Justifying Force

[JessE]

Myths and misconceptions about justifying force

The laws and responsibilities associated with self-defense and the use of force are commonly misunderstood—even among so-called those (martial arts instructors, firearm teachers, even in some cases attorneys) presumed to be experts on the subject.

The oft-heard retort of “I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6” is one of the most foolish notions imaginable. It’s funny right up to the moment you find yourself facing a manslaughter conviction carrying a sentence of 20 years to life or a wrongful death action that could cost you and your family all you’ve worked your whole lives for—or (as is more likely in today’s court system) both at once.

Even if you’re the victim, ignorance of the law affords no excuse. In today’s anti-gun, anti-self-defense culture, responsible citizens must take every precaution to know the law thoroughly—and thus empower themselves to make sound decisions at the moment of truth.
If you think you’ve got a handle on this subject, see how you do with this quick quiz:

Situation: Someone is in your house.
Question: Do you have the right to use deadly force?

If you answered yes to this you’re sorely mistaken. Just because someone is in your house does not necessarily give you the right to use deadly force. The requirements of deadly force usage are very specific. To make that decision intelligently, you must understand the specific criteria under which deadly force is authorized.

There are four (and only four) situations in which deadly force can be justified: Do you know what they are … cold?

Situation: Someone picks up your laptop computer at Starbucks and starts to walk out the door.
Question: Can you stop him physically?

If you answered no, you’re wrong. You can use force, though how much and
what kind are essential to know. Can you gauge your response under pressure?

Situation: A bad-guy takes a swing at you on the street, and you manage to defend yourself.
Question: Can you pin him down and hold him till the authorities arrive?

It might surprise you to know that private citizens have virtually the same arrest powers as law enforcement officers, though with several key differences that can spell the difference between a lawful response and a charge of false arrest. Are you familiar with those differences? If not, you could find yourself in a very unhappy situation.
(By the way, the law makes no distinction between “arrest,” “detainment,” or “restraint”—or, for that matter, any other term you’d care to use. For private citizens, the law views all forms of detainment and restraint as an arrest.

Question: Do you know the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony assault—and could you make that determination under pressure?

Question: In a situation where force is justified, how much force can you lawfully use and under what circumstances?
Again, wrong answers to questions like these could cost you your job, your savings and possibly many years of your life.
Believe it or not, the law is there to protect you if you ever have to use force in defense of yourself or another. But it’s incumbent on you to know the law before such a situation ever arises.

Tragically, many martial arts, self-defense and firearms trainers completely omit the issues of liability and justification of force from their teaching. Typically it’s because they don’t understand it themselves.
If you practice martial arts, self-defense or if you own a firearm, then you recognize that self-defense may be a necessity at some point in your life—no matter how much you try to avoid it.

But as the saying goes, with power comes responsibility. Just having the skills to defend yourself isn’t enough. No matter who teaches you, and no matter what is taught, ultimately you’re the one who bears the responsibility for your actions. Don’t you owe it to yourself to clearly understand when you can use force, and how much?

I know some of you think you have a handle on this topic, and others just don’t think it’s that important, but let me ask you one last question:

Are you willing to bet your life on it?

Because if you ever have to justify your actions, trust me: That’s exactly what you’ll be doing.

Want to know more about the laws and responsibilities of self-defense? Attend our upcoming seminar …

“Justifying force: Your rights and responsibilities as a prepared citizen”
Presented by INPAX Personal Security Training & Consulting Group
Visit www.LiveWithConfidence.com to download event flyer & course schedule

[MischaBurns]

IMHO, Instead of just telling us "HEY! YOU'RE WRONG!", it would be MUCH more helpful if you actually told us the proper answers!

you have a point, however.

[LittleRedToyota]

i know two people who train regularly with INPAX and rave about the guy. they have showed me some of what he teaches, and it does seem very effective.

if i could afford the price tag, i would train with the guy as they do.

but, just to nitpick (and maybe start a conversation):

Situation: Someone is in your house.
Question: Do you have the right to use deadly force?

If you answered yes to this you’re sorely mistaken.

yes may actually be the correct answer depending on what the person is doing.

There are four (and only four) situations in which deadly force can be justified: Do you know what they are … cold?

there are more than four situations where deadly force can be legally justified in PA. here is a partial list (these all assume either you or the innocent third-party cannot escape with complete safety and/or you are in your home or fixed place of business and the person you are shooting does not also live/work there):

1. you are reasonably in fear of being killed
2. you are reasonably in fear of being kidnapped
3. you are reasonably in fear of seriously bodily injury
4. you are reasonably in fear of being sexually assaulted
5. you are reasonably in fear of an innocent third-party being killed
6. you are reasonably in fear of an innocent third-party being kidnapped
7. you are reasonably in fear of an innocent third-party suffering seriously bodily injury
8. you are reasonably in fear of an innocent third-party being sexually assaulted

i imagine the above are the 4 situations being referenced (from title 18 section 505) except there are really 8 as each applies to both the situation of defending yourself and to the situation of defending others.

further, there are more justifications in title 18 section 507:

9. someone has unlawfully entered your home and you reasonably believe nothing less than deadly force will terminate the entry
10. the person is trying to steal your home (kind of a funny concept for most homes)
11. someone is in your home and you reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to prevent that person from committing a felony (it is possible, of course, that case law has distorted the meaning of the word "felony" and restricted this justification only to certain felonies...i dunno...that would not be unlike the courts--even though it is BS as the statute itself is quite clear).

i would be curious to know what 4 they picked (or did they somehow combine some of them to distill them all down into 4 distinct scenarios?).

[Shawn.L]

i know two people who train regularly with INPAX and rave about the guy. they have showed me some of what he teaches, and it does seem very effective.

if i could afford the price tag, i would train with the guy as they do.

I agree, maybe 80%

speaking of price.
this seminar is also in an ad window on the site. And by clicking on that, or looking around the INPAX site I am left still not knowing anything about this.

whats the cost?
where is it held ?
who is giving it exactly?

As much as I may respect INPAX and think it is likely that Sam is selling a good product I am hesitant to purchase legal advise from a SD trainer, just as I dont ask my dentist to do my taxes.

[INPAX]

Hi Everyone,

Thank You all very much for taking the time to read and post a reply to this forum! Please bear with me as I attempt to "learn the ropes" of forum usage...

To attempt to clarify some of the questions/concerns posed:

As much as I may respect INPAX and think it is likely that Sam is selling a good product I am hesitant to purchase legal advise from a SD trainer, just as I dont ask my dentist to do my taxes.

Yes I am a "SD" trainer, but NO I am not the Instructor of this course as I don't hold myself out to be an expert on Justification of Use of Force. The Trainer is Lou Gentile, one of the foremost experts on the subject in the Commonwealth of PA. INPAX prides itself providing access to the very best subject matter experts on a range of topics for our clients. Use of Force is but one of those.

whats the cost?
where is it held ?
who is giving it exactly?

Cost is $45 advanced registration, $75 at the door
Held @ Sheraton Station Square, Thursday Feb 25th, 6:30-8:30PM

Here is a link to the even flyer with full details and bio for Lou Gentile for anyone interested. Sorry for the difficulty finding it! http://www.inpax.net/myoffice/MyProf...1Tq62aQQ%3d%3d

This event is put together to help my fellow Firearm Owners have an opportunity to better understand Use of Force Justification Law. Knowledge is power and my goal is to help empower all of us!

Very best to you all,and I hope to talk again very soon!

Live With Confidence!
- Sam Rosenberg

[Shawn.L]

Sam,

Thanks for answering those questions. $45 is a great deal.

[INPAX]

You bet - I hope you can make it!

[BigMikeM31]

$45 definitely seems like a really great price for something like this. I'm just wondering about the time frame. Two hours seems like a very short period of time to cover the material pertinent to an issue this complex. Is there a question and answer period or is it simply a lecture? If you could provide some more details on the actual course format, it would be greatly appreciated.

[INPAX]

2-hours is not a lot of time for a subject that can take a career to fully grasp, although it is enough to give you a working, user-friendly, base of knowledge. The format is lecture with Q/A at the end. just remember, this could be the most valuable 2-hrs of training time you spend...