Need advice on legal use of lethal force.

[thereismore]

A friend of mine explained to me that attacking Iraq is just like
shooting someone who threatens you. The specific situation given was this: if a guy walks into your store with a hand in his pocket (that could possibly conceal a gun) and says "your money or I'll kill you", you are justified to shoot him.

I know that state laws vary somewhat about use of lethal force, but I have a feeling that in this specific case there is no state in which that would be legal (except maybe Texas). I think shooting him would be murder in any state.

Any comment? Please give me some solid links and references, I have striked out.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. A major truth

No matter how many references you come up with for your friend, he's not going to change his mind, so my advice to you - not legal advice, to be sure - is to let it go and let time prove him to be ever so wrong.

[obxhead]

2. the problem with that arguement about Iraq is

they were not a direct threat. Inspectors were there etc, etc, etc. I'll work on some links for ya though.

[slackmaster]

3. Here's the guidline taught at the Front Site Institute in Pahrump, Nevada

If something is not worth dying for, it's not worth killing for.

[pitohui]

5. don't get that

self defense is definitely worth killing for, if it's a choice between i die or you die you're out of luck bunky

anyone who threatens another & makes them believe their life is at risk should be prepared to pay the price because self-defense is pretty much an absolute

[slackmaster]

13. The point is your life may be over if you use deadly force

Even if you are morally justified in a self-defense situation, you put yourself at risk of going to jail, being financially ruined, getting run out of town by people who were friends or family of the person you used force on. You could even become the target of a revenge killing.

Laws on when deadly force is justified vary widely from state to state. In order to keep things simple, in the class I took last year we were taught that if you have any doubt that deadly force is justified in a particular situation the answer is always "No".

You use deadly force to protect things as precious as life itself, i.e. your own life or the life of a loved one.

[pitohui]

4. well i won't do yr homework for you

there must be thousands upon thousands of legal references you can search if you really care

i'll just comment that if you have reason to believe the person has a weapon & they are on yr property, yes, you may shoot them to save yr life, i know of a man who did this, shot the guy dead, who turned out to be un-armed except w. a brick, he was acquitted, wasn't texas either, i'm sure there are thousands of such cases you could look up

[Horse with no Name]

6. Well it is very simple

If someone walks into my house and threatens my life or my property, I can legally shoot to kill.

However, I can't walk into someone else's house and legally kill them because I, while sitting in my house, perceived they were a threat to my life or property while they were sitting in their house.

That fits the definition of premeditated murder.

[thereismore]

11. You rock. nt

[slackmaster]

14. Yes, if you pick a fight with someone you are never justified

in subsequent use of deadly force.

[Jersey Devil]

7. It would probably be justifiable homicide (self-defense)

Generally, if you are confronted with "deadly force", or if you reasonably believe you are confronted with deadly force (the hand in the pocket coupled with the threat to kill you), you can respond with deadly force IF you have no way to safely retreat from the situation. Most states also say that if confronted with deadly force in your home you have no duty to retreat.

In the case you cited it was a store, not a home, so there would be a duty to retreat if it could be done so safely (i.e., someone locked behind a bulletproof glass partition).

As for Iraq, when did Iraq confront us with deadly force? Saddam Hussein never threatened to attack the US whether he had WMD or not.

[yella_dawg]

8. Always glad to see these offhand swipes at Texans

Shows the rest of you are still properly jealous. :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. A couple of links

I googled "Use of lethal force" and put "America" in the advanced search engine.

The ABA has a link here, but it's mainly about videos they have to sell:

www.ali-aba.org/aliaba/tw99/.asp

Then there was another site called "Talkin' To America" that had an interview with a fellow who has written a book about firearms, their use, and the use of lethal force. It's at www.jpfo.org/tta050805.htm

The fellow said the key was not to be the aggressor in a situation. Don't do anything to egg on the other person. If the other person goes away, don't go after them. He went on to talk about warning shots, shooting to disable, etc.

Hope this helps (and hope I typed in the links right!)

[K-W]

10. What on earth does that have to do with Iraq? EOM

[thereismore]

12. I know. Nothing. In his head, however, everything. n/t

[slackmaster]

15. BTW shooting would be legal in California in your hypothetical

It sounds like a credible threat to me.

Storekeepers in California can legally carry concealed loaded firearms while they are at work.

[NickB79]

16. The analogy makes no sense

WE invaded Iraq, despite the fact that they had no way of directly attacking us, nor did we have any evidence showing they were working with terrorists to attack us.

A better analogy is this:

One neighbor (the US) thought the neighbor down the street (Iraq) was secretly planning on killing him in his sleep. So he grabs a machinegun and a bazooka, blows up the front of the house, barges through the door with gun blazing, and shoots the second neighbor dead. Upon inspection of the house, the most deadly weapon the dead neighbor had was an old rusty BB gun the first neighbor actually gave to him years before. The first neighbor tries to argue that this proves the man would have eventually tried to kill him.

Does this work out to justifiable homicide? No, it points to the first neighbor being a paranoid nutjob who just murdered someone for no reason and has no defense to speak of.

[Laughing Mirror]

17. Except Iraq didn't threaten "you"

Tell your friend.

[trackfan]

18. Even if you were to stipulate that the legal right to shoot him

exists in that case, the analogy doesn't hold, because Iraq was never threatening or menacing the US in any way at the time we went to war.

[NorthernSpy]

19. dumb analogy, because Iraq DIDN'T "walk into our store"...

Your friend casts Iraq as the armed intruder, which is perfectly absurd. This guy really needs to remember just who threatened and invaded whom.

A better analogy would be the paranoid sociopath who becomes obsessed with the idea that the upstairs neighbor is disrespecting him, and so breaks down the neighbor's door and tries to kill the neighbor and his family. The paranoid sociopath may feel his actions were justified, but obviously that doesn't mean that they were.

[thereismore]

20. Thank you all for input. It is sooo simple actually. As

many of you said, I adapted this to say:

if you are convinced a guy in another state is plotting to kill you, and you go break into his house, kill his family and handcuff him, you will go to prison for murder. I haven't heard from my friend yet.