Self Defense or Defense of Others

[reverserboy]

2. the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no

So one has to give their wallet to the scumbag that is robbing them or risk being charged.......how nice.

We all need to work on getting this changed.

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by reverserboy

So one has to give their wallet to the scumbag that is robbing them or risk being charged.......how nice.

We all need to work on getting this changed.

IF you know that surrendering your wallet will end the matter, that is correct. The values behind that statute hold that human life is more important than a wallet; even the life of a "scumbag." I, for one, would not work to change that.

The pertinent question would be whether handing over one's wallet would, in fact, remove the threat to one's life. Just because a gunman says, "your money or your life" does not mean he actually intends to let you go intact if you give him your wallet. We are not mind readers, and we are entitled to consider the source.

Then there a couple of million other possible considerations.

For example, if he says "get in the car," he is also kidnapping you. That would represent very clear justification (absent some other, powerful countervailing circumstance). I cannot imagine you would ever be expected to trust a gunman to get you in the car, take your wallet, and then let you go unharmed.

People want a law that says: "It is o.k. to kill someone if ...". There is no such law, at least not in this Country.

[theshadow]

Originally Posted by PeteG

IF you know that surrendering your wallet will end the matter, that is correct. The values behind that statute hold that human life is more important than a wallet; even the life of a "scumbag." I, for one, would not work to change that.

OK, I figure I'm gonna have my words twisted on this, so, up front, I agree the last resort is the taking of any life. The thing I disagree with here is the things in my wallet are "things" unlike many I still carry cash in my wallet. I work for that money, ergo I am trading time, a part of my life, for compensation. I trade that money for other material goods. If someone takes that money or the material goods that I've traded for, they are essentially taking a part of my life, since I can never regain that time, or part of my life. So are you saying it's acceptable to surrender only part of my life?

BTW I do agree with the rest of your arguement.

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by tec

I practice a variety of styles of martial arts. My understanding of the law in terms of self defense is this: One can use equal or less force to thwart an attack. My master grew up in a rough part of Philadelphia and he's had to defend himself many times. He always told us, in order to stay out of trouble with the law, to use enough force to ensure the attacker is 'down' and unable to continue the assault; but you cannot subject the attacker to bodily harm you would have not received during the attack (ie. if you are punched you cannot stab the attacker). I do apologize if this has already been mentioned.

I would say "yes" and "no." It's not clear whether your teacher was referring to "reasonable force" or "deadly force." They are legally different concepts. One may use "reasonable force" in a much wider range of circumstances than one may use deadly force.

If someone insists upon slapping your face, you can respond with force, but not deadly force. The force one uses to protect himself from being slapped must be proportional to the attack and what might be necessary to stop the attack. It would be difficult, for example, to justify breaking someone's knees to avoid a slap to one's face.

But once we get to the point where a body fears serious bodily injury or death, the kind and amount of force one may use is "whatever it takes," to be applied right up to the moment a jury decides any reasonable person would know the threat is ended.

Therefore, the part about using enough force to ensure the attacker is "down" (or otherwise stops doing what it was doing that presented the threat) is, to my understanding, completely correct. The part about not doing more damage than one might have expected to suffer had the attack continued unchallenged is not necessarily correct.

If I reasonably believe someone is about to direct sufficient force to my head that my skill might be split, and assuming I did not provoke the incident, and there is no way to avoid that unhappy result but to use deadly force, I am not required by law to make fine distinctions about the amount of injury I might have recieved. Rather, I can use whatever force is reasonably necessary to stop him from splitting my skull. If I have a bazooka, then bazooka it is. If he winds up with something worse than a split skull, it's unfortunate, but justifiable.

There is never going to be a "bright line" rule.

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by theshadow

OK, I figure I'm gonna have my words twisted on this, so, up front, I agree the last resort is the taking of any life. The thing I disagree with here is the things in my wallet are "things" unlike many I still carry cash in my wallet. I work for that money, ergo I am trading time, a part of my life, for compensation. I trade that money for other material goods. If someone takes that money or the material goods that I've traded for, they are essentially taking a part of my life, since I can never regain that time, or part of my life. So are you saying it's acceptable to surrender only part of my life?

BTW I do agree with the rest of your arguement.

Actually, I am not saying anything, other than the law would not recognize money as "part of your life" in the sense that taking money could represent a "risk of serious bodily injury or death."

I also suggest you consider how much money you will be forced to part with in the event you shoot somebody who did not, or apparently did not, represent a threat to your physical well being.

Armed robbery raises a pretty strong presumption the victim was in mortal danger. But that presumption flows from the "armed" (the threat to use a weapon to hurt the victim), not from the "robbery" (the loss of the money).

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by colagrrl

Hey Tony! I'm all about a good book, so thanks for recommending Col. Cooper's "Principles of Personal Defense"! I checked the Gunsite on-line store for it and am a little shocked that they don't offer it for sale there.

I did however find it at Paladin Press, but before I place my order with them, is there any chance there are other books that might be of interest and/or should be required reading? It's not an expensive book, so I just thought I'd ask so I can spend more on books to save more on shipping. Just from poking around on the site, it appears as though they have a wide variety of books to choose from. I'll read just about anything, so even if it's not a personal defense related book, that's ok

Jenn

I'd recommend "The Modern Technique of the Pistol" by Greg Morrison. "Hit or Myth" and "Tactical Reality", both by Louis Awerbuck.

Also, try to find "Some of the Answer, Handgun" by Jim Crews. Jim doesn't print them anymore but I believe there is a website that bought his remaining stock. It is the best reference work for the handgun on the market that will help you to recall and refresh what you learned in class. If I can find the URL I'll PM you but a google search should get some hits.

[rwilson452]

Ok, Opine on this:
Some ner-do-well walks up to me and demands my wallet. I tell him to put it where the sun don't shine. He reaches for his waist band. he is about 5 ft away. He is around 20 I'm 63 he is well muscled and slightly smaller and lighter than me.

What are my options.

[reverserboy]

IF you know that surrendering your wallet will end the matter, that is correct. The values behind that statute hold that human life is more important than a wallet; even the life of a "scumbag." I, for one, would not work to change that.

Sorry Pete....I gotta disagree. The law should never require a crime victim to hand over what is rightfully his / her property to a criminal. If this were put to stare wide referendum I doubt it would pass.

It's my view that when a person commits ot attemts certain acts they should forfit their claim to safety. Sometimes it seems like elected officials want to make crime a safe occupation.

These BS requirements just give an anti gun.....anti self defense DA another legal tool to use against the defender.

[TaePo]

2. the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no ...

You guys are missing an important point. The bolded section regards giving up an item that someone else makes a claim of right to. In other words, disputes involving property must go to court, not end in gun fights. A robber has no legal claim of right to your property. You do not have to give it up freely, at least legally. It might behoove you to if he has the drop on you, however.

[theshadow]

Originally Posted by TaePo

2. the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no ...

You guys are missing an important point. The bolded section regards giving up an item that someone else makes a claim of right to. In other words, disputes involving property must go to court, not end in gun fights. A robber has no legal claim of right to your property. You do not have to give it up freely, at least legally. It might behoove you to if he has the drop on you, however.

Freely admit, I missed that part, and it makes a LOT more sense now. Thanks for that