4 ms·

I think in general, once you're no longer in danger anything you do to the attacker becomes assault instead of self-defense.

Animats 8y ago
Depends strongly on the jurisdiction. Some states are "duty to retreat" states. Some are "stand your ground" states.[1] Big ongoing controversy over this, because it affects when it's legal to shoot somebody. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
- dllthomas 8y ago
  IIUC - and I'd be interested to be corrected if I don't - the difference between "duty to retreat" and "stand your ground" is all around what happens while you still (reasonably?) perceive a threat to be present. If you're confident that you are safe, and you (say) shoot someone in retribution, you're guilty even in a stand-your-ground state. At least theoretically - what can actually be shown at trial is possibly another question.
  - Animats 8y ago
    This is much discussed on gun sites. If you shot someone trying to steal your car, in some states you would probably not even be charged, while in others you'd go to prison. An intro for Texas.[1] [1] http://www.kcbd.com/2018/12/27/experts-discuss-texas-state-law-using-deadly-force/ http://www.kcbd.com/2018/12/27/experts-discuss-texas-state-l...
    - dllthomas 8y ago
      That's still a question of defense of property, though, right? You may be able to shoot someone to stop them from stealing your car. You can't ever shoot someone because they tried to steal your car. The circumstances in which a self-defense justification extends to property presumably also differs per-state, but it's not the same question as "stand your ground". It's maybe worth noting that "defense of others" is often also a thing.
      - magduf 8y ago
        I think some people like you here are not understanding what "carjacking" is. This isn't simple car theft; it's a violent crime where attackers frequently use weapons to force people out of their car and take it. Victims are frequently killed or injured in the process. It isn't like someone breaking into your car when you're not in it. Carjacking is a really scary crime.
        dllthomas 8y ago
        The discussion, since about 5 posts up, has been about what is and is not a part of "stand your ground" - carjacking is only vaguely, incidentally relevant anymore. Yes, in a carjacking, the victim likely has reason to fear for their life. At some point, that ceases to be true. Actions taken after that point (... in those circumstances where actions can be taken by the victim after that point) are what was under discussion. (I did read Animats' "If you shot someone trying to steal your car [...]" as referring to more general auto-theft - if it was meant to refer specifically to car-jacking then amend my earlier comment to "That's still at least a question of defense of property [...]")
        0x8BADF00D 8y ago
        IANAL, but I think you are allowed to respond “in kind” to an assault, or attempted crime against you. For example, if someone points a gun at you, you are legally allowed to draw your own weapon. The response was “in kind”, i.e. the same level of force. It’s different if someone pointed a gun at you, then you pointed one back at them, they ran, and you shot them in the back. In this scenario, it would be retaliation, and you could be criminally prosecuted for that.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Texas is the sole exception to this rule, at least when it comes to laws (but there's a separate question of how laws are enforced in other states... in some places, the sheriffs might look the other way in practice, and it's easy to fudge). It has nothing to do with stand-your-ground. SYG by itself only removes the duty to retreat in the face of danger if you can. It does not allow to use lethal force when you're not in danger, merely to prevent a commission of a crime.
vokep 8y ago
Okay, but the presence of an attacker implies you are in danger (from the attacker) and thus are justified to assault them until they leave or are no longer willing/capable of assaulting you back. If you can't safely defend yourself then, why not just become a criminal yourself? You already might become one sooner or later due to circumstance, so just turn to the dark side and start jacking cars! (This is sarcastic, do not turn to the dark side and start jacking cars!)

Animats 8y ago

Depends strongly on the jurisdiction. Some states are "duty to retreat" states. Some are "stand your ground" states.[1] Big ongoing controversy over this, because it affects when it's legal to shoot somebody. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

dllthomas 8y ago
IIUC - and I'd be interested to be corrected if I don't - the difference between "duty to retreat" and "stand your ground" is all around what happens while you still (reasonably?) perceive a threat to be present. If you're confident that you are safe, and you (say) shoot someone in retribution, you're guilty even in a stand-your-ground state. At least theoretically - what can actually be shown at trial is possibly another question.
- Animats 8y ago
  This is much discussed on gun sites. If you shot someone trying to steal your car, in some states you would probably not even be charged, while in others you'd go to prison. An intro for Texas.[1] [1] http://www.kcbd.com/2018/12/27/experts-discuss-texas-state-law-using-deadly-force/ http://www.kcbd.com/2018/12/27/experts-discuss-texas-state-l...
  - dllthomas 8y ago
    That's still a question of defense of property, though, right? You may be able to shoot someone to stop them from stealing your car. You can't ever shoot someone because they tried to steal your car. The circumstances in which a self-defense justification extends to property presumably also differs per-state, but it's not the same question as "stand your ground". It's maybe worth noting that "defense of others" is often also a thing.
    - magduf 8y ago
      I think some people like you here are not understanding what "carjacking" is. This isn't simple car theft; it's a violent crime where attackers frequently use weapons to force people out of their car and take it. Victims are frequently killed or injured in the process. It isn't like someone breaking into your car when you're not in it. Carjacking is a really scary crime.
      - dllthomas 8y ago
        The discussion, since about 5 posts up, has been about what is and is not a part of "stand your ground" - carjacking is only vaguely, incidentally relevant anymore. Yes, in a carjacking, the victim likely has reason to fear for their life. At some point, that ceases to be true. Actions taken after that point (... in those circumstances where actions can be taken by the victim after that point) are what was under discussion. (I did read Animats' "If you shot someone trying to steal your car [...]" as referring to more general auto-theft - if it was meant to refer specifically to car-jacking then amend my earlier comment to "That's still at least a question of defense of property [...]")
        0x8BADF00D 8y ago
        IANAL, but I think you are allowed to respond “in kind” to an assault, or attempted crime against you. For example, if someone points a gun at you, you are legally allowed to draw your own weapon. The response was “in kind”, i.e. the same level of force. It’s different if someone pointed a gun at you, then you pointed one back at them, they ran, and you shot them in the back. In this scenario, it would be retaliation, and you could be criminally prosecuted for that.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Texas is the sole exception to this rule, at least when it comes to laws (but there's a separate question of how laws are enforced in other states... in some places, the sheriffs might look the other way in practice, and it's easy to fudge). It has nothing to do with stand-your-ground. SYG by itself only removes the duty to retreat in the face of danger if you can. It does not allow to use lethal force when you're not in danger, merely to prevent a commission of a crime.

vokep 8y ago

Okay, but the presence of an attacker implies you are in danger (from the attacker) and thus are justified to assault them until they leave or are no longer willing/capable of assaulting you back. If you can't safely defend yourself then, why not just become a criminal yourself? You already might become one sooner or later due to circumstance, so just turn to the dark side and start jacking cars! (This is sarcastic, do not turn to the dark side and start jacking cars!)