There are some incorrect and/or misleading or meaningless statements and cliches that come up so often that it would be worth addressing them again so that people do not rely on them. Here are a few.
Should anyone have any questions about the reason that any of the the statements below do not represent viable positions in discussions of lawful civilian self defense, do not hesitate to ask.
This was written a little over four years ago, but it apparently fell into a crack. Thanks to the other staff members for helping to craft this.
We hope you find this helpful.
"A Good Shoot is a Good Shoot"
Well, it is, but unless it was just an element of carefully written fiction or part of a textbook, and all of the facts are given to us, or unless an entire real-world incident was recorded from beginning to end from multiple vantage points on a sound stage, we have no way of really knowing whether a "shoot" was a "good" one, because we cannot know all of what actually happened. Whether a shooting was justified will have to be determined on the basis of the totality of incomplete, fragmentary evidence. That evidence may be contradictory; eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and if the person against whom force was used, or if anyone who is sympathetic to the person, provides testimony, one can almost guarantee that it will not be favorable to a shooter who claims to be a defender. It may seem obvious that an act was lawfully justified, and it may in some cases be rather obvious, or it may not. Any contradictions in the shooter's account that may surface, anything that my indicate that the shooter may have been predisposed toward the use of force, or anything that may damage the shooter's credibility, could make the shooter's day in court a most unenviable one.
"He was Cleared by the Police (or Grand Jury, Etc.)"
The police can recommend against charging someone, and a Grand Jury can recommend against prosecution, but neither action will prevent a citizen from being charged in the future. The only things that can prevent that, other than the death of the actor, are a trial and acquittal, an executive pardon, the dismissal of the case with prejudice, or the expiration of the statute of limitations. The last of these never occurs in a murder case.
"In My House, I Can Legally...."
In most jurisdictions, a person in his or her occupied domicile need not retreat, and in most jurisdictions, a resident may, if certain conditions are met, be afforded a presumption that force was justified, but that does not give anyone "permission" to harm anyone else. The laws involving justification remain the same. We have a sticky on that one.
"In My State, if the Use of Force Was Justified, I Cannot be Sued"
In some jurisdictions, a civil court can, if provided with enough evidence, protect a defendant against civil liability by preventing further legal proceedings. But neither an acquittal in criminal court nor a decision by the State to not prosecute can be counted upon to suffice in establishing that the act had been lawfully justified, because the burden of proof in civil court is lower than in criminal court, and because the rules differ. We have a sticky on this one, too.
"A Person in My House Who ... Has Forfeited his Rights"
No, No, NO! That will be determined by others, through due process. Also, it is extremely important to realize that while a person may lawfully use necessary force to defend, no one has the right to use force to punish except through specified judicial processes.
"There Has Never Been a Self Defense Case Decided Because...."
There is a lot wrong with that one. First, unless one has interviewed all of the jurors in all of the trials in the country and determined just what things influenced them in what ways, one cannot know what things have led to the outcomes of jury trials. Second, it really does not matter whether a defendant intended to self defense or not--a case was only a self defense case if the relevant instructions to the jury made it one. Thirdly, when it comes to matters of law, such as whether the testimony of a particular expert witness was admitted into evidence, it doesn't matter at all what the case happened to be about. Finally, the number of trials that my have involved a particular factor is unknown, and it is quite possible that the factor in question has only existed in a very small number of cases, or that it was not necessarily an important factor at all.
"A Single Punch Can Kill"
Yes, it can, and it might, but that does not mean that a single punch constitutes deadly force--force that could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious bodily harm.
"He Was on My Property, and I was Exercising My Second Amendment Rights"
There are two issues here: first, the Second Amendment pertains to the right to keep and bear arms, and it has nothing to do with use of force law; secondly, when it comes to use of force law, the fact that on is on one's property in the great outdoors does not generally provide a person with more justification to use force than the person would have on someone else's property.
"There is No Law Against Brandishing in My State"
That's true in many jurisdictions, but that does not mean that the intentional exhibition or display of a weapon for the purpose of threatening someone else, or to persuade someone to do something or to dissuade that person from doing something, would not constitute a crime ,unless the actor is lawfully justified. In most jurisdictions, it would be justified only under circumstances in which the use of deadly force would be justified. In a few places, the threshold for justification is lower, but it still requires that the use of force be lawfully justified. We have a sticky on the subject. Incidentally, one should never assume that the legality of open carry would justify the intentional display of a concealed weapon for purposes that would not be lawful if open carry were not permitted.
Should anyone have any questions about the reason that any of the the statements below do not represent viable positions in discussions of lawful civilian self defense, do not hesitate to ask.
This was written a little over four years ago, but it apparently fell into a crack. Thanks to the other staff members for helping to craft this.
We hope you find this helpful.
"A Good Shoot is a Good Shoot"
Well, it is, but unless it was just an element of carefully written fiction or part of a textbook, and all of the facts are given to us, or unless an entire real-world incident was recorded from beginning to end from multiple vantage points on a sound stage, we have no way of really knowing whether a "shoot" was a "good" one, because we cannot know all of what actually happened. Whether a shooting was justified will have to be determined on the basis of the totality of incomplete, fragmentary evidence. That evidence may be contradictory; eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and if the person against whom force was used, or if anyone who is sympathetic to the person, provides testimony, one can almost guarantee that it will not be favorable to a shooter who claims to be a defender. It may seem obvious that an act was lawfully justified, and it may in some cases be rather obvious, or it may not. Any contradictions in the shooter's account that may surface, anything that my indicate that the shooter may have been predisposed toward the use of force, or anything that may damage the shooter's credibility, could make the shooter's day in court a most unenviable one.
"He was Cleared by the Police (or Grand Jury, Etc.)"
The police can recommend against charging someone, and a Grand Jury can recommend against prosecution, but neither action will prevent a citizen from being charged in the future. The only things that can prevent that, other than the death of the actor, are a trial and acquittal, an executive pardon, the dismissal of the case with prejudice, or the expiration of the statute of limitations. The last of these never occurs in a murder case.
"In My House, I Can Legally...."
In most jurisdictions, a person in his or her occupied domicile need not retreat, and in most jurisdictions, a resident may, if certain conditions are met, be afforded a presumption that force was justified, but that does not give anyone "permission" to harm anyone else. The laws involving justification remain the same. We have a sticky on that one.
"In My State, if the Use of Force Was Justified, I Cannot be Sued"
In some jurisdictions, a civil court can, if provided with enough evidence, protect a defendant against civil liability by preventing further legal proceedings. But neither an acquittal in criminal court nor a decision by the State to not prosecute can be counted upon to suffice in establishing that the act had been lawfully justified, because the burden of proof in civil court is lower than in criminal court, and because the rules differ. We have a sticky on this one, too.
"A Person in My House Who ... Has Forfeited his Rights"
No, No, NO! That will be determined by others, through due process. Also, it is extremely important to realize that while a person may lawfully use necessary force to defend, no one has the right to use force to punish except through specified judicial processes.
"There Has Never Been a Self Defense Case Decided Because...."
There is a lot wrong with that one. First, unless one has interviewed all of the jurors in all of the trials in the country and determined just what things influenced them in what ways, one cannot know what things have led to the outcomes of jury trials. Second, it really does not matter whether a defendant intended to self defense or not--a case was only a self defense case if the relevant instructions to the jury made it one. Thirdly, when it comes to matters of law, such as whether the testimony of a particular expert witness was admitted into evidence, it doesn't matter at all what the case happened to be about. Finally, the number of trials that my have involved a particular factor is unknown, and it is quite possible that the factor in question has only existed in a very small number of cases, or that it was not necessarily an important factor at all.
"A Single Punch Can Kill"
Yes, it can, and it might, but that does not mean that a single punch constitutes deadly force--force that could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious bodily harm.
"He Was on My Property, and I was Exercising My Second Amendment Rights"
There are two issues here: first, the Second Amendment pertains to the right to keep and bear arms, and it has nothing to do with use of force law; secondly, when it comes to use of force law, the fact that on is on one's property in the great outdoors does not generally provide a person with more justification to use force than the person would have on someone else's property.
"There is No Law Against Brandishing in My State"
That's true in many jurisdictions, but that does not mean that the intentional exhibition or display of a weapon for the purpose of threatening someone else, or to persuade someone to do something or to dissuade that person from doing something, would not constitute a crime ,unless the actor is lawfully justified. In most jurisdictions, it would be justified only under circumstances in which the use of deadly force would be justified. In a few places, the threshold for justification is lower, but it still requires that the use of force be lawfully justified. We have a sticky on the subject. Incidentally, one should never assume that the legality of open carry would justify the intentional display of a concealed weapon for purposes that would not be lawful if open carry were not permitted.
