Lethal Self Defense, Ethics, and Blades

[NuclearWinterRat1]

I have been doing some reading recently about the laws surrounding self defense and wow, I am very glad I did. "Self defense" is definitely something that many will say, but there are so many conditions of being able to successfully using a self defense plea in a court of law. What does everyone here think about....

#1 The ethics of using lethal force. At what time do you use it?

#2 The legal drawbacks of if you use lethal force. Does the term "Self Defense" get thrown around carelessly?

From the readings I went through your responsibility if you do use lethal force, is that you use it in what the courts would consider a responsible way (no other reasonable choice) and that you cover your own behind as far as your story goes. Some of them went into how being angry or fearful are the same as being a type of drunk in which the brain operates in a very primal fight state which cannot process the repercussions of the action.

I don't know. What do you all think??

 

[blackviper91]

#1: I think that if the only other alternative is my death/severe injury or the death/severe injury of a companion, then I would have no qualms using lethal force. If I were not in serious, immediate danger, I would try to find another way.

#2: I'm not really positive on this one, but from reading these forums, I know that "Self Defense" can't always be used to get you off the hook. The prosecutor will want to know that you were right in uasing lethal force. Though, iIf you were going to die, then you might as well use lethal force, court is better than death.

~Cody

 

[Fraser]

There is a guy in Arizona, Harold Fish, who is serving 10 years in prison for killing another person. Fish claimed 'self defense.' Jury didn't buy it.

 

[Planterz]

One "rub" of having a knife for self defense is that in many situations it's not the best self defense; running away is. Unless you're cornered, being sat upon, grappling with an attacker who's armed in some way himself, injured, or somehow otherwise unable to simply run away, using a knife in "self defense" could get you into trouble, because running is a form of self defense and nobody gets hurt or killed. And wanting not to look like a pussy is not enough justification for lethal force (sorry to say).

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Self-defense is keeping yourself from getting hurt.

The basic rules are:
Don't go there.
If you find yourself there, leave.
If you can't leave, then fight your way out.

Note that none of this includes fighting for its own sake, because you were insulted, or challenged, or feuding with someone.

 

[icedog]

Navy Regs talk about deadly force in great detail. Here are definitions and when use of deadly force is authorized:

1. DEFINITIONS

a. Deadly Force. Force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm.

b. Serious Bodily Harm. Does not include minor injuries, such as a black eye or a bloody nose, but does include fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, torn members of the body, serious damage to the internal organs, and other life-threatening injuries. Serious bodily harm can be applied to a person in several stages of the ladder of force. Specifically, unarmed self-defense, impact weapons and small arms fire may result in serious bodily harm.

c. Force. The amount of verbal persuasion and/or physical gestures/contact needed to gain control over a person or to direct an individual.

2. JUSTIFICATION. Deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity and as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Deadly force is justified under one or more of the following circumstances:

a. Self Defense and Defense of Others When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect law enforcement or security personnel who reasonably believe themselves or others to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

b. Assets Involving National Security. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of assets vital to national security. DoD assets shall be specifically designated as "vital to national security" only when their loss, damage, or compromise would seriously jeopardize the fulfillment of a national defense mission. Examples include nuclear weapons; nuclear command, control, and communications facilities; and designated restricted areas containing strategic operational assets, sensitive codes, or special access programs.

c. Assets Not Involving National Security but Inherently Dangerous to Others. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of resources, such as operable weapons or ammunition, that are inherently dangerous to others; i.e., assets that, in the hands of an unauthorized individual, present a substantial potential danger of death or serious bodily harm to others. Examples include high-risk portable and lethal missiles, rockets, arms, ammunition, explosives, chemical agents, and special nuclear material.

d. Serious Offenses Against Persons. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense involving violence and threatening death or serious bodily harm. Examples include murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault.

e. Arrest or Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to arrest, apprehend, or prevent the escape of a person who, there is probable cause to believe they have committed an offense of the nature specified in subsections 2a through 2d above.

f. Escapes. When deadly force has been specifically authorized by the Heads of the DoD Components and reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner, provided law enforcement or security personnel have probable cause to believe that the escaping prisoner poses a threat of serious bodily harm either to security personnel or others.