Quote:
Originally Posted by ursavus.elemensis
That's one way to look at it, (i.e., "It is what a reasonable person in your position would believe, based on what is known to you at the time")
Another way to look at it is that the UFA states in Title 18, §505, subsection (b), paragraph (3) Use of Force in Self-Protection, "Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action."
Granted, that particular paragraph applies to the section on Use of Force in Self-Protection, and is not repeated in the section dealing with Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons. But in the section that pertains to that topic, and pertains directly to the topic of this thread, Title 18, §506. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons, subsection (a), paragraph (2) says, "under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be".
Neither section 505 or 506 refer at all to any kind of "reasonable person" standard. In fact, both sections 505 and 506 explicitly give the person using the protective force the right to determine at the time of the use of force if the force is needed.
Rule, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I respect the fact that you are a lawyer and I am not, but in reading the text of the UFA, I've come to a different conclusion about this than you have. Again, I will point out that reading, re-reading, and then re-reading the UFA again and again is necessary for anyone who carries a gun.
|
I can see where you would come to that result -- and part of the reason I got so grumbly about your prior post is that you're suggesting the UFA to the exclusion of all other law.
Part of the reason that the internet is dangerous is that it provides a little information to a lot of people -- most of whom have no expertise in the area. This allows incredible misunderstandings to propagate very, very fast.
Let me start with this: The portion of the law you are citing, sections 505 and 506 are not part of the UFA. The UFA is comprised of section 6100 et seq. of title 18. You're citing section 500 et seq, which are the general principles of justification under title 18 -- justification is a general principle, not simply limited to the UFA. Deadly force and the UFA are completely different sections.
Why do you make that mistake? Because the page you viewed had all the "relevant statutes" put in one place under the heading of the UFA. Why didn't you know any better -- because you haven't been trained how to read a statute. The numbers are there for a reason, but if you haven't been told the reason, you don't even think to ask the question. It's not any fault of your own, it's simply not knowing what you don't know. And that gets you put in jail.
Also, that's not even the real problem. The real problem is that law in this country, while based in part on statute, is more properly framed as common or case law based. A statute can look like it says one thing to a layman, but it will almost certainly mean something completely different to a lawyer or a judge. Thus, you can have a statute that says "Conduct X is legal under the following circumstances." And controlling case law that says "Conduct X is legal under the following circumstances --
and here are how we interpret those circumstances based on other case law and what we though the legislators meant." That's a huge and incredibly significant difference. If you don't know the common law, you don't know the law. Messed up, isn't it?
Your point is an excellent example.
The UFA, on its face, does indeed say exactly what you say that it says: "under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be."
But this clause doesn't mean what you're saying that it means. The above clause means that when considering the conduct of an actor under this portion of the statute, the fact finder must consider what is or is not known to the actor at the time. Let me show you an couple examples:
1 - An actor (you) is confronted with a man dressed in blaze orange during hunting season, and holding a shotgun vaguely pointed at you in your back yard. He looks
exactly like a well-known murderer, who is famous for sneaking into the back yards of people dressed in hunting clothes, getting them off guard, and then murdering the whole family. You immediately draw your gun and blow him away.
It turns out, unbeknownst to you, that it wasn't the murderer -- it was his twin brother -- a priest in the neighboring township, who was famed for his pacifist ways and penchant for hunting.
Is your conduct legal?
Yes, you believed that the man you were shooting was another, very dangerous man.
Slight change in facts 2 -
You know the murderer has a twin brother who is a pacifist priest who likes to hunt and lives in the next township. You think he's the murderer and you shoot him anyway.
Is your conduct legal?
Probably not. Why? Because the court will likely find that a "reasonable man" in your position would have considered the possibility that you were shooting the wrong guy.
"BUT WAIT", you say, as you jump up in court "There's no "reasonable man" or "reasonable person" standard in the UFA -- I REALLY BELIEVED THAT HE WAS HIS BROTHER!"
The judge will glare at you, your lawyer will blush, cringe and push you back into your seat. And you'll go to jail -- because regardless of what the statute says, nobody gives a shit what you believed for real. All that matters is what a reasonable actor in your position, knowing what you knew, would have done.
Why? Because the "reasonable man" standard is universal and part of our common law. You will almost never find "reasonable man" in any statute because it is common law. It exists in every aspect of the law. You cannot separate the doctine from interpretation of any statute. The question is NEVER "what did so and so believe" regardless of what the statute says. The question is ALWAYS "what did so and so believe, and was that a belief that a reasonable man in his position would have had." This is one of the first things you learn about our common law system during the first year of law school. It's almost a running joke for a professor to start out a first year class with a question about "what does this statute mean" (when he knows full well that courts have decided that it means exactly what it doesn't appear to say) and then tear up the student for assuming that the statute means what it says without checking case law.
So, why have I typed all the above rambling crap?
Because knowing the UFA (or the rest of title 18) is meaningless unless you also know the applicable case law and the unspoken common law. Unless you have access to Lexis, Westlaw, or know how to use the books in a law library (which you don't, I assure you) you're going to get the right answer.
Telling someone to "go read the UFA" and you'll be fine is like saying that a cancer patient will be just fine if he reads a medical textbook and gets someone to prescribe the pills for him. The facts are there, but unless you know how to read them, what they mean, and what isn't being said, they're useless to you.
If the law were really as simple as reading a statute, do you think there would be so many lawyers?
Best,
Rule.