren’t allowed to physically assault them unless you fear for your life/safety or the safety of your family. Presumably this means that if someone breaks into your home and starts taking stuff you are just supposed to get your family and leave the house till the thief is done.

I call bullshit and say that’s an idiotic rule/law. I think that the act of braking into my house is a violent act, and that alone is (should be) enough for me use WHATEVER FORCE IS NECESSARY to expel the intruder.

[bigtoughralf]

I FORGOT ralf gets frequently beat up by girls.

I frequently get my penis beaten by girls, and they always comment on how big and what a nice shape it is.

I think that the act of braking into my house is a violent act, and that alone is (should be) enough for me use WHATEVER FORCE IS NECESSARY to expel the intruder.

Presumably in your case the level of force necessary to stop an intruder is to scream until your neighbours come over to help, which I believe is legal in most jurisdictions.

[saxitoxin]

I FORGOT ralf gets frequently beat up by girls.

I frequently get my penis beaten by girls, and they always comment on how big and what a nice shape it is.

Hexagonal?

I was wondering if anyone else had heard the story and had link/details.

This is a link to the first story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/nyre ... s-nyc.html

I understand every state has a different standard/rule… some states have the “stand your ground” rule; others “proportional force”, and others a “duty to retreat”.

New York has a “duty to retreat” rule. This means that if someone breaks into your home and starts stealing your shit, you aren’t allowed to physically assault them unless you fear for your life/safety or the safety of your family. Presumably this means that if someone breaks into your home and starts taking stuff you are just supposed to get your family and leave the house till the thief is done.

I call bullshit and say that’s an idiotic rule/law. I think that the act of braking into my house is a violent act, and that alone is (should be) enough for me use WHATEVER FORCE IS NECESSARY to expel the intruder.

Yup.

-My state is a Stand Your Ground state. You can defend yourself anytime your life or limb are under immediate threat, provided you're legally entitled to be in the place the threat is occurring. (You don't have a legal right to use force to protect yourself if you're trespassing at the time, IOW.)

-Massachusetts is a Castle Doctrine state. You must retreat in the face of a threat to your life or limb in all circumstances, whether or not you're legally entitled to be in the place you're threatened, and can only use force (fists, bat, firearm, etc.) to protect yourself if there's nowhere left to flee. However, the standard is reversed in your residence ("the castle") in which you are entitled to use force to protect yourself without first making an attempt to flee.

-Vermont is a Duty to Retreat state. You must retreat in all circumstances, even if a rapist gets into bed with you. You can only use force once every possible means of escape have been foiled. Obviously I could never live in a place like this as people are always trying to rape me.

But usually you can't just shoot to death a burglar merely by the fact he's burgling. Burglary is not enough to make a reasonable person fear for their life. However, some states (i.e. California) have a variation in which burglary is statutorily pre-affirmed to be a mortal threat provided the burglar isn't trying to surrender or withdraw. In other SYG and Castle states, you'd be advised to tell the police that the burglar yelled "I'm going to kill you!" before you shot him or you could get arrested.

[jimboston]

I FORGOT ralf gets frequently beat up by girls.

I frequently get my penis beaten by girls, and they always comment on how big and what a nice shape it is.

mrswdk… as a 30something asian woman, you don’t have a dick.

Sorry, I know that’s not very “woke” but it’s true.

I think that the act of braking into my house is a violent act, and that alone is (should be) enough for me use WHATEVER FORCE IS NECESSARY to expel the intruder.

Presumably in your case the level of force necessary to stop an intruder is to scream until your neighbours come over to help, which I believe is legal in most jurisdictions.

Come test this theory and see what happens.

[jimboston]

Whoever is writing these laws is an idiot.

The worst thing to do if your house is broken into or your muggers is “use minimum force” necessary or maybe worse “retreat if possible”.

Retreating is a sign of weakness your assailant will see as such, and retreating potentially exposes your backside… depending on how you go about retreating.

… and if you are gonna use force at all you don;t use “minimum force” you use immediate and overwhelming force.

“Minimum force” may give your assailant a chance to recover. You use maximum force to end the threat. Period. Once you have full control of the situation (and you best be sure you have full control),.. then you can relax and go into contain and control mode.

A guy pulls a knife or gun on you, he expects you to surrender or run. The LAST THING he expects is for you to lunge AT HIM. That is your best course of action in the majority of situations, at least where only one assailant is involved. You run… you expose yourself and are an easy target. Perhaps you get away with your life… depends on what is in his head. Maybe he’s just out to kill someone today? Maybe he’s nuts? You want to put your life into the hands of the mental state of some unknown assailant? If you surrender you not only out your life in his hands, but now you are under his control. If you are in your home and you have family you have just surrendered your family to this person.

These laws are dumb.

If your life is under threat you attack and deal with the consequences later.

If someone breaks in your home… your life is under threat. Period.

In a mugging outside there’s a possibility that offering your wallet is the best course, but that is not always the case. You need to be thinking about your location, surroundings, etc.

All States should have the “Stand Your Ground” standard.

[Dukasaur]

Stand your ground leads to unecessary violence.

You wake up in the middle of the night. Someone is in your house. You reach into your nightstand and pull out your Colt .38. You rush out into the hallway and see a shadowy figure moving toward you. With only a tenth of a second to make a decision, there's no time for any "hark, who goes there?" theatrics. You pull the trigger.

Some possible outcomes:

1. The shadowy figure is an experienced killer. The slug from his gun rips into your aorta before you finish squeezing your trigger. Bam, you're dead.
2. In your groggy state, you forgot the safety was still on. The shadowy figure didn't have a gun, but he's good with his fists. After he beats the shit out of you, he takes your gun and adds it to his pile of loot. You're lucky he didn't shoot you.
3. You blast the shadowy figure straight to hell. Upon investigation, it turns out it was a local wino. He was looking for a place to sleep and you forgot to lock your back door. Just a wino, no big loss to society, but you good do you feel about killing him?
4. The shadowy figure is a real criminal. You've killed him, and it's a good thing. He deserves to die. But you forgot about his two henchmen. You're not Lee van Cleef -- before the first one hits the ground, the others have already unloaded on you. They step over your body and proceed to go rape your wife.

I could go on and on. But the list of bad outcomes is infinite.

Run away and chances are nobody will chase you. Yeah, you'll lose some money. But you'll live.

[saxitoxin]

Stand your ground leads to unecessary violence.

You wake up in the middle of the night. Someone is in your house. You reach into your nightstand and pull out your Colt .38. You rush out into the hallway and see a shadowy figure moving toward you. With only a tenth of a second to make a decision, there's no time for any "hark, who goes there?" theatrics. You pull the trigger.

Some possible outcomes:

1. The shadowy figure is an experienced killer. The slug from his gun rips into your aorta before you finish squeezing your trigger. Bam, you're dead.
2. In your groggy state, you forgot the safety was still on. The shadowy figure didn't have a gun, but he's good with his fists. After he beats the shit out of you, he takes your gun and adds it to his pile of loot. You're lucky he didn't shoot you.
3. You blast the shadowy figure straight to hell. Upon investigation, it turns out it was a local wino. He was looking for a place to sleep and you forgot to lock your back door. Just a wino, no big loss to society, but you good do you feel about killing him?
4. The shadowy figure is a real criminal. You've killed him, and it's a good thing. He deserves to die. But you forgot about his two henchmen. You're not Lee van Cleef -- before the first one hits the ground, the others have already unloaded on you. They step over your body and proceed to go rape your wife.

I could go on and on. But the list of bad outcomes is infinite.

Run away and chances are nobody will chase you. Yeah, you'll lose some money. But you'll live.

I can't speak for all states, but in my state - which is a Stand Your Ground state - in scenario #3 you would definitely be charged with murder. You can't open fire on a mere trespasser who doesn't present any further threat to your safety.

I support SYG as a law but, insofar as actual conduct, I 1000% agree with Duk that the best course of action in event of a burglary is to retreat from your home or - if you can't - barricade yourself inside an interior room and call the police. I've never been burgled but, if I was, that's what I would do, even though I own firearms.

But what if you weren't a swinging single like me and your 12 year-old daughter was in the downstairs bedroom and a couple dudes started raping her. Should you:

(a) politely ask them to use protection,
(b) lock yourself in your room, leaving your daughter to fend for herself for a bit until the police show,
(c) flee, leaving your daughter to fend for herself for a bit until the police show,
(d) engage in a hardy bout of fisticuffs with the highwaymen and, should they win, they earn the privilege to continue the raping,
(e) shoot them?

[saxitoxin]

Whoever is writing these laws is an idiot.

[saxitoxin]

Also, even in cases where you have a justified self-defense shooting, many of the self-defense shooters ultimately are financially ruined from the civil lawsuits that follow. In some cases, gun control groups bankroll these lawsuits and - even if they can't win - they still destroy the shooters through legal fees.

Currently only something like 10 states have civil immunity statutes that protect criminally exonerated self-defense shooters from being held civilly liable.

There's no upside to even a justified self-defense shooting and it's definitely in everyone's interest, even in a SYG state, to retreat even though you might be legally entitled to do otherwise.

[Dukasaur]

In almost all cases, yes. Although there are probably exceptions like your daughter scenario.

[jimboston]

Stand your ground leads to unecessary violence.

You wake up in the middle of the night. Someone is in your house. You reach into your nightstand and pull out your Colt .38. You rush out into the hallway and see a shadowy figure moving toward you. With only a tenth of a second to make a decision, there's no time for any "hark, who goes there?" theatrics. You pull the trigger.

Some possible outcomes:

1. The shadowy figure is an experienced killer. The slug from his gun rips into your aorta before you finish squeezing your trigger. Bam, you're dead.
2. In your groggy state, you forgot the safety was still on. The shadowy figure didn't have a gun, but he's good with his fists. After he beats the shit out of you, he takes your gun and adds it to his pile of loot. You're lucky he didn't shoot you.
3. You blast the shadowy figure straight to hell. Upon investigation, it turns out it was a local wino. He was looking for a place to sleep and you forgot to lock your back door. Just a wino, no big loss to society, but you good do you feel about killing him?
4. The shadowy figure is a real criminal. You've killed him, and it's a good thing. He deserves to die. But you forgot about his two henchmen. You're not Lee van Cleef -- before the first one hits the ground, the others have already unloaded on you. They step over your body and proceed to go rape your wife.

I could go on and on. But the list of bad outcomes is infinite.

Run away and chances are nobody will chase you. Yeah, you'll lose some money. But you'll live.

1) You would be killed either way… regardless of the law. A warning just gives him MORE advantage.

2) Again… if you warn him what happens? He still beats you.

3) Wino dead, NBD. f*ck him, he shouldn’t have been in my house. Just the act of him winding up in my house is a threat to myself and my family. If he’s so drunk he doesn’t know/comprehend he’s committing a violent act by entering a home that’s not his… who’s to say he wouldn’t be so drunk to do something more violent? You say “just a local wino”… I say a threat and a drain on society.

4) Again.. if there are 3 I’d be at a big disadvantage anyway. At least with a ‘Stand Your Ground” I can attack without warning and have a better chance. If I gave a warning… what happens? They tie me up and rape my wife? I’d rather die going down fighting and maybe have a chance.

[jimboston]

Also, even in cases where you have a justified self-defense shooting, many of the self-defense shooters ultimately are financially ruined from the civil lawsuits that follow. In some cases, gun control groups bankroll these lawsuits and - even if they can't win - they still destroy the shooters through legal fees.

Currently only something like 10 states have civil immunity statutes that protect criminally exonerated self-defense shooters from being held civilly liable.

There's no upside to even a justified self-defense shooting and it's definitely in everyone's interest, even in a SYG state, to retreat even though you might be legally entitled to do otherwise.

No.

You defend yourself and deal with the consequences after.

If you are attacked civilly then you get support from the gun lobby.

I have Umbrella Insurance…. hopefully that would help.

[jimboston]

Stand your ground leads to unecessary violence.

You wake up in the middle of the night. Someone is in your house. You reach into your nightstand and pull out your Colt .38. You rush out into the hallway and see a shadowy figure moving toward you. With only a tenth of a second to make a decision, there's no time for any "hark, who goes there?" theatrics. You pull the trigger.

Some possible outcomes:

1. The shadowy figure is an experienced killer. The slug from his gun rips into your aorta before you finish squeezing your trigger. Bam, you're dead.
2. In your groggy state, you forgot the safety was still on. The shadowy figure didn't have a gun, but he's good with his fists. After he beats the shit out of you, he takes your gun and adds it to his pile of loot. You're lucky he didn't shoot you.
3. You blast the shadowy figure straight to hell. Upon investigation, it turns out it was a local wino. He was looking for a place to sleep and you forgot to lock your back door. Just a wino, no big loss to society, but you good do you feel about killing him?
4. The shadowy figure is a real criminal. You've killed him, and it's a good thing. He deserves to die. But you forgot about his two henchmen. You're not Lee van Cleef -- before the first one hits the ground, the others have already unloaded on you. They step over your body and proceed to go rape your wife.

I could go on and on. But the list of bad outcomes is infinite.

Run away and chances are nobody will chase you. Yeah, you'll lose some money. But you'll live.

I can't speak for all states, but in my state - which is a Stand Your Ground state - in scenario #3 you would definitely be charged with murder. You can't open fire on a mere trespasser who doesn't present any further threat to your safety.

Scenario 3.. you shoot the guy. You realize you maybe shot too quickly without first determining the threat level.

If he’s still alive you take whatever action necessary to end his life. Thereby there is only one story being told to police.

You go to your knife block… take the biggest most threatening knife. You wipe the handle. You then hold the blade with a towel and wraps his hand on the blade and get his prints on it.

“Officer… this man broke into my house and when I came downstairs he was holding that knife and began approaching me in a threatening manner. I saw my life flash before my eyes and felt than my life could end. I pulled the trigger on instinct.”

I don’t go to jail.

If I get sued civilly for taking his life by his scumbag family… i counter sue for the emotional trauma caused by his attack. “I can’t and my health is declining”

[bigtoughralf]

I don’t go to jail.

Correct, there are currently no laws against day dreaming about being a vigilante. You also won't go to jail if you rough up The Joker a bit more than necessary when disrupting his latest dastardly plan.

If he’s still alive you take whatever action necessary to end his life

I thought you started this thread to discuss self-defence rights, not your snuff fantasies.

[jimboston]

I’m not going to engage your insults.

If they were funny like Mookie’s maybe; but yours aren’t even creative.

[saxitoxin]

Jim is definitely one of the reasons gun control groups are such a success.

Jim being interviewed:

[saxitoxin]

I have Umbrella Insurance…. hopefully that would help.

Keep hoping!
-->
https://www.policygenius.com/homeowners ... f-defense/