There are some incorrect, misleading, and/or 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; all of these have been addressed here on many occasions, and we have compiled them in one place for the convenience of our members.
"A Good Shoot is a Good Shoot"
Well, it may be, but unless that "shoot" was just an element of carefully written fiction or part of a textbook, and unless all of the facts were 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 will have no way of really knowing whether a "shoot" was a "good" one. That is simply because we cannot know all of what actually happened. Whether a shooting was justified will have to be determined, after the fact and by others, 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.
In the criminal justice system, there is no "good guy" going in, and a self proclaimed defender does not get to decide that a shoot was "good.". In some cases 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 could give the jurors the impression that the shooter may have been predisposed toward the use of force, and/or anything that may damage the shooter's credibility, could make the shooter's day in court a most unenviable one.
This provides some valuable background on the subject.
"He Was Cleared by the Grand Jury (or Police, 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 the mere fact that someone is in one's home unlawfully does not give anyone "permission" to harm anyone else. The laws involving justification remain the same; the difference lies in the evidentiary burden on the defender. 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.
That's because the burden of proof in civil court is lower than in criminal court, and because the rules differ. Put simply, an acquittal in criminal court means, in most jurisdictions, that the state did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not at all the same as a judgment that the actor had been justified.
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 claim self defense or not--a case was only a self defense case if the relevant instructions to the jury made it one. Also, 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. The principals are the same. Finally, the number of trials that may have actually 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. Trial outcomes, both criminal and civil, are decided by persons assessing the totality of the evidence, and it can rarely be assumed that the use of force would have been ruled justified but for a single factor. Many factors may affect the outcome, and it is the aggregate that will rule the day.
However, controlled scientific jury simulation experiments have been conducted in which all variables but one have been kept the same, and those have given us a good idea of how the issues tested would influence real juries.
"A Single Punch Can Kill"
Yes, it can, and it might, but that does not mean that a single punch constitutes deadly force. That's defined as 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 would be lawful, 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 would 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 many purposes that would not be lawful if open carry were not permitted.
We hope that the above proves helpful.
"A Good Shoot is a Good Shoot"
Well, it may be, but unless that "shoot" was just an element of carefully written fiction or part of a textbook, and unless all of the facts were 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 will have no way of really knowing whether a "shoot" was a "good" one. That is simply because we cannot know all of what actually happened. Whether a shooting was justified will have to be determined, after the fact and by others, 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.
In the criminal justice system, there is no "good guy" going in, and a self proclaimed defender does not get to decide that a shoot was "good.". In some cases 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 could give the jurors the impression that the shooter may have been predisposed toward the use of force, and/or anything that may damage the shooter's credibility, could make the shooter's day in court a most unenviable one.
This provides some valuable background on the subject.
"He Was Cleared by the Grand Jury (or Police, 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 the mere fact that someone is in one's home unlawfully does not give anyone "permission" to harm anyone else. The laws involving justification remain the same; the difference lies in the evidentiary burden on the defender. 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.
That's because the burden of proof in civil court is lower than in criminal court, and because the rules differ. Put simply, an acquittal in criminal court means, in most jurisdictions, that the state did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not at all the same as a judgment that the actor had been justified.
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 claim self defense or not--a case was only a self defense case if the relevant instructions to the jury made it one. Also, 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. The principals are the same. Finally, the number of trials that may have actually 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. Trial outcomes, both criminal and civil, are decided by persons assessing the totality of the evidence, and it can rarely be assumed that the use of force would have been ruled justified but for a single factor. Many factors may affect the outcome, and it is the aggregate that will rule the day.
However, controlled scientific jury simulation experiments have been conducted in which all variables but one have been kept the same, and those have given us a good idea of how the issues tested would influence real juries.
"A Single Punch Can Kill"
Yes, it can, and it might, but that does not mean that a single punch constitutes deadly force. That's defined as 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 would be lawful, 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 would 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 many purposes that would not be lawful if open carry were not permitted.
We hope that the above proves helpful.
Last edited:
