Self Defense and non escalation of force - Page 2

Self Defense and non escalation of force

This is a discussion on Self Defense and non escalation of force within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; While some concepts exist in several states, the way each state interprets and applies those concepts is unique. This will tend to make a generalized ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: Self Defense and non escalation of force

  1. #16
    New Member Array Matthewcourt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Lake Charles, LA
    Posts
    1

    Each state is unique

    While some concepts exist in several states, the way each state interprets and applies those concepts is unique. This will tend to make a generalized discussion of the matter confusing.


  2. #17
    Member Array rogertc1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    200
    Just remember when it is all over the criminal attacker and his family will probably get a free lawyer. You on the other hand will have to spend your money proving it was self defence. And if the crooks family goes after you even if it is decided self defence you are probably going to go broke spemding your money on a civil suite.
    Sucks

  3. #18
    Member Array TommyGun4169's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Killadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    147
    Any state that has a Castle Doctrine makes it legal for someone to use deadly force if their life is being threatened or if bodily harm is going to be used against them !
    Pennsylvania just recently adopted this law which basically abolished the law of "retreat to the furthest point" before using deadly force. With the Castle Doctrine you can now stand your ground whether your outside or in your home. You have a right to go about peacfully, if someone tries to violate that right by trying to inflict harm on you, you have the right by law of the Castle Doctrine to protect yourself even if that means use of deadly force !

    Outlaw Guns and Only Outlaws Will Have Guns !!

  4. #19
    3D
    3D is offline
    Senior Member Array 3D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyGun4169 View Post
    Any state that has a Castle Doctrine makes it legal for someone to use deadly force if their life is being threatened or if bodily harm is going to be used against them !
    Pennsylvania just recently adopted this law which basically abolished the law of "retreat to the furthest point" before using deadly force. With the Castle Doctrine you can now stand your ground whether your outside or in your home. You have a right to go about peacfully, if someone tries to violate that right by trying to inflict harm on you, you have the right by law of the Castle Doctrine to protect yourself even if that means use of deadly force !
    . . .... in addition,
    - Governor Tom Corbett has signed Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine legislation into law. This common-sense measure permits law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any place where they have a legal right to be. It also protects individuals from civil lawsuits by an attacker or attacker’s family when force is used.
    Pennsylvania Governor Signs NRA-Backed Castle Doctrine into Law - Tri County Record - Berks-Mont News
    "It is easier to resist at the beginning than at the end"____Leonardo da Vinci 1452-1519

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by 357and40 View Post
    The concept I look at is DISPARITY of force.
    Disparity of force AND the ability to retreat.

    However retreating is pretty obvious so perhaps it just goes unspoken!
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  6. #21
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,576
    Perhaps the threat level comes into play? A couple of different examples illustrate the point.

    Two twenty somethings start a fist fight. They are mutually engaged in combat if neither side attempts to break contact and retreat. Change that situation slightly with one of the combatants picking up a (insert object of choice here) and swinging on the other. The level of the conflict has now escalated. Depending on the object, how it is wielded, etc all play into determine what has happened in the eyes of the law.

    Different situation. A twenty year old begins to fight with a fifty five year old who did not intiate the conflict. The level of threat might be considered lethal at that point given the disparity of age and presumed physical condition between the individuals.

    Rarely is it black or white, cut and dried. I did not say it shouldn't be, just rarely is.

  7. #22
    Member Array rabbit2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    183
    In Wisconsin the definition of self defense written in statute says in so many words: You may use force to protect yourself against immiment death or severe bodily harm.
    If you wish for peace, prepare for war.

  8. #23
    Member Array TommyGun4169's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Killadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    147
    Thankyou for expanding on that ! The law is so new I didn't have the whole thing memorized ! LOL !

    Outlaw Guns and Only Outlaws Will Have Guns !!

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I do understand the principles of equal force and non escalation of force when it comes to self defense. I do question how these principles are or should be used in law.
    Good!

    Because being an attorney who practices criminal law and having dealt with the justification of self defense in both a criminal & civil context in court, I don't have a clue about what you are talking about when you start using the terms of "equal force" or "non escalation of force" when it comes to self defense.

    The term is "reasonable force" and that is very broad.

    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Have we as individuals and possibly the government as well become to literal in our interpretation of this principle? Wouldn't a non escalation or equal force response mean you have a stalemate where neither side would come out ahead?
    Uh...I guess...but considering that "equal force" or "non escalation of force" aren't really relevant statements of doctrines when it comes to use of force law...no?

    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    When did the idea that you could meet force with force become so literal? I understand that deadly force should only be used to repel deadly force.
    Never.

    Buy this book and read it.

    Armor of New Hampshire: In The Gravest Extreme

    Then you will begin to have a better understanding.

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by mlr1m
    I do understand the principles of equal force and non escalation of force when it comes to self defense. I do question how these principles are or should be used in law.
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Good!

    Because being an attorney who practices criminal law and having dealt with the justification of self defense in both a criminal & civil context in court, I don't have a clue about what you are talking about when you start using the terms of "equal force" or "non escalation of force" when it comes to self defense.

    The term is "reasonable force" and that is very broad.
    I am questioning what seems to be a common belief among many who discuss this topic. Non lawyers mainly, even though I have heard some lawyers who have expressed similar ideas.
    Example:
    If your attacker uses fists you cannot respond with a deadly weapon.
    If attacked with a bat you must not shoot. (I had that one told to me by both LEO's and a few self-defense instructors).
    That you must not respond with greater force that the attacker uses.

    My question is. When did these beliefs come about? As I pointed out in my original question I believe them to be a bastardization of the intent of the law.

    EDIT:
    The term is "reasonable force" and that is very broad
    Could it be that society has decided "reasonable force" is to difficult to understand? That we have gone to a "no tolerance" policy to make it easier to assess guilt?

    Michael

  11. #26
    Member Array Roy McC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    S. W. Virginia
    Posts
    359
    357and40 got it 100% correct with Disparity of Force.
    Last edited by Roy McC; November 27th, 2011 at 11:33 PM.
    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government".
    Patrick Henry

  12. #27
    Distinguished Member Array Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO
    Posts
    1,807
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    ...what seems to be a common belief among many who discuss this topic.
    The crux is "belief". "I believe it's true" means "I don't know, but I guess it's true".

    Probably most of us carry a pistol exactly so we do have the option of meeting a threat of potentially lethal force with our own escalation to potentially lethal self-defense. If escalating means I live, I am going to escalate!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

are brass knuckles illegal in oklahoma
,
equal force response
,
equal force self defense
,
escalating self defense
,
escalation of force conceld carry
,
escalation of force legal
,

escalation of force self defense

,
escalation+of+force definition
,
esculation of force in self defense
,
pa escalation of force
,
self defense escalation
,

self defense escalation of force

Click on a term to search for related topics.