Where do you draw the line for "self defense"?

[Grand Prix]

A few months ago the state of Florida passed a law that enabled citizens to shoot anybody at will that threatens them, without being charged for excessive force.
A few years ago my province found a man guilty for manslaughter, for stabbing his attacker seven times.

The question is, at what point should self defense become excessive enough to be considered criminal? After two bullets? After three stabs? Or after activating an atomic weapon? Or maybe never at all?

I have been told many times that self defense can never be a crime. But do we not try all people equally in our courts? Is it not possible that the victim can tried as well as the assailant, to ensure equality?

 

[a6m5]

I think it's case by case. Having said that, say my neighbor shoots a burglar. Instead of going for the burglar's arms or legs, he shoots him in the head. I don't see any problem there at all.

I live in a crazy country that a guy breaks into someone's home and injures himself. He sues the homeowner and wins. If the homeowner decides to shoot and kill anyone who breaks into his home, I'm all for it. I wouldn't do it personally, but I do support the decision. I know it's harsh, but I'm also putting in the victim and their family's safety in mind as well. I mean, you shoot his arm, he goes to jail. There is no gurantee that when he gets out, he'll kill you and your family as a revenge.......

 

[Blake]

I agree, there should be no line. If someone entered my house and I felt threatened, I’d probably make sure he wouldn’t leave in anything other than a stretcher – I wouldn’t kill someone, but I’d make damn sure they’d never come back.

Blake

 

[Grand Prix]

I think it's case by case. Having said that, say my neighbor shoots a burglar. Instead of going for the burglar's arms or legs, he shoots him in the head. I don't see any problem there at all.

I live in a crazy country that a guy breaks into someone's home and injures himself. He sues the homeowner and wins. If the homeowner decides to shoot and kill anyone who breaks into his home, I'm all for it. I wouldn't do it personally, but I do support the decision. I know it's harsh, but I'm also putting in the victim and their family's safety in mind as well. I mean, you shoot his arm, he goes to jail. There is no gurantee that when he gets out, he'll kill you and your family as a revenge.......

I generally agree. But in your first point, is the burglar armed with a firearm? If not, then I would consider "shooting him in the head" to be excessive. I agree with "an eye for an eye", in which the defender does what is required to neutralize the threat, and nothing more. A burglar with a knife only deserves a shot in the hand, IMO.

 

[DuckRacer]

It depends. You do it to the point to where it's enough. If some stupid punk kid tries to break in and steal a few expensive electronics, you beat the living crap out of him and you go on. If someone breaks in with an AK-47 and intending to harm your family, you do what's necessary, even if you have to shoot him several times.

My

.

 

[Grand Prix]

It depends. You do it to the point to where it's enough. If some stupid punk kid tries to break in and steal a few expensive electronics, you beat the living crap out of him and you go on. If someone breaks in with an AK-47 and intending to harm your family, you do what's necessary, even if you have to shoot him several times.

My

.

Pretty much what I said. 👍

 

[Duke]

I'm going to say that if you are in my house without my consent - meaning you have not left immediately when I told you to - you open yourself to anything I care to do to you. If you are threatening me or my family that includes killing you.

If you are on my property, there's much more grey area since simple trespassing is easy to do by accident without intent. But again, if you're on my property and threatening my family with imminent attack, I'll remove that threat by any means necessary.

If we're both on public property, I don't feel deadly force would be appropriate unless you are threatening me or attacking me with deadly force, or won't stop attacking.

 

[a6m5]

I think what Duke said is dead on.

I generally agree. But in your first point, is the burglar armed with a firearm? If not, then I would consider "shooting him in the head" to be excessive. I agree with "an eye for an eye", in which the defender does what is required to neutralize the threat, and nothing more. A burglar with a knife only deserves a shot in the hand, IMO.

It might be excessive, but if the burglar is armed, even with just knife(unless it's plastic disposable ones ), deadly force is justified IMO. You are nicer than I am.

 

[Joey D]

I have my .45ACP handgun (Smith & Wesson SW 1911) in my room, it's hid and no body knows where it is except me and its locked away so no body that I don't want to get it can. I've practiced and I can get it under 7 seconds so if someone breaks into my house I'm ready.

I've only ever had one close call where someone tried beating down my front door, I opened it and surprised them with Mr. 1911 and well they ran real quick. However I would only use the weapon if it was needed and I'm only helluva shot with it. I would aim for the mid section of the person since it has the most punch to take someone down. You shoot them in the leg they can still shoot you. Hit em in the chest and they are down for the count.

I plan on getting a CCW permit next year because well I believe it's my right to own and carry a handgun as long as I'm properly trained in firearm safety and in shooting the weapon. Which I have been trained in both. I've taken a firearm safety class every year since I've been 12 because I don't want to be a lunatic with a firearm.

So if someone broke into my house, whether he/she had a firearm or not, I could justify shooting the,. I don't know their intentions and I don't want to find out. My dad works nights, so I'm sort of the man of the house. I want to protect my family.

 

[Gil]

If threatened in most states you are within your rights to employ "deadly force" to make that danger go away.

However, in many states the only people that can shoot a "fleeing felon" are the police.
Besides, you are no longer in danger if the intruder/attacker is running away.

If I kept a gun that fired anything but pellets or BB's in the house, believe that I would shoot "center mass" just like I was trained to do. Also, my weapon of choice for protecting my home would be a Mossberg 500 in 20-gauge, loaded with #4 shot.
Why?
1. If, God forbid, you have to shoot, most interior walls will stop #4 shot. You aren't in too much danger of killing anyone next door, or in the next room.
2. Most people are shot at "conversational" distances (7-20 feet). With the adrenaline flowing it is more than possible, it's very likely to miss at that distance with a 9mm, .40, .45 ACP, any pistol caliber weapon. And if you miss, where is that bullet going to stop?However, with a shotgun, all you have to do is point and shoot to settle the dispute.
3. If my wife, who is not a shooter, is armed with a shotgun, nervous and shaking, she will be more likely to hit the intruder. Plus, you never know how trained a woman with a shotgun is. She may shoot you by accident. Nothing like "pucker factor" to scare folks away.

 

[Solid Lifters]

A few months ago the state of Florida passed a law that enabled citizens to shoot anybody at will that threatens them, without being charged for excessive force.
A few years ago my province found a man guilty for manslaughter, for stabbing his attacker seven times.

The question is, at what point should self defense become excessive enough to be considered criminal? After two bullets? After three stabs? Or after activating an atomic weapon? Or maybe never at all?

I have been told many times that self defense can never be a crime. But do we not try all people equally in our courts? Is it not possible that the victim can tried as well as the assailant, to ensure equality?

Enough happens when your attacker quits attacking or turns and runs away from you. Other then that, f'n kill'em.

 

[Joey D]

Holy crap a shot gun? Can you say exploding body parts? 7 feet with buck shot will make a nice splat, but then again I suppose it is a 20 gauge, so its not like blasting somone with a 12, 10 or ever 8 gauge.

But people shouldn't be allowed to own a pistol with out being properly trained in how to shoot it, my grandpa is a retired police officer who taught me how to shoot and he was the one who bought me the hand gun. I can cluster a magazine of 8+1 in a nice little circle in the middle of a target. Is a .45 a little much for self protection? Definatly, but trust me people will get scared if you point a .45ACP at them, especially if its equipt with S&W laser grip system (I know I will need to remove it if I get a CCW), but trust me its there for intimidation.

I could easily grab a rifle or a shot gun from the safe in the room next to me, but I think a 30-06, .270, 30-30, or a 12 gauge with a deer slug might be a little overkill. I think I would be cleaning body parts up for a long long time.

 

[Gil]

I have been told many times that self defense can never be a crime. But do we not try all people equally in our courts? Is it not possible that the victim can tried as well as the assailant, to ensure equality?

Self defense, per se, is not a crime. However, at the point you have stabbed someone seven times it crosses the line from self defense to passionate attack.

As I've said, once the intruder is no longer a threat, you should really stop shooting him.
I know that it is possible to empty a .45 ACP (1911A1 or variants) with a "single stack" magazine in less than 2 seconds, with all rounds going into the target.
So, I believe that it becomes a crime when the "assailant" has more than 8 rounds in his sorry carcass.
Because, 9 - 15 rounds from a "single stack" .45, means you reloaded, and resumed shooting.

 

[Joey D]

All a trained shooter should need is 1 or 2 rounds to stop someone, people who empty the clips are the kind of people who shouldn't be owning a weapon.

And you can technically buy extended clips to put more rounds into, and it is possible to have 9 rounds in a 1911 since you have 8 in the magazine plus 1 in the chamber. But never the less you shouldn't need more then 1 or 2 if there is only one guy that you are attempting to shoot at.

 

[Gil]

Joey,
You aren't taking into account the adrenaline factor, and tachypsia.
Study some of Evan Marshall's, or Ed Sanow's, Or Massad Ayoob's data on what happens to the body of a person that is thrust into a situation where they have to use deadly force.

On the range, it's easy to fire a double tap with excellent control.
When you are attacked and realize that you are fighting for your life, you only really retain gross motor control. Fine motor control is out the window.
Then you experience time slowing down, and tunnel vision, and it's is possible to empty a weapon and not know you emptied it until you look down and visually observe the weapon at slide lock.
I'm not disparaging your ability or training. I'm just telling you that a real life struggle is way different than training on the range.
AS an experiment, have one of your range buddies drop a package of firecrackers behind you at some point. The catch is he does it when ever he feels like it.
Even though you are expecting it to happen at some point. I bet your range scores will suffer with the distraction of simulated "shooting" happening behind you.

*edit*
Oh yeah, Where do you shoot a guy that just keeps coming, and the bullets seem to be bouncing off his skull? (It's sort of a trick question)

 

[Joey D]

Well the only way to reduce the possiblity for messing up, and to better prepare yourself...you need practice. I do quite a bit of fast pace range shooting with pop up targets and thats about as close as I can get to something that is real life. Some targets are green and some are red, you can only shoot the red ones.

But the fire cracker thing might be something good to try. I'm never done training because I can always improve with my shooting. I take shooting very seriously and I always want to better myself.

Also I take gun safety very seriously, which a lot of gun owners do not. I know my weapon, I know its limits, this way I'm as prepared as I can be if a situation calls for it.

But where to shoot a oncoming guy that won't stop? Hmmm tough one really, I've been taught shoot to the center mass work your way up if you have to. But I guess I would go for the knee cap to disable the attacker from running but thats a hard shot to make.

 

[Grand Prix]

Self defense, per se, is not a crime. However, at the point you have stabbed someone seven times it crosses the line from self defense to passionate attack.

As I've said, once the intruder is no longer a threat, you should really stop shooting him.
I know that it is possible to empty a .45 ACP (1911A1 or variants) with a "single stack" magazine in less than 2 seconds, with all rounds going into the target.
So, I believe that it becomes a crime when the "assailant" has more than 8 rounds in his sorry carcass.
Because, 9 - 15 rounds from a "single stack" .45, means you reloaded, and resumed shooting.

Would it be any different if the attacker was wearing a bullet proof vest, and knocked out? Nah. You'd still be a pyscho if you emptied two clips into him, eh?

What about SMGs? Is it okay to empty a 30 round clip from a Mac-10 into an attacker? More than a 3 round burst from an M4? 2 Lee-Enfield bullets?

 

[Solid Lifters]

I don't recommend a shotgun, or other rifle, for a home defense firearm. A .45 is perfect so long you have a wife who is strong enough to use it. Most women cannot pull back the slide of a .45. Even better, and what I highly recommend, is a large diameter wheel gun, like a .44 special. it has to be loaded with Mag Safe bullets. They have super high velocity, but they're a frag round. They wont over penetrare. Shot anywhere on the human body, and the suspect will bleed to death in short of 7 minutes. That's how wide and devestating the wound channel is with these rounds.

A shotgun is too difficult to use, because the barrel can, and will, get caught up on something if you try to take it out in a quick manner. Plus, a suspect can grap the barrel and block any of your shots a lot easier with a shotgun or rifle than he could with a pistol. Hey, but use what you practice with.

The conditions Gil was speaking of are well known and is often called "The Fog of War." You can practice for it. Lift a heavy object quickly until you feel your arm muscles fade, then doing a bunch of situps as fast as you can, mimics the effects of it. I practice this way every so often. Also, fire while moving and thinking the target is a person shooting at you works pretty good, too. But, you'll need to go out to the woods to practice this way, obviously. But, at my old shooting range, I had a special room where only my friends and I could practice this. Most indoor ranges have these rooms too. If they do, ask if you could use them to practice for, "The Fog of War." Chances are, they know what you mean.

 

[smellysocks12]

Self defence is violence put to use to prevent someone from harming you. If someone says "I'll beat you up" and you shoot him in the head with a gun, that is way out of proportion. That isn't self defence, that's playing like you're your own judge.



Now if someone would point a gun at you, then it would be justified to shoot him. If you purposely aim for the head, that is manslaughter and no self defence. Then you shoot to kill, which isn't self defence, because you already incapacitated someone.


If someone tries to hit you, shooting is also out of proportion. Put him to the ground, hold him down until the police comes. If you're not physically strong a tazer or pepperspray will do the job without killing the other. So using a gun for self defense in that case is out of proportion. Kicking someone while he's already down isn't self defense either, even if he already hit you a couple of times. That would be wrong, because that's revenge... and you're not the one to decide what type of punishment one should get. It's up to the judge and corporal punishment is banned already.




Then again, if someone would break into my house and threaten me, I would probably also aim for the head and call it an accident. But I don't have a gun so I'd go for the kitchen knife.

 

[smellysocks12]

Even better, and what I highly recommend, is a large diameter wheel gun, like a .44 special. it has to be loaded with Mag Safe bullets. They have super high velocity, but they're a frag round. They wont over penetrare. Shot anywhere on the human body, and the suspect will bleed to death in short of 7 minutes. That's how wide and devestating the wound channel is with these rounds.

Haha, redneck. This is beyond ridiculous. If you actually buy a gun to shoot to kill, you're a sicko. A beanbag shotgun doesn't kill and is perfect to incapacitate ANYONE. If you would shoot a burglar and let him bleed to death without calling any emergency services to try and save his life you're a worse criminal than the burglar.

Would it be any different if the attacker was wearing a bullet proof vest, and knocked out? Nah. You'd still be a pyscho if you emptied two clips into him, eh?

What about SMGs? Is it okay to empty a 30 round clip from a Mac-10 into an attacker? More than a 3 round burst from an M4? 2 Lee-Enfield bullets?

Lol, why not use an RPG-7?

SELF DEFENSE!



Why not have a nuclear missile silo in your backyard to shoot at any trespassers?

 

[TheCracker]

I live in a crazy country that a guy breaks into someone's home and injures himself. He sues the homeowner and wins. If the homeowner decides to shoot and kill anyone who breaks into his home, I'm all for it. I wouldn't do it personally, but I do support the decision. I know it's harsh, but I'm also putting in the victim and their family's safety in mind as well. I mean, you shoot his arm, he goes to jail. There is no gurantee that when he gets out, he'll kill you and your family as a revenge.......

...better make sure you kill the guy - just so he doesn't sue you!

I'm no fan of civilians owning firearms, but that's a different matter. However, if someone breaks into your home, where you and your family are supposedly deemed safe, i think it's reasonable for you to use what ever force you deem necessary to defend you and your own.

It's your property, you pay the bills, you pay the mortgage or rent, you fit the door and window locks to stop 'uninvited' guests. Burglars know that they've no right to invade your little part of the universe, if they still decide to breaks in, for whatever reason, then they should expect no leaniency(sp?) - they'd get none from me.

 

[smellysocks12]

Enough happens when your attacker quits attacking or turns and runs away from you. Other then that, f'n kill'em.

Why not shoot him a couple of times while he's running away?


Since you're so gun-happy why not take those free shots? Him running away is an extra challenge! Great gun practice.



Yeeee haw

 

[Zardoz]

I don't recommend a shotgun, or other rifle, for a home defense firearm. A .45 is perfect so long you have a wife who is strong enough to use it. Most women cannot pull back the slide of a .45. Even better, and what I highly recommend, is a large diameter wheel gun, like a .44 special. it has to be loaded with Mag Safe bullets. They have super high velocity, but they're a frag round. They wont over penetrare. Shot anywhere on the human body, and the suspect will bleed to death in short of 7 minutes. That's how wide and devestating the wound channel is with these rounds.

A shotgun is too difficult to use, because the barrel can, and will, get caught up on something if you try to take it out in a quick manner. Plus, a suspect can grap the barrel and block any of your shots a lot easier with a shotgun or rifle than he could with a pistol. Hey, but use what you practice with.

The conditions Gil was speaking of are well known and is often called "The Fog of War." You can practice for it. Lift a heavy object quickly until you feel your arm muscles fade, then doing a bunch of situps as fast as you can, mimics the effects of it. I practice this way every so often. Also, fire while moving and thinking the target is a person shooting at you works pretty good, too. But, you'll need to go out to the woods to practice this way, obviously. But, at my old shooting range, I had a special room where only my friends and I could practice this. Most indoor ranges have these rooms too. If they do, ask if you could use them to practice for, "The Fog of War." Chances are, they know what you mean.

I have to ask: What sort of neighborhood do you live in? Have you or members of your family been the victims of violent attacks? Have your neighbors? Considering that you actively practice dealing with violent encounters, it must be a routine part of life for you.

I've lived in Southern California all my life, and I've never known anyone who was the victim of a violent crime, so I'm really wondering what goes on in your life that makes you feel you need to be so totally prepared for it.

 

[Pupik]

I'm going to say that if you are in my house without my consent - meaning you have not left immediately when I told you to - you open yourself to anything I care to do to you. If you are threatening me or my family that includes killing you.

If you are on my property, there's much more grey area since simple trespassing is easy to do by accident without intent. But again, if you're on my property and threatening my family with imminent attack, I'll remove that threat by any means necessary.

If we're both on public property, I don't feel deadly force would be appropriate unless you are threatening me or attacking me with deadly force, or won't stop attacking.

Agreed.

Although, in certain cases, it's illegal to shoot someone from behind (at anything other than "point-blank" in a struggle). I feel that if you're endangered enough, and on your own property, shooting someone from behind when threatened on your own property is perfectly okay. The perpetrator should be more careful.

[slightly off-topic rant]

I'm not sure of the impact of the new law in Florida, but what bothers me is that many can't wait for this law to get passed, yet several laws pertaining to public schools passed by a majority of voters in the entire state in the past three years has not yet been approved.

1) Classroom-size ammendment. About 10% implemented state-wide.
2) Pre-school vouchers for underpriviliged kids, still not approved.
3) Additional tax revenues for schools from slot machines, not one penny generated, due to foot dragging and stalling.

[/slightly, but not quite done]

Show me that democracy works before letting me take the lives of others without having to explain myself in court; when some wretch tries to break into my home, I want to be sure some tort law won't come to the perpetrator's rescue. The system is down, because our votes are meaningless in this state.

 

[James2097]

You guys are all crazy. I can't imagine guns being such an normal part of life. Its simply ridiculous in the extreme. Surely America isn't that uncivilised and 3rd world, that everyone needs intensive firearms training?! Bloody hell, you've got the most paranoid nation on earth. Congratulations.

Smellysocks talked sense. Some others too. Solid Lifters was off the wall though.

 

[Blake]

You guys are all crazy. I can't imagine guns being such an normal part of life. Its simply ridiculous in the extreme. Surely America isn't that uncivilised and 3rd world, that everyone needs intensive firearms training?! Bloody hell, you've got the most paranoid nation on earth. Congratulations.

Smellysocks talked sense. Some others too. Solid Lifters was off the wall though.

We’re both Aussies so we’re in roughly the same situation in terms of our private property being invaded. Do you agree that if someone came into your house, and you felt threatened, that you’d make sure they couldn’t hurt you or your family?

I’m not talking about killing them, but knocking them out or whatever you’d do to disable them until they were in custody.

(And we already know yanks are bloody crazy )*

*joking!

Blake

 

[Young_Warrior]

I have my .45ACP handgun (Smith & Wesson SW 1911) in my room, it's hid and no body knows where it is except me and its locked away so no body that I don't want to get it can. I've practiced and I can get it under 7 seconds so if someone breaks into my house I'm ready.

I know that evryone should have aplan to escape from the house and such but isnt this a bit excessive.

Atleast I prefer your laws on self defense and not being tried for manslaughter but with guns its going a bit far.

 

[James2097]

We’re both Aussies so we’re in roughly the same situation in terms of our private property being invaded. Do you agree that if someone came into your house, and you felt threatened, that you’d make sure they couldn’t hurt you or your family?

I’m not talking about killing them, but knocking them out or whatever you’d do to disable them until they were in custody.

(And we already know yanks are bloody crazy )*

*joking!

Blake

I'm not saying its wrong to defend yourself and your family by removing the direct threat (I pretty much agree with what smellysocks said). So long as there is a logical line between what is self-defence and what is over-reaction.

I'm not saying "crazy" in terms of the moral outlook that you need to protect yourself from real psycho killer burglars, I'm just generally amazed that people in America feel they have to own a gun for such occurences (surely so rare that driving a car is more dangerous!). Surely most places in the US are safer than what you'd assume by how paranoid (gun ownership, shoot to kill training etc) people seem to be. Its almost as if some of the more testosterone fueled Americans WANT someone to break into their home so they can use all that gun practise they've had. Some immature guys would enjoy the excitement I'm sure.

I'd rather live in a society where no one feels at risk, ever. Maybe thats the reality in most parts of the US, and the gun culture thing is just unneccessary paranoia. People buy guns because they can. As soon as everyone else has one you feel like you need one too, its just a vicious circle. There are gun crimes very occasionally in Aus, but they're big news when they happen, and everyone is really shocked. Everyone says "oh dear I hope we're not turning into America"!!

 

[ledhed]

I think it's case by case. Having said that, say my neighbor shoots a burglar. Instead of going for the burglar's arms or legs, he shoots him in the head. I don't see any problem there at all.

I live in a crazy country that a guy breaks into someone's home and injures himself. He sues the homeowner and wins. If the homeowner decides to shoot and kill anyone who breaks into his home, I'm all for it. I wouldn't do it personally, but I do support the decision. I know it's harsh, but I'm also putting in the victim and their family's safety in mind as well. I mean, you shoot his arm, he goes to jail. There is no gurantee that when he gets out, he'll kill you and your family as a revenge.......

You cant legaly shoot a someone for stealing , even if you find them in your house ( most states ) . They have to put you in fear for your life and if you shoot them you have to be able to prove a reasonable person would have been afraid of damage to life or limb If you shoot someone who is running away , even if he is carrying your life savings , in most states you will be caharged with murder or manslaughter ( or assault if you dont manage to kill him ) .
Even when in a self defense posture you can only use reasonable force to subdue your attacker...try to prove you had to shoot someone 19 times in the head to " subdue " them ... You can only do that in Britain when chasing subway riders from Brazil Usually if you could have run or walked away and you did not you will be charged with something ...again in most states . The Florida law takes all the guess work out ...I call it the " f#@# with me you die " law .

Wondering about why so many people have firearms in the US is a pastime of the Europeans ...but look at it this way you guys have a good reason for not being able to own firearms...its called history..you started three or more world wars ..turned people into lamp shades and soap ..invade each other every few decades or so , you have French people all in one place called France..when you first tried democracy you elected Hitler with it . You have a bad habit of finding land and claiming ownership..or at least that its now a " colony " . you managed to set up a system where you sell drugs to a countrys people to get silver to buy tea and then declared war when the country decided it was not a good thing to have its people on drugs. Concentration camps and gulags ..thanks for that . The cold war ends and you celibrate by commiting genocide in Serbia /' Kosovo etc...is it any wonder the dudes with the atomic bomb secrets ran away to America so you crazy knuckleheads didnt get it ? With your history your lucky you are allowed sharp sissors .
We have guns in America to make sure we never get like the guys we all ran away from . And to shoot people who steal our paking place occasionally . 💡

 

[Blake]

There are gun crimes very occasionally in Aus, but they're big news when they happen, and everyone is really shocked. Everyone says "oh dear I hope we're not turning into America"!!

Yet people are stabbed to death all the time and we never really hear of it.

Blake