Posted by grubbylabs: I doubt even the state attorney general let a lone a local prosecuter would be able to give any advise. I know ours won't. Their standard answer is to seek legal council from an attorney.
Right. The attorney general is an advocate for the state. Prosecutors are not apt to offer opinions on hypothetical situations, and they would not be binding anyway.
I think it is of utmost importance for any one who carries to find out what the laws are in the state or states they carry.
So do I. But that's not a simple, straight-forward undertaking. Without some basic understanding of legal principles; without some knowledge of relevant case law (appellate decisions); and without familiarity with some of the jury instructions that may govern use-of-force cases, a layman's reading of individual statures taken our of context is apt to be incorrect.
The best approach is to avoid the very dangerous pitfalls inherent in an interpretation such as "in this state I am justified in shooting someone if...."
The three key words in the common law and in all state laws are
necessity,
necessity, and
necessity. If the actor does not have a basis for a reasonable belief that the use of force, any force, is not
immediately necessary, it would not be lawful. And if he or she cannot provide at least some evidence supporting that belief, he or she will not be able to mount a successful defense of justification.
There are some differences among states; they fall mostly into the following areas:
- Where, and under shat circumstances, a "castle law" might provide a resident with a presumption that the fact of an unlawful entry into an occupied whatever-it-is would lead to a reaonable belief that deadly force might be justified
- Under what circumstances the drawing, pointing, exhibition, or defensive display of a weapon, normally a criminal act, might be lawfully justified
- Whether or not retreat is required if retreat is safely possible (note that the absence of any reference to that subject in the code is not necessarily an indication)
- The kinds of felonies that may be lawfully prevented by the use of force by a citizen who is not a sworn officer
- The defense of property
- The termination of trespass
And of course there are the differences in weapons laws--concealed or open carry, permit requirements, disclosure, and so forth.
Posted by Sam1911: But there are basic principles about the lawful use of deadly force that are universal throughout the US which inform what you should and shouldn't do in a potential lethal-force encounter. It isn't as though the laws in one state are so vastly different that you can't make any informed judgments.
Very true indeed.
(For example, there is no part of the US in which it is prima facie lawful to shoot someone for simply getting out of a car.)
Bingo!
