The definition of reasonable force

[NickBallard]

OK, sometimes it gets confusing what counts as self-defense. Sometimes people defend themselves but get in trouble. Sometimes people feel threatened but don't do anything and then are seriously injured. What counts as reasonable force?

Often a self-defense law will say something like:
"A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force." and then later on it will usually say that you're justified in using lethal or serious injury force to the extent that you reasonably believe they're going to serious injure or kill you.

So what does "reasonably believes" mean? Doesn't that sound very subjective and easy to twist? One time I was helping out with a fund raiser when I was walking up a sidewalk to someone's front door. There was no gate separating the guy's front door from the road. There was no "no trespassing" or "no coming to my door" or "no soliciting signs". It was a suburbs neighborhood, not in the middle of no where. Right when I was almost to the front door, a guy came out and said, "Get off my property or else I'll shoot you with a gun!" I was going to report it to the police, but then someone I knew said that people have every right to do that and that I was lucky that he was merciful enough not to shoot me with a gun. I told this one acquaintance that it wasn't like I was breaking in his house, cutting through his backyard, or even cutting through his front yard. I was walking up to his door to ring the doorbell and there were no signs up saying that he didn't want me to and that I've heard of no laws ever saying it's illegal to ring someone's doorbell and why does he have a doorbell if he doesn't want people ringing it! This acquaintance of mine said that all this guy would have had to say is that he felt like I was going to hurt him and then he could have killed me and claimed self-defense, whether he was lying or not, because I was walking up his walkway to ring his doorbell, which was on his property. At the time, that sounded a little fishy that someone could just do something like that based on the fact that someone's walking up the homeowner's door to ring the doorbell. I've also heard of door-to-door salesman and Christian missionaries having had similar experiences. I don't own a handgun yet, but am wanting to get one (so excuse me if I don't know as much as I could about definitions), so I'm wondering what "reasonably believes" means as far as the law's concerned? Does it mean most every mentally healthy citizen out there would believe they were in trouble given the same circumstances? What does it mean? How is it measured by the law?

 

[Gunfire]

In your scenerio, you were resonable, the someone you knew, was not. Think about what most reasonable persons would do because they will be your jurors.

 

[sacp81170a]

Oh man, you've opened up the "reasonable" can of worms now!

You're right to believe that your friend's explanation sounds a little fishy. In order for the person you described to "reasonably" believe that force is about to be used against him, three elements must be present. Others may use slightly different terminology, but here's the way I learned it:

1. Opportunity
2. Intent
3. Capability

Example 1:

A man with is standing 50 yards away from you, threatening to beat you up. He has the capability to cause you injury, has expressed an intent (verbal threats) but does not have the opportunity (too far away). No force justified.

Example 2:

A man is standing 15 feet from you with no apparent weapons threatening to kill you. He has expressed the intent verbally, has the opportunity (he's close enough), and the capability (he's not in a wheelchair and otherwise appears able to reach you). You may use force to stop what you believe to be an imminent attack if you can't retreat. (In some states, you have no duty to retreat if you have a right to be where you are.) Here's the catch: you can only use the degree of force reasonably necessary to stop his attack. If he punches at you or kicks at you, you may only respond with enough force to prevent injury to yourself. Pepper spray, CQB technique, OK. Firearm, brick, knife, baseball bat, not OK. If he breaks off the attack, you must also break off or you become the aggressor.

Example 3:

A man is rushing at you from 21 feet away with an upraised knife in his hand. He has the capability (the knife), the opportunity (distance), and his intent is expressed by his coming at you. Deadly force may be used to stop this attack.

In the scenario you just described, you were walking up the sidewalk to his door. This expresses no intent to harm whatsoever. You expressed no threats and had no obvious weapon. No deadly force or threat of deadly force was justified. If he felt you were trespassing on his property, he could order you to leave and he would be perfectly within his rights.

By threatening to shoot you, he actually committed an assault in the third degree, by placing you in fear or apprehension of bodily harm. This may be difficult to prove without witnesses, but he and your friend were unquestionably wrong. You could have reported him to the police and pressed charges.

Should you have left? Absolutely. Would he have been able to justify shooting you under the circumstances? Absolutely not. Should you have waited around to find out? I wouldn't have.

I am not a lawyer, YMMV, all the standard disclaimers.

 

[DunedinDragon]

From a legal perspective the test of "reasonableness" is an after-the-fact assessment by a jury of your peers that, given the circumstances, a typical, normal person would have believed they were in imminent peril.

IF you are one of those people that walks around thinking there is a vast conspiracy to do you harm and therefore you need to hide various guns throughout your house and carry at least 2 guns along with 60 or 70 rounds of ammo, you probably need to be aware that everyday, normal people probably won't see threats the same way you do and you could very well lose this test of "reasonableness."

Such is the price one pays for donning tin-foil hats I suppose. In your case it's highly doubtful any jury made up of reasonably sane people would not have seen your actions as threatening.

 

[critter]

The word 'reasonable' is put in there for the purpose of being ambiguous so that anybody can be sued for anything and both lawyers can make a mint!

 

[atlctyslkr]

Does your state have a "Stand Your Ground Law"? Ask yourself that first. Reasonablness is usually judged based on the alternatives. Could you walk away? Would they walk away? I've ready plenty of stories on these forums that discuss incidents of drawing but not firing. As a private citizen my objective is to survive, not make an arrest or take someone out. Most criminals don't want to get shot and will flee when faced with deadly force.

 

[Tim Burke]

sacp81170a has given a nice explanation with several examples.

While your acquaintance is correct when he says the guy could have shot you, lied, and claimed self defense, so can anyone else on the street. Claiming self defense is not a get out of jail free card. The shooter will need to be able to explain why he believed he was in danger of grave bodily injury, and it would be very helpful if there were witnesses or physical evidence to corroborate his version of the events.

 

[Leanwolf]

DUNEDinDRAGON - " ... assessment by a jury of your peers..."

_________________________________________________________________


No, not a "jury of your peers." This phrase, albeit false in law, has become common when discussing trials, but the word, "peer," according to Webster, means "One of the same rank or quality; an equal," or, 2. "A comrade; fellow associate."

The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, Article VI states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an IMPARTIAL JURY (my emphasis) of the State..."

Our Constitution never mentions "peers." So, in fact, you/we are entitiled to a trial by an IMPARTIAL jury, not a "jury of our peers."

Afterall, if O.J. Simpson had been tried by a "jury of his peers," the twelve members of his jury would have all been retired, black, professional football players, mainly running backs.

Just thought you'd like to know.

L.W.

 

[TallPine]

why does he have a doorbell if he doesn't want people ringing it

FWIW. we don't have a doorbell