Man arrested for following Vice President Biden's advice on home invader

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SabbathWolf: You guys are so off base in regards to the laws "here," that it isn't even funny.

That unsupported assertion means nothing.

How they are other places.....I have no idea and don't really care.

Unless we never leave our own jurisdiction, we need to know.

It is widely understood that Texas is alone in allowing the use of deadly force to defend moveable, tangible property (under some circumstances only). You need to understand that too.

Use of Force "includes" the use of a weapon and deadly force if needed.

...deadly force is justified if needed to defend against death or serious harm.

Right from the code that you quoted.

Deadly Force alone however, does not include making threats.

You seem to have that backwards. Threats do not constitute deadly force.

Yet Deadly Force sites Use of Force as it's foundation.
They both include the actual application of using a weapon.
It's the same exact thing minus making threats first.

I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Either way, I'm tired of arguing with people who just don't get it and never will.

We cannot tell whether you are uneducable or just being argumentative for the fun of it. Neither is helpful to the other members or to our cause.

I think I'll go mow the grass.

Okay. Come Monday, why don't you visit an attorney and get some qualified legal advice.

Until then I suggest that you cease spouting this line of unhelpful and irresponsible advice here.

 

[SabbathWolf]

Holy cow dude. I can't believe this is boggling you so much.

Use of Force allows the use of a weapon per 1-C.
The use of a weapon is also Deadly Force at the same time.
The description of Deadly Force is also 1-C.
Deadly Force is still authorized under Use of Force once again per 1-C.
Use of Force is authorized to protect property here.
Use of Force allows the use of a weapon if needed....per 1-C.
Threats do not constitute Deadly Force.

Maybe I should have started you off with something simpler like "See Spot run" or something?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...You guys are so off base in regards to the laws "here,"...

Got a news flash for you: the language of the Kansas statutes you quoted isn't all that much different from the language of comparable statutes in a lot of other States. And "force" does not include "deadly force" anywhere.

...The use of Deadly Force is already described under Use of Force and included as part of it.
Use of Force "includes" the use of a weapon and deadly force if needed....

That is, of course, preposterous.

So let's analyze the statutes.

• So first let's look at the applicable definition as set out in 21-5221. Note that these are merely definitions. The standards for justification are set out elsewhere.
  
  
  1. 21-5221 reads as follows:

     21-5221. Use of force; definitions.
     
     (a) As used in article 32 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, prior to their repeal, K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5202 through 21-5208, 21-5210 through 21-5212, and 21-5220 through 21-5231, and K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-3212a, 21-3220 and 21-3221, and amendments thereto:
     
     

     (1) "Use of force" means any or all of the following directed at or upon another person or thing: (A) Words or actions that reasonably convey the threat of force, including threats to cause death or great bodily harm to a person; (B) the presentation or display of the means of force; or (C) the application of physical force, including by a weapon or through the actions of another.
     
     (2) "Use of deadly force" means the application of any physical force described in paragraph (1) which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to a person. Any threat to cause death or great bodily harm, including, but not limited to, by the display or production of a weapon, shall not constitute use of deadly force, so long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that the actor will, if necessary, use deadly force in defense of such actor or another or to affect a lawful arrest.​

     
     (b) An actor who threatens deadly force as described in subsection (a)(1) shall be subject to the determination in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 21-3211, prior to its repeal, or subsection (a) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5222, and amendments thereto, and not to the determination in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 21-3211, prior to its repeal, or subsection (b) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5222, and amendments thereto.

     
     
  2. 21-5221(a)(1) defines the use of force (not deadly force) in the disjunctive in three ways
     
     
     • As a threat of force -- words or actions conveying a threat to use force, including a threat to use deadly force; or
       
       
     • As a threat of force -- made by presentation or display of a means of applying force; or
       
       
     • Actual application of physical force.
     
     
  3. 21-5221(a)(2) defines the use of deadly force. Since the use of deadly force is separately defined, it is intended by the Legislature to be distinguished from the mere use of force. The use of deadly force is distinguishable from physical force defined in (a)(1) by being physical force:

     ...which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to a person....

     Paragraph (a)(2) further provides that a threat of deadly force is not the use of deadly force
     
     

     • ...so long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that the actor will, if necessary, use deadly force in defense of such actor or another...

       
       
     • But thus actual application of physical force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, as contrasted with a mere threat, is the use of deadly force and must be justified according to the standard applicable to the use of deadly force.
     
     
  4. The different standards for justification for a threat of deadly force, in contrast to a use of deadly force, is explicitly set out in 21-5221(b)
  
  
• Under Kansas statutes the standards for justifying a use of force are different from the standards for justifying a use of deadly force.
  
  
  1. 21-5222(a) and (b) set out the standards for justifying the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person as follows (emphasis added):

     ...(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
     
     (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.....

     
     Thus physical force "...likely to cause death or great bodily harm..." is justified only to defend against a level of unlawful force which is reasonably believed to be of a nature likely to cause imminent death or grave bodily harm.
     
     
  2. 21-5223(a) and (b) set out the standards for justifying the use of force or deadly force in defense of one's dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle as follows (emphasis added):

     ...(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle.
     
     (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another....

     
     Again, the standard for the justification of the use of mere physical force (which under 21-5221 include the threat, but not the application of deadly force) is different from, and less than, the standard for the use of deadly force. The use of deadly force (as contrasted with the mere threat of deadly force) may be justified only when reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
     
     
  3. 21-5225 sets out the standard justifying the use of force (other than deadly force) in defense of property other than one's dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle as follows (emphasis added):

     ...A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle is justified in the use of force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with such property. Only such use of force as a reasonable person would deem necessary to prevent or terminate the interference may intentionally be used...

     
     Note that in order for the use of force in defense of property (other than one's dwelling, etc.) to be justifiable, one must be in possession of the property. Also the amount of force that may be justified is limited.
  
  
• The duty to retreat under Kansas law.
  
  
  1. In post 50 SabbathWolf wrote:

     ...Kansas has no duty to retreat even when defending property...

     
     
  2. That doesn't appear to be completely accurate. Kansas statutes specify only certain specific circumstances under which one would have no legal duty to retreat.
     
     
     • 21-5222, 21-5223, 21-5230 each explicitly provide that one has no duty to retreat when defending his person or another person (21-5221); when defending his dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle (21-5223); or when defending himself against a personal attack while in a place he has a right to be. But 21-5225 setting out the standard for justifying the use of force to defend property other than one's dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle does not similarly state that one has no duty to retreat. The applicable language from those statutes is set out below:
       
       
       • 21-5222

         ...(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.

         
         
       • 21-5223:

         ...(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person's dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle.

         
         
       • 21-5230:

         A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand such person's ground and use any force which such person would be justified in using under article 32 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, prior to their repeal, or K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5202 through 21-5208, 21-5210 through 21-5212, and 21-5220 through 21-5231, and amendments thereto.

         
         
       • 21-5225 was quoted in its entirety above (at II, 3).

 

[SabbathWolf]

See post 77 and save your breath Frank. I'm done here.
Nice try though....

 

[Sam1911]

Wow, thanks Frank! Glad we got it cleared up!

Maybe we should make this a "Sticky" just for the Kansas folks!

 

[Frank Ettin]

See post 77 and save your breath Frank. I'm done here....

Well post 77 is pretty much nonsense and reflects a number of inconsistencies compared with your prior posts.

In any case, my outline of Kansas use-of-force statutes was not done for you. It was done for anyone who wants good information. So I've provided a analysis of those Kansas statutes by someone professionally qualified for the task.

Of course, this would only be a start. A lot will depend on how the statutes are then actually applied by the courts of Kansas. Since these are new statutes replacing prior law, it will take a while to build a body of applicable case law.

 

[Sam1911]

It looks like the basic confusion here is that "Deadly Force" is a subset of "Force." It is clearly though, a special case within that larger category and only an excused/justified response in extremely specific circumstances.

So when the law says, here is a situation that would justify the use of "Force" it, de facto, is excluding DEADLY force. Where deadly force would be justified, it will say specifically that deadly force is justified.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It looks like the basic confusion here is that "Deadly Force" is a subset of "Force." It is clearly though, a special case within that larger category and only an excused/justified response in extremely specific circumstances....

Sam, that's correct and consistent with use of force law generally. As a general proposition one may use force in self defense only to the extent proportionate to the threat. So lethal force may be justified only when the threat reasonably carries the likelihood of the imminent death or grave bodily injury of an innocent.

 

[CZguy]

Sam, that's correct and consistent with use of force law generally. As a general proposition one may use force in self defense only to the extent proportionate to the threat. So lethal force may be justified only when the threat reasonably carries the likelihood of the imminent death or grave bodily injury of an innocent.

Which was my understanding in the beginning. I really do hope that this clarifies the use of deadly force for everyone.

Post #78 would be a good definitive sticky on the subject.

 

[Texan Scott]

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"

Is anything you own worth killing for? I KNOW you have a RIGHT to keep your property. Yes, it's WRONG of people to steal your things. NO, they shouldn't be allowed to "just get away with it". You would have EVERY RIGHT to be angry, offended, righteously indignant, morally outraged if someone took your stuff, insulted you, dared you to do something about it...

BUT WOULD YOU KILL FOR IT?

To keep your THINGS, or because you mistake a matter of PRIDE for one of honor...

Would you take a human life? Think carefully ... even if the law said you could, are you that kind of man? Would you want to be?

 

[kwguy]

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"

Is anything you own worth killing for?

Pretty good. I really don't think some folks have thought it all the way through.

 

[kyletx1911]

My "Warning Shot" consists of the 'Snick!' of the fire control group being set to "operate".

This

 

[Al Thompson]

I'm going to call this one asked and answered.