I got jumped

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I believe the civil case that establishes that you can only use deadly force if you are threatened with deadly force comes from Mississippi. South enough for ya?

Civil case? Since when do they effect criminal law?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Torts and Crim Law flow together very often. And the people that write the Restatement of Torts are the same people that write the Model Penal Code (the American Law Review).

It ain't like there are different higher courts for criminal cases and civil cases.

[SuperSneak]

I'm sorry to hear that. Violence of any kind was really no solution to the problem you faced. Flight was the best choice--and you did that well. That was very lucky--not many people could take that shot.
As for retribution, that would be very foolish.
I'm sure you running around the Projects with some broadsword reproduction would be pretty ineffectual and probably fatal.
I'd just be more aware of my surroundings (the immediate area anyhow) and stear clear of the usual suspects. The average person (of color or not) is not going to Pearl Harbor you as you toodle by on your bicycle.
It's obvious you're one of those people who is buffeted by the whims of fate, not one who wrestles them into submission...in your case, a good defense is the best offense, I think.

***
As for the whole DEATH TO INTRUDERS debate, I'll have to side with the "poetry of force" group. You espousers of the Queensbury Rules approach have obviously never been physically threatened, or don't have children, or are simply deluded. I'm sorry, but the last thing I'm prepared for if someone strange is in my home, is a speech.

I don't have a gun here because of my son, but I would beat the living **** out of anyone I found here. And if I had a gun, I would point it and shoot based on their response. I'll give them that fraction of a second.
It's a jungle out there.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You can't use deadly force, unless you are threatened with deadly force yourself. So, while you could shoot someone who carjacked you or broke in, if you have a reasonable suspicion that they will try to kill you, you cannot shoot a guy who is, for example, running away when he sees you have a gun.

HOWEVER, if you shoot someone that has broken into your house just because he is creeping around your house (and you don't say "I got a gun"), then you are guilty of at the very least manslaughter, but depending on what jurisdiction, probably murder

You are a bit fuzzy on the law Imran, specifically the "make my day" laws that are in place in a lot of Western and Southern states. You are allowed to shoot people who have entered your home illegally if you feel that you are in imminent danger. They don't even have to be armed, nor do you have to supply proof that you couldn't get away from them. In some states this also applies to your place of business.

Che: I'm glad to hear that you are more or less OK. Time to refocus your street smarts to pick up on this sort of thing again (it sounds like you were pretty aware in Chicago). You'll probably scare most of the bad guys away due to your increased intensity. If you decide to arm yourself, make sure that you take the time to do it properly, ie give it a lot of thought and be sure to train yourself well enough that you gain some confidence. That is usually enough to be left alone. I never carry a weapon myself, because it's a lot of responsibility, and I live in a fairly mellow city. But I certainly would carry in some places in the U.S.

[Mr. President]

You espousers of the Queensbury Rules approach have obviously never been physically threatened, or don't have children, or are simply deluded. I'm sorry, but the last thing I'm prepared for if someone strange is in my home, is a speech.

Quite right. The intruder wouldn't fight clean. Why should you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are allowed to shoot people who have entered your home illegally if you feel that you are in imminent danger.

I've never said otherwise, but Spencer wasn't aruging that. Spencer said he could shoot the bastard even if he didn't feel he was in imminent danger. Just take pot shots at them.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I've never said otherwise, but Spencer wasn't aruging that. Spencer said he could shoot the bastard even if he didn't feel he was in imminent danger. Just take pot shots at them.

Well if he kills the guy he's right, as long as he isn't stupid enough to testify that he wasn't scared.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, if somebody had a gun in their hand and broke into my home then I'd probably shoot them without warning too.

If they didn't have a gun they'd get a chance to either freeze or run out the door. I wouldn't particularly care which...

Shooting an unarmed man from cover seems to be a bit beyond what's reasonable for self-defense...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course. All ya gotta do is say that you thought you'd be killed. There are always ways around murder when you are the only witness.

[Ramo]

Sorry about that, che. I haven't been seriously assaulted myself, so I suppose I can't really relate to what you're feeling. I wouldn't recommend a gun, and I'd recommend going with what Spencer suggested and take another route to work.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frogger
By the way, if somebody had a gun in their hand and broke into my home then I'd probably shoot them without warning too.

If they didn't have a gun they'd get a chance to either freeze or run out the door. I wouldn't particularly care which...

Shooting an unarmed man from cover seems to be a bit beyond what's reasonable for self-defense...

I'd do the same thing. Just because I could get away with shooting someone down doesn't mean that I want to. The hard thing is working up enough resolve to shoot someone if necessary without going over the edge. I'm good at scaring people away when I have enough time to do so, but working up the courage to take a life isn't so easy when the situation doesn't unfold so rapidly that you are merely reacting.

[Sten Sture]

Originally posted by Frogger
Shooting an unarmed man from cover seems to be a bit beyond what's reasonable for self-defense...

Being able to prove, beyond any doubt, that someone who has broken into your dark house in the middle of the night is completely unarmed, and no threat, seems a tad bit unreasonable. How many UN inspectors does that take??


Now who am I kidding. In San Fran, I would probably get sent to San Quentin if I didn't give a robber a hot meal and a full time job. And the closest thing to a gun I carry is a cell phone.

[Dis]

drive a big SUV past that neighborhood

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Mr. President
You have a sword, Che?

Seriously, sorry about that. It's never happened to me but I sympathize.

Swords are easy to be had.

Qualtiy swords are little more difficult.

[TheStinger]

A brtish tourist got shot in the US when asking for directions i presume that is the case talkes about here.

If he had shot the local high scholl football captain instaed of a stupid tourist I bet he wouldn't have got off scot free.

Common law in England( and i guess the US) says you can kill only if you have a reasonable belief that your life or the life of someone else is in danger, of course some juries are more inclined to beleive this than others. The result of a self defence plea often hangs on the character of the accused and the skill of the lawyer. Rich middle class people have more chance of succeding.