Discussion of the Subject of Posting Statutory Language

Status
Not open for further replies.
My view as an OLDER man with 26 years as an LEO and a good deal of court time is = IF at all possible,do not use force .

Especially deadly physical force,as unlike the TV & movies,the aftermath and the COST in time,money,jobs,relationships is a great deal more than you can imagine.

Having seen the actual cost,I can say that a fight avoided is VERY painful to your ego [ yes,mine too ] but OH SO COSTLY to the rest of your life.

So following the "letter of the law" is seemingly possible [ just read what is in black & white ], the actual fact is far more complicated.

Ignore at your own peril,and that of your family,friends,job,house,car,prison time.
 
In another thread Kleanbore recommended taking Andrew Branca's Law of Self Defence Course. I just finished the DVD version, and note that Branca points out repeatedly that black letter law is only a small part of what makes up the background to both arrest and more importantly trial. To understand what is really going on you must know the related appeals court rulings about use of that law in actual cases, as well as standard or common instructions given to jurors by the judge in each case. Finally, the language itself is important, and you must take care in using simple definitions you think you know. For instance, I thought for many years that assault involved physical contact, such as touching or striking. OOPS! AS Branca explained in the course, simply display of a weapon, or hostile movement such as a fist, is assault. Once contact happens, that adds battery to the charge.
Live and learn. (And keep learning.)
 
One of the many reasons working LE usually get legal updates is to learn of changes in not only statutory law, but any new case law affecting how existing statutes are to be interpreted, applied and enforced. Trying to use Common Sense and presuming anyone can read "simple statutes" and understand them is a dangerous direction to take.

Mistake of law can get someone in more trouble, faster, than mistake of fact.
 
One example we have seen in posts here relates to seemingly inconsistent provisions among laws within a state.

Im every state, the state constitution is the supreme law in the jurisdiction. Many sates have come kind of constitutional provision protection the right to keep and bear arms.

Some of them specifically mention the right to protect property.

One might assume that such wording means that it is lawful to employ weapons to protect personal property, and from time to time, someone tries to so contend.

However, in all states except one, and in all US territories, the threat or use or deafly force to protect personal property is unlawful. In the one exception, the conditions in which it may be lawfully done are quite limited.

Relying on the wording in a state constitution in isolation would be a serious mistake in this example.
 
As somewhat of an illustration:

This past year, we saw a lot of perceveration in the "news" media (notice the quotes) about how Texas had just passed a law making it legal to carry in Churches when in fact they did no such thing; it's been legal for a long time.

One of the compromises that had to be made to get the CHL law passed in the first place was to have certain places statutorily off limits. Churches and banks were among them.

When, inevitably, it turned out that law abiding citizens who had passed background checks and taken classes didn't suddenly become crazed killers by virtue of having certain inanimate objects ready to hand, the Legislature amended the law so that these places had to post the "big ugly sign." This amendment was put down near the end of the section so that one had to read all the way to the end to find out that one could in fact legally carry in Churches and banks.

All they did last year was remove the original language referencing such formerly prohibited places.
 
Another:
  • In my state, you cannot be sued for a self defense shooting
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top