Recently. some of our members have copied and pasted sections of their state criminal codes...and offered their own layperson's interpretations of what they mean regarding defense of justification in hypothetical use of force incidents.
That is not a good idea, and it has been frowned upon here since well before my time. One former moderator made it a practice to come down hard when members quoted from the black letter law to support opinions.
We have become a lot more lax in that regard, but we do have among our forum rules the following:
Our member boom boom explained it better this way:
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 ther 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.
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 man behind the gunshop counter, or most attorneys for good information on this subject. And 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.
I hope this proves helpful.
That is not a good idea, and it has been frowned upon here since well before my time. One former moderator made it a practice to come down hard when members quoted from the black letter law to support opinions.
We have become a lot more lax in that regard, but we do have among our forum rules the following:
"...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."
"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."
Our member boom boom explained it better 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.
"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."
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 ther 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.
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 man behind the gunshop counter, or most attorneys for good information on this subject. And 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.
I hope this proves helpful.