Let's Talk About Self Defense

[dranrab]

Specifically about using deadly force in self-defense.

It is staggering how few gun owners and carriers have read their state's self defense laws. Let me lay down a few bullet points on self defense.

1. Read your state's laws and know their specific language. Seriously, read them now if you have not.

2. Know that the specific language of your state's laws ,was chosen purposefully.

3. The words feel, felt, and feelings don't appear in any state's law that I know of. The word fear appears in very few. Reasonable belief and reasonably believe appear in all of them that I have read. There's an important reason for that.

4. If you ever use deadly force in self defense it is going to suck in countless ways. You really do want to avoid it as much as you can. It can be expensive.

5. When you use deadly force, you need to know that your definition of reasonable no longer matters. Law enforcement and jurors get to decide what is reasonable from that point forward.

6. Your social media postings WILL become known. When your time comes, you'll get to explain to the court how all those comments were just keyboard bravado and not an indication of your true mindset.

Using deadly force is not a casual undertaking.

 

[lemaymiami]

Here's my basic philosophy on deadly force, from a retired cop who actually has used lethal force on the job - all those years ago...

Use of deadly force should only happen - when you have no other choice (and the choices do include retreating, if at all possible...). You can count on not liking anything that comes your way after a deadly force incident as well in my experience - and my shooting was ruled justified in court... It's one of the reasons why, when I retired out of police work 26 years ago - I've never carried a sidearm since....

 

[dranrab]

Here's my basic philosophy on deadly force, from a retired cop who actually has used lethal force on the job - all those years ago...

Use of deadly force should only happen - when you have no other choice (and the choices do include retreating, if at all possible...). You can count on not liking anything that comes your way after a deadly force incident as well in my experience - and my shooting was ruled justified in court... It's one of the reasons why, when I retired out of police work 26 years ago - I've never carried a sidearm since....

Many years ago, when I was still on Active Duty with the Coast Guard, I attended a mental preparation for armed confrontation seminar. That seminar profoundly shaped my thoughts and beliefs. The host was a long standing member of US Customs who had done exhaustive research into deadly force incidents involving cops. I forget the exact number, but close to 50% of all cops who used deadly force were off the job within 3-5 years. It has a substantial emotional impact and is monumentally stressful.

 

[1942bull]

I agree with everything the OP wrote. Yet I think more has to said. You not only have to know the law of the state in which you reside but also of any state you travel in. My son’s family lives in OH. I am in PA. I travel to OH about every 3 months to see them. So I have a good grasp on the OH law. I live w miles from the DE state line, and I am in DE several times a week. I have read it’s law too. But there is a problem in DE because the state allows municipalities to have their own firearm provisions,a do they are not easily found. I keep a bookmark in my web browsers in my computer, tablet, and phone to handgunlaw.us because it excellent summaries of all the state laws. It is not a substitute for reading the law, but it better than not reading the law.

When it comes to reading laws it is easy to misconstrue text. We might interprets it one way, but court case may have resulted in a different interpretation. It is almost impossible to research and read all the case decisions, unless you have access to the tools lawyers have. I have consulted a firearms attorney who practices in PA and DE just in case I need her to explain something or represent me.

My best advice in addition to the OP’s writing is that which we all know. Stay away from trouble on the streets, carry concealed, don’t tell anyone you are armed, never touch the gun unless you or another person are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Good luck out there.

 

[dranrab]

I agree with everything the OP wrote. Yet I think more has to said. You not only have to know the law of the state in which you reside but also of any state you travel in. My son’s family lives in OH. I am in PA. I travel to OH about every 3 months to see them. So I have a good grasp on the OH law. I live w miles from the DE state line, and I am in DE several times a week. I have read it’s law too. But there is a problem in DE because the state allows municipalities to have their own firearm provisions,a do they are not easily found. I keep a bookmark in my web browsers in my computer, tablet, and phone to handgunlaw.us because it excellent summaries of all the state laws. It is not a substitute for reading the law, but it better than not reading the law.

When it comes to reading laws it is easy to misconstrue text. We might interprets it one way, but court case may have resulted in a different interpretation. It is almost impossible to research and read all the case decisions, unless you have access to the tools lawyers have. I have consulted a firearms attorney who practices in PA and DE just in case I need her to explain something or represent me.

My best advice in addition to the OP’s writing is that which we all know. Stay away from trouble on the streets, carry concealed, don’t tell anyone you are armed, never touch the gun unless you or another person are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Good luck out there.

All of that feeds into my closing comment that it's not a casual undertaking.

 

[Rule3]

What specific law or laws are you trying to discuss? What qualifications? Perhaps this does not belong here but rather in the other section
Strategies, Tactics, and Training

 

[Thomasss]

In Wisconsin and with Rittenhouse trial, we have Castle law. If you fear for your live or fear of great bodily harm, one may use what ever is necessary to protect one self, even if that includes deadly force. Rittenhouse testified to that and the prosecutor never refuted his testimony. It hasn't been that long ago, maybe 10 years, that it use to be that one had to retreat from danger and only use an equal defense as in with the initial danger. You would be surprised how many people don't understand that.

 

[dranrab]

What specific law or laws are you trying to discuss? What qualifications? Perhaps this does not belong here but rather in the other section
Strategies, Tactics, and Training

The self-defense laws of the various states. The moderators are free to move it if they see fit.

 

[dranrab]

In Wisconsin If you fear for your live or fear of great bodily harm, one may use what ever is necessary to protect one self, even if that includes deadly force.

Well no, that's not what WI says. WI use the words "reasonably believes." That's part of why I posted this. If a state uses specific language in their law, they do so for a reason. We need to program ourselves to use the language of the law.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Belief is used in the place of such words as fear and felt, because it is a stronger word. Fear and feelings can have subtle connotations of irrationality.

 

[mljdeckard]

Of course I agree with everything the OP said. I was a Utah CCW instructor for ten years, and I tried to impart these distinctions. The definition of "reasonable person" is NOT your and your friends what-iffing stuff. It's the DA who will be charging you, the jury who will be hearing the evidence, and the judge who may or may not have an agenda that matches yours and will be ruling on motions and objections.

Of course I am happy with the Rittenhouse verdict. But as the dust settles now, what I find myself worrying about most is winning the PR battle. A LOT of people are now walking around with a new mix of tainted ideas and definitions and perceptions about self-defense, and I don't know yet if this verdict makes it better or worse. It makes the opposition want to try harder next time. The next guy might not get a judge who wants to view the issues the same way.

Having said that, I have a 17 y/o son. I would NEVER have put him on a street corner with a rifle, especially as I am a national guard soldier, and I got the call-up to go guard my state capitol last summer. In Rittenhouse's case, his mindset, skillset, and toolset worked out. I think most of it was luck. He was more likely to get killed, and I think the verdict was the result of a set of circumstances that can't always be taken for granted.

 

[Bennj]

When I purchased my first handgun less than a decade ago I started visiting various gun forums. Some might say some of my initial posts exhibited the false bravado of a newbie. I very quickly learned of the great responsibility and seriousness of gun ownership. Although I can be rather critical of some of our government officials on all levels, I try to keep up on the myriad laws of my state. I try to plan for different scenarios should someone decide to disturb our peace, the end result being a retreat to a safe space while alerting the police and being armed. While it irks me to no end that someone would think they could just come into my home and take what is not theirs, there is nothing that is worth taking the life of another other than a direct physical threat by that person and no means to retreat. I can't imagine the mental stress that may accompany such an act, and have much respect for those who have been forced to do so.

 

[Spats McGee]

IMHO, some of the legal realities of an SD shooting are as follows:

1. One who carries a deadly weapon for SD has a responsibility to know the law surrounding SD in whatever locality he finds himself. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
2. The laws surrounding CC, OC, and SD vary from state to state and, in some cases, from city to city or county to county.
3. Even if you win, you can lose. IOW, even if one is eventually exonerated and the SD shooting found to be justified, the road from Bang to Cleared can be long, expensive, and exhausting.
4. If you're asking whether you can shoot someone under XYZ circumstances, you're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is whether you have to shoot someone under XYZ circumstances.

 

[dranrab]

IMHO, some of the legal realities of an SD shooting are as follows:

1. One who carries a deadly weapon for SD has a responsibility to know the law surrounding SD in whatever locality he finds himself. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
2. The laws surrounding CC, OC, and SD vary from state to state and, in some cases, from city to city or county to county.
3. Even if you win, you can lose. IOW, even if one is eventually exonerated and the SD shooting found to be justified, the road from Bang to Cleared can be long, expensive, and exhausting.
4. If you're asking whether you can shoot someone under XYZ circumstances, you're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is whether you have to shoot someone under XYZ circumstances.

I liked all of that, especially #3.

 

[lemaymiami]

Well said Spats… if you’re ever involved in a deadly force incident… no matter what the outcome… You won’t like what follows.

 

[old lady new shooter]

In Wisconsin and with Rittenhouse trial, we have Castle law. If you fear for your live or fear of great bodily harm, one may use what ever is necessary to protect one self, even if that includes deadly force. Rittenhouse testified to that and the prosecutor never refuted his testimony. It hasn't been that long ago, maybe 10 years, that it use to be that one had to retreat from danger and only use an equal defense as in with the initial danger. You would be surprised how many people don't understand that.

1. The Rittenhouse case has nothing to do with the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine usually says something like a person in his or her own home is presumed to have a reasonable belief that their / their family's life is in danger if someone forcibly enters the premises.
2. Some states still have a duty to retreat.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It is staggering how few gun owners and carriers have read their state's self defense laws.

It really isn't, no more so than folks who own and/or carry a knife, pepper spray, other weapon, or might ever be involved in any sort of self defense situation. For that matter, most gun owners have not read all of the state and federal firearm laws, either. Most shooters have not read all of the relevant hunting a property law that may be relevant to shooting.

I would add that most have not read all of the vehicles laws or other laws that are very relevant to their everyday lives.

Most people are not legal scholars or lawyers. Even if they 'read' the law, there is a strong likelihood that their actual comprehension of the relevance of particular language will be less than superior and may be downright wrong.

 

[MedWheeler]

Double Naught Spy writes:

(to this: >>It is staggering how few gun owners and carriers have read their state's self defense laws.<<)

It really isn't, no more so than folks who own and/or carry a knife, pepper spray, other weapon, or might ever be involved in any sort of self defense situation. For that matter, most gun owners have not read all of the state and federal firearm laws, either. Most shooters have not read all of the relevant hunting a property law that may be relevant to shooting.

I would add that most have not read all of the vehicles laws or other laws that are very relevant to their everyday lives.

Most people are not legal scholars or lawyers. Even if they 'read' the law, there is a strong likelihood that their actual comprehension of the relevance of particular language will be less than superior and may be downright wrong.

Imagine how many in the population of the UK are likely unaware of the trouble they can be in if they even so much as punch an attacker or intruder, or strike one with an improvised impact weapon. You wouldn't think that there would be any "legal research" needed beforehand.

 

[Kleanbore]

Even if they 'read' the law, there is a strong likelihood that their actual comprehension of the relevance of particular language will be less than superior and may be downright wrong.

Yep. Reading the code may not cut it.

 

[dranrab]

It really isn't, no more so than folks who own and/or carry a knife, pepper spray, other weapon, or might ever be involved in any sort of self defense situation. For that matter, most gun owners have not read all of the state and federal firearm laws, either. Most shooters have not read all of the relevant hunting a property law that may be relevant to shooting.

I would add that most have not read all of the vehicles laws or other laws that are very relevant to their everyday lives.

Most people are not legal scholars or lawyers. Even if they 'read' the law, there is a strong likelihood that their actual comprehension of the relevance of particular language will be less than superior and may be downright wrong.

Are you advocating not reading the SD laws as a best practice?

 

[Ferris]

I think the prudent thing is know the laws, but as a general rule don't use deadly enforce unless needed and there is no other choice. It comes down to the whole judged by 12 carried by 6 thing, if you're sure you're life is endanger than protect it, if it's not then don't pull a weapon.

If you do end up defending yourself shut up and let a lawyer speak for you, and pray the Police/DA doesn't have an agenda . Ultimately the system is stacked against you and the "state" always wants the monopoly on deadly force and violence.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think the prudent thing is know the laws, but as a general rule don't use deadly enforce unless needed and there is no other choice.

The former implies the latter.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Are you advocating not reading the SD laws as a best practice?

What a stupid question, but since I was apparently too vague for you, I will spell it out. It is naive to even remotely believe that people reading all of the relevant self defense laws will be able to comprehend them in their entirety and may actually completely misunderstand them. So to suggest that people need to read the laws and to "know their specific language" when the vast majority of people do not have the legal background to understand said laws in their "specific language" is not really a solution to anything. It may be helpful for some and downright detrimental to others.

As I stated, most people are not legal scholars in the slightest, no matter how many YouTube video they have seen and blogs they have read. I will add that one of the reasons there are so many lawyers to help people is because the laws are so complex and convoluted. Reading the law is not the same thing as being educated in the law. Thinking that you know and understand the law, as a person who is not a lawyer, is about like trying be your own lawyer and giving yourself legal advice on a topic you don't understand.

Bottom line, reading is not the same as comprehending and if you don't properly comprehend, then you will draw the wrong conclusions to what is being said in the law. So reading the law is not enough, plain and simple.

 

[dranrab]

What a stupid question, but since I was apparently too vague for you, I will spell it out. It is naive to even remotely believe that people reading all of the relevant self defense laws will be able to comprehend them in their entirety and may actually completely misunderstand them. So to suggest that people need to read the laws and to "know their specific language" when the vast majority of people do not have the legal background to understand said laws in their "specific language" is not really a solution to anything. It may be helpful for some and downright detrimental to others.

As I stated, most people are not legal scholars in the slightest, no matter how many YouTube video they have seen and blogs they have read. I will add that one of the reasons there are so many lawyers to help people is because the laws are so complex and convoluted. Reading the law is not the same thing as being educated in the law. Thinking that you know and understand the law, as a person who is not a lawyer, is about like trying be your own lawyer and giving yourself legal advice on a topic you don't understand.

Bottom line, reading is not the same as comprehending and if you don't properly comprehend, then you will draw the wrong conclusions to what is being said in the law. So reading the law is not enough, plain and simple.

It wasn't that you were vague at all. It was that you seemed to take on an adversarial tone while dismissing the spirit of my post. This response further confirms my belief that you tend to the adversarial.

I would argue that reading most state laws will allow the reader to understand the basic legal justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense. Reading the law will allow the reader to understand that a standard of reasonableness comes into play. Reading the law will allow the reader to see that the word feel and its various forms aren't written into the law. Reading the law will likely also help the reader understand that there are the potential complexities that you allude to in your post.

It was never my point or my argument that reading the law would allow the reader to walk away with an in depth understanding of the law, it's nuances and the way it plays out during litigation. Only that there is value in reading it and knowing the language of it. If not for an understanding of those laws in principle, upon what would we base our self-defense decisions?

You say reading the law is not enough plain and simple. You said reading the law could lead to misunderstanding. In the spirit of constructive dialogue, what would you advise someone to do about that?

 

[Kleanbore]

I would argue that reading most state laws will allow the reader to understand the basic legal justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense

It can also result in the serious misunderstanding of the law.

We have a thread on the subject in the ST&T Sticky Library.

If not for an understanding of those laws in principle, upon what would we base our self-defense decisions?

Mine are not based on my understanding of law but on the principle of last resort, applied to the display or mention of a weapon or to its use.

I recommend that, Andrew Branca's Law of Self Defense course, and Massad Ayoob's MAG-20 Classroom course.

 

[Elkins45]

One of the best things I ever did was take the required class to get my CCW permit. Not only because it meant I could get a permit but also because I learned the legal parameters for the use of deadly force in Kentucky. There were things I didn’t know, and things I was flat out wrong about. The bulk of the training was on video, which was a bit dull, but that was OK because it meant you were getting the opinion of the Commonwealth and not the opinion of the trainer. I recall a couple of guys leaving after an hour or so and requesting a refund because they didn’t want to be bothered with understanding the rules around using the gun they were wanting to carry.

We went permitless a couple of years ago. I really wish the state would offer those course materials online free for everyone. It might keep a couple of guys out of jail.