We have among our forum rules the following very strong advice:
"...trying to interpret a particular law in isolation by using lay dictionary definitions can lead to erroneous conclusions. Case law—decisions rendered by high courts in the interpretation of the laws—and relationships among other pertinent laws and constitutional principles can have as much to do with the real meaning of the law as the words in a single statute.
"For this reason, we strongly discourage the rote cutting and pasting into posts of state legal codes to support one’s position in a discussion here, and we advise against the reliance on same to justify the lawfulness of a particular course of action.
"Such reliance is particularly dangerous when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force."
In a recent post, our member boom boom explained it this way:
"One of the problems with only knowing the black letter law of the statute is that the courts may have interpreted that statute in a way that is not obvious through cases applying the statute to specific case facts. Then there is as Jeff White says, the politics and personnel enforcing the law in the area of the incident. And at last, civil liability also lurks out there as an additional danger.
"The statutes themselves are often a mish mash of laws, sometimes with apparent contradictions, that have been passed over a century or so. So courts do not normally read a statute in isolation from other statutes that apply to the general situation but try the reconcile any ambiguities and contradictions that occur over time through interpretations of the laws in specific cases.
"If they are available in your state, pattern jury instructions regarding crimes etc. are often a valuable resource in determining how laws are to be applied by a jury. Juries do not get caselaw precedent to take back into the jury room but instead are instructed by the judge as to what the laws of the state are to apply to the facts in the case before them. In some states, judicial officials have created std. jury instructions on specific areas of the law, in other states, the judge, prosecutor, and defense come up with these ad hoc during the trial process."
There may be those who believe that this is a relatively new phenomenon.
It's far from it.
When most of our states came into being, they adopted the Common Law that existed at the time of their formation--the English Common Law in most states and territories, and the Napoleonic Code in one. The Common Law was defined in rulings passed down by high court judges. Legislative statutes as we know them began to come about later.
To cite one example, there was a case some centuries ago in the Commonwealth of Virginia in which a landowner was charged with unlawful conduct when he threatened a trespasser with a firearm. He was convicted, and the conviction was upheld by Virginia's highest court. There were no relevant legislative statutes at the time, and there may not be today.
Similarly, while the much-discussed duty to retreat came to us from the earliest of Common Law, the later obviation of that duty was in some jurisdictions effected by high court rulings before the duty to retreat was ever eliminated in others by statute. And the way that that subject is treated in the courts varies among jurisdictions, in some cases as the result of different appellate court rulings,
These examples illustrate why trying to interpret the code based on a lay person's reading of it in isolation is just not a good idea at all.
Trying to justify the legality of the use pf force, deadly or otherwise, is not something that we want people to do here. Our philosophy is that what matters before the fact is not whether one "can" shoot, but whether one must shoot.
Should one insist on knowing whether one "can" shoot, here's a pretty good rule of thumb: one may be justified in shooting to prevent a serious forcible felony, when there is reason to believe that it is necessary; but one may not shoot anyone else for having done something, except to the extent that such act may serve as a basis for reasonable belief that the crime to be prevented is about to occur.
This should not be taken to discourage reasonable discussion of the subject of use of force law as it applies to other subjects that may arise.
However, we cannot overemphasize the importance of understanding that what is posted here cannot be considered private in any way. Questions requesting legal advice should always be directed to one's own attorney in a manner that preserves the privilege of attorney-client communication.
It is in no way a bad idea to strive to know more. But do not rely on a police officer, a CCW trainer, the person behind the gunshop counter, or even on most attorneys for good information on this subject. Also, do not conflate the outcome of a case at trial with case law.
Rather, we very strongly suggest subscribing to Attorney Andrew Branca's LawofSelfDefense.com, and attending Massad Ayoob's MAG-20 Classroom.
This thread is not open for reply. However, the subject may be discussed in the following thread:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/discussion-of-statutory-language
"...trying to interpret a particular law in isolation by using lay dictionary definitions can lead to erroneous conclusions. Case law—decisions rendered by high courts in the interpretation of the laws—and relationships among other pertinent laws and constitutional principles can have as much to do with the real meaning of the law as the words in a single statute.
"For this reason, we strongly discourage the rote cutting and pasting into posts of state legal codes to support one’s position in a discussion here, and we advise against the reliance on same to justify the lawfulness of a particular course of action.
"Such reliance is particularly dangerous when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force."
In a recent post, our member boom boom explained it this way:
"One of the problems with only knowing the black letter law of the statute is that the courts may have interpreted that statute in a way that is not obvious through cases applying the statute to specific case facts. Then there is as Jeff White says, the politics and personnel enforcing the law in the area of the incident. And at last, civil liability also lurks out there as an additional danger.
"The statutes themselves are often a mish mash of laws, sometimes with apparent contradictions, that have been passed over a century or so. So courts do not normally read a statute in isolation from other statutes that apply to the general situation but try the reconcile any ambiguities and contradictions that occur over time through interpretations of the laws in specific cases.
"If they are available in your state, pattern jury instructions regarding crimes etc. are often a valuable resource in determining how laws are to be applied by a jury. Juries do not get caselaw precedent to take back into the jury room but instead are instructed by the judge as to what the laws of the state are to apply to the facts in the case before them. In some states, judicial officials have created std. jury instructions on specific areas of the law, in other states, the judge, prosecutor, and defense come up with these ad hoc during the trial process."
There may be those who believe that this is a relatively new phenomenon.
It's far from it.
When most of our states came into being, they adopted the Common Law that existed at the time of their formation--the English Common Law in most states and territories, and the Napoleonic Code in one. The Common Law was defined in rulings passed down by high court judges. Legislative statutes as we know them began to come about later.
To cite one example, there was a case some centuries ago in the Commonwealth of Virginia in which a landowner was charged with unlawful conduct when he threatened a trespasser with a firearm. He was convicted, and the conviction was upheld by Virginia's highest court. There were no relevant legislative statutes at the time, and there may not be today.
Similarly, while the much-discussed duty to retreat came to us from the earliest of Common Law, the later obviation of that duty was in some jurisdictions effected by high court rulings before the duty to retreat was ever eliminated in others by statute. And the way that that subject is treated in the courts varies among jurisdictions, in some cases as the result of different appellate court rulings,
These examples illustrate why trying to interpret the code based on a lay person's reading of it in isolation is just not a good idea at all.
Trying to justify the legality of the use pf force, deadly or otherwise, is not something that we want people to do here. Our philosophy is that what matters before the fact is not whether one "can" shoot, but whether one must shoot.
Should one insist on knowing whether one "can" shoot, here's a pretty good rule of thumb: one may be justified in shooting to prevent a serious forcible felony, when there is reason to believe that it is necessary; but one may not shoot anyone else for having done something, except to the extent that such act may serve as a basis for reasonable belief that the crime to be prevented is about to occur.
This should not be taken to discourage reasonable discussion of the subject of use of force law as it applies to other subjects that may arise.
However, we cannot overemphasize the importance of understanding that what is posted here cannot be considered private in any way. Questions requesting legal advice should always be directed to one's own attorney in a manner that preserves the privilege of attorney-client communication.
It is in no way a bad idea to strive to know more. But do not rely on a police officer, a CCW trainer, the person behind the gunshop counter, or even on most attorneys for good information on this subject. Also, do not conflate the outcome of a case at trial with case law.
Rather, we very strongly suggest subscribing to Attorney Andrew Branca's LawofSelfDefense.com, and attending Massad Ayoob's MAG-20 Classroom.
This thread is not open for reply. However, the subject may be discussed in the following thread:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/discussion-of-statutory-language
Last edited:
