Never a Legal Permission to shoot Anyone.

G

gvf

Moderator
I think many - including me - look on CCW and Self Defense Law as carrying permission to shoot people in certain circumstances. But in my state - NY - nor any that I know of, does any law refer to a special permission to shoot.

CCW law says nothing about shooting anyone. It is a permission to carry a weapon - and even if it's granted for personal protection - it still just a permission to carry. Nothing more. No word about shooting anyone.

Self Defense law is simply a legally accepted defense against homicide if certain conditions are met. It is not a permission to kill people. And there is no reference to how the self-defense action is taken, stabbing an intruder with a kitchen knife, hitting someone over the head with a rock as he pulls a knife out etc. No "tool" used in the defensive action is mentioned in SD Law The criteria isn't how you defended yourself but if what you did will fulfill the conditions of SD. If so, you are not-guilty of homicide. This defense was not written for those who carry guns. The defense was written for all of us, CCW or not.
`

If you shot someone in SD, a second question would be whether you were given legal permission to carry a gun. If you were you would not be charged with Gun Law violations. But that would have nothing to so with the question of a proper SD defense against homicide.


I find this interesting - and different than how we often view our permits for CCW.
 
This is something that should be

emphasized in every CCW class in every jurisdiction where it is true. So far as I know, that'd be all of them, but I could well be wrong about that.

In fact, it should be emphasized in both directions. If your use of deadly force does not meet the criteria set forth in your State's laws, you're guilty of a homicide, regardless of the weapon you used, or the legality of your possession of that weapon. Likewise, even if your use of force was justified, you are still subject to prosecution if the weapon you used in self-defense was not legally owned or carried. It may even be true in some jurisdictions that the use of an illegal or illegally-carried weapon disqualifies you from a claim of self defense. I'm not sure about that one.

And hitting someone over the head with a brick is legally the same as shooting them. Deadly force is deadly force.

This is serious business, with serious potential consequences.

--Shannon
 
Right! We have to understand the law since it will judge us. Too late after a shooting to say "Wait a minute, I always thought........"
 
Homicide is simply the killing of one human being by another.

Self-defense is a legal justification.

There are numerous criminal offenses in which homicide is an element, but homicide by itself is not a criminal offense. The evidence and circumstances surrounding a homicide determines what elements can be established and hence what crime, if any, has allegedly been committed (e.g. murder, voluntary manslaughter, etc.).

The same applies even if there is no homicide. Depending on the jurisdiction it may be attempted murder, AWIK (assault with intent to kill), etc. While self-defense is a legal justification in all jurisdictions, the interpretations vary.
 
Excellent thread!

I've lost count of the number of times I've had to explain to people that I have a permit to CARRY and that actual use of any form of self defense is another LIBRARY of law all unto itself.

I can usually get people to understand my point and it's always fun to watch their expression when they finally "get it".
 
Having said all of these things we should also try to make it clear under law that a righteous citizen trying to protect his family and home should not be barbequed in court.

I would not allow a civil court action by the aggressor if the shooting was justified.

The armed citizen should only be focused on safety and security during an attack.

He should not be second-guessing himself about serving prison time for his actions in providing security.
 
AMEN!
Once self defense is ruled as justified all the civil and criminal "legal sniping" that typically follows needs to be shut down.
 
I think people get barbecued when courts allow sharp attorneys to conflate CCW law and SD Law to confuse a jury. Then you get imputations about the CCW's shooting skills/procedure, for example, as if that had anything to do with Self-Defense, as if he was a cop instead of a private citizen and somehow did not train properly - shooting the assailant three times when "one would have been enough", or not warning him first (or some such nonsense). That would be like insisting the woman who saved herself from rape/murder with a kitchen knife had to be trained in "kitchen-knife combat and procedure" to be able to use SD as a Justification.

Civil suits I believe is the area where this type of shoddy law occurs the most. And courts should toss suits based on it out the window.
 
I think you are over stating the obvious. I know of no CCW holder who thinks of it as a license to kill.

What prompted you to start this thread?
 
Civil suits I believe is the area where this type of shoddy law occurs the most. And courts should toss suits based on it out the window.
Click to expand...

Different standards of proof.

You want exceptions, legislate it.

WildthecourtshaveadutytofollwothelawaswrittenAlaska TM
 
Why I Started The Thread

It's interesting law, that's one reason, or at least to me it's interesting.

I don't believe CCWs think they have a license to kill. The ones I know are very responsible. No, it's just that the more we know of the law the more careful we can be if in some incident. I think here it's to know the police will not be "on our side" more because we have a permit to carry, they will treat us as they do anyone in a homicide investigation. If we mistake a permission to carry with some vague sense of allowance we might have that others don't: well that may be a good thing to keep in mind if being questioned after any incident.

In any case, what I wrote is just something I fully realized myself recently, and thought I'd share it.


As far as legislating anew civil law: it's already legislated. Judges in some cases are lax in overseeing the law in civil cases (and Criminal also), that's the problem. I was on a jury in a civil case under such circumstances. It was a simple case, but by the time the lawyers introduced 10,000 issues appealing to our emotions and the judge - silent thruout- at the end gave an explanation of the law so confusing that none of had a proper understanding of it -- and we were all intelligent and willing jurors -- we ended up giving an unfair verdict. This I realized only after several different lawyers explained what our options really were - that none of us knew we had - and also said the judge had a terrible reputation in the legal community. This was several days after our verdict.

I trust the Law (or much of it); I don't trust the courts - especially in civil CCW cases.
Best
 
New York Penal Law is very specific as to when a Citizen can use "Deadly Physical Force".

Penal Code Section 35.15 deals with "Use of Physical force in defense of a Person"

Sect35.20 deals with defense of premises and Burglary.

Sect 35.25 deals with force to terminate Larceny or criminal mischief.

Sect 35.30 deals with force and arrest/preventing escape.

When I had a pistol Permit in Suffolk County they provided each permittee with a booklet explaining in legalese when "Deadly Physical Force" can and cannot be used.

My links to the State Police site containing this info are dead and I am not able to resurrect the info on the net. Perhaps someone with more aptitude than I can find it.

Oddly prevention of Arson is one situation where "Deadly Physical Force" can be used.

The penal code never mentions firearms, just "Deadly Physical Force". Which undoubtedly includes Firearms otherwise why would they put it in the "Pistol License Information Handbook"

And there is quite a bit of "If he reasonably Believes" in the code to keep all the legal types arguing for a millenium.

Your license also admonishes you that "You are responsible to know the current Laws"
 
I don't know where you are not getting your information.

Colorado Statute 18-1-704: Use of Physical Force in Defense of a Person:

1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he resonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

a) The actor has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

....

It goes on with other outlines...

_________________________

I looked it up and "Deadly Physical Force" is defined as:

Force which is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.
__________________________

So, I would say it is clearly outlined as to what is and what is not acceptable when it comes to shooting someone in defense of yourself or another. I don't know where you got the idea that there is NEVER a legal option to shoot someone. Though, I WOULD say it SHOULD be the LAST and FINAL option.
 
Pretty much it boils down to two possible guidelines that I adhere to:

1. It's you or them.
2. The only thing worse than shooting that person is not doing so.
 
Last edited:
In Texas you can shoot someone tagging a building-but only at night
Click to expand...

Not if it isn't your building. I think you need to go back and review Texas use of lethal force laws.

I think many - including me - look on CCW and Self Defense Law as carrying permission to shoot people in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

Why would you have thought CCW laws gave you permission to shoot anybody? You think others believe this as well. What would give you/them the impression that CCW laws provide rights about shooting people? What is it about the law that made you think a carry permit is a shooting permit?
 
Quote:
In Texas you can shoot someone tagging a building-but only at night

Not if it isn't your building. I think you need to go back and review Texas use of lethal force laws.


My response was meant to be semi-humorous and I would suspect protecting your own property is foremost but you can defend third party property also, under the right conditions:

PC §9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances
as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be
justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes
attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the
tangible
movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or
deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides
with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

There are other statues that go into greater detail and I can locate them if you wish.

Do you live in Texas or are you semi-familiar with the laws of all states?

David
 
I'm surprised that ANYONE with "walking-about sense" would confuse a firearms license with any statutes regarding when lethal force (that's permission to kill someone) is permitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top