We don't need no stinking badges

[Tero]

This came up in the thread that derailed into bullet porn.

Education and reformation of laws governing self-defense would help a great deal.

So enlighten me. What are you allowed to do. And what not. We can mention gun, handgun, etc. but no arms trivia needed in this thread. I don't really care about the weapons. The actions and the law. Citizen's arrest etc.

[klr]

I guess that would vary from one state to the next. The further south you go ...

[Svartalf]

Given that TX and CA are both anal enough that open carry is prohibited... it's not a latitude thing

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Given that TX and CA are both anal enough that open carry is prohibited... it's not a latitude thing

Anyone carrying an anus should keep it concealed IMO. OK, I know, serious thread, etc. I'll just go...

[Tero]

The point was to describe your freedoms in your state. No need to identify a state, N, S E or coast is enough. Or Canada.

[Jason]

I've brought it up before in the gun thread, but what I'm talking about is proportional response. If some guy gets rowdy and takes a swing at you what is the proportional response? Pull your gun and wave it in his face? That'll get you charged with attempted homicide in Canada while he'll just get charged with aggravated assault at most. The laws are fairly simple: if you are threatened the force (or potential force) with which you respond must not exceed the threat. This doesn't mean that you cannot haul iron on someone unless they're brandishing a firearm though. It does mean you must be in mortal danger for you to respond with a firearm (that includes threatening with one). For example, if someone is brandishing a lethal weapon, such as a knife, and is clearly intent on doing you harm (for whatever reason, coercion included) then you are justified in responding with a firearm provided flight from the situation is not a possibility. If you can reasonably escape the threat and you respond with your firearm instead then you can be charged with attempted homicide or worse. If you're in your home rather than a public place the rules change somewhat in that the judge is far less likely to factor in whether or not you could flee in his decision, though the lawyers may still lay whatever charges they wish. Firearms are never to be used to resolve a conflict which has not already escalated to the point where that response would be considered proportional (which is what I mean when I say justified). My neighbour, an older (70 something) Lithuanian fellow (I only mention his place of origin because he retains much of the mindset of his home-country) was arrested, charged, and his firearms seized, just a few months ago because when two people who were visiting him in his home (they were all drinking heavily) started to brawl with each other he got his gun and threatened the one who started the altercation with it and forced him to leave. He went to court and the judge found him innocent because the response was proportional considering all the facts. I tell you this story for two reasons: One is to show how the law is exercised and the second is to show that all relevant considerations are taken into account when the case is brought to the bench. It's not a case of rendering your average citizen powerless in self-defence, it's about responsible self-defence. I'd liken using a firearm in self-defence, or threatening someone with one, to a naval practice: A captain is responsible for his ship - if it is lost, no matter the circumstance, he faces a court martial to judge his culpability. All considerations are taken into account and he may very well be cleared, but he is still brought to trial. There are clear rules which he knows, but circumstances and other considerations govern the ruling considerably.

In short, if you're in clear mortal danger and can flee, flee.
If you're in clear mortal danger and cannot flee, respond proportionally according to the situation.

This applies to the defence of others as well. If they can flee, if they're in clear mortal danger, etc.

The purpose of this system is manifold, but two things it does is govern and/or stop the escalation of conflicts which, if escalated, expand the threat to all in the immediate and surrounding area, and it stops those who would be 'citizen police' simply because they have a firearm and believe they can settle the conflict with swift finality. This results in far fewer homicides, far fewer deaths, and a safer society than exists in places where a wholly different system of self-defence governance is in place. Our citizens are acclimated with this system and, though they may not know the actual laws, they by and large act accordingly with it.

I have, so far, refrained from criticising the 'American' model of self-defence, but the differences should be self-evident and the differences in results speak for themselves. For those who won't understand (Seth), I'll say one thing and shortly: The 'American' people are acclimated with the 'American' system and, though they may not know the actual laws, they by and large act accordingly with it.

[laklak]

I like Florida law. No duty to retreat, easy concealed carry permits and no registration. There is a presumption, under Castle Doctrine laws, that anyone entering your home without your permission intends you harm, therefore you can shoot them without worry. The law also indemnifies you against civil suit if you act within the confines of the law, so the burglar can't sue you later if you don't manage to kill him. The law applies to any place you have a legal right to be, so you're covered in your home, your car, your boat or in any public place.

[Tero]

Fúkú, I didn't get the captain bit of it. Let's just stick to the one individual, Seth on his compound etc.

[Jason]

It was an analogy. Captains face an automatic court martial if they lose their ship, firearms used in self-defence or in threat are similarly brought under investigation.

[FBM]

Here in Korea, if you hurt your attacker more than s/he hurts you, you'll probably go to jail for it. It's stupid, and there has been some limited public debate about it lately. They're too tight with the proportional response thing. If someone were to slap me, for example, I'd like to have the right to break his jaw. But not kill him. A short hospital visit should discourage him from doing that sort of thing.

[Tero]

You can't use any violence in Nordic countries against burglars. Other evil doers can't be shot either. Lots of axes and knives, though.

But back to N America..,

[Jason]

Vikings never really took to gunpowder. Mongolians though..

[Svartalf]

Finns used to be demons with rifles some time ago, though... and China made kalash's are little more than fireworks.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

As I have mentioned before - me Missus was asian. a very different sense of proportionality to us in the West. To her killing someone over a warranty dispute on a Karaoke machine was proportionate. and that after the dispute being settled in her favour. That one I think I talked her out of. I think. But that proportionality was based on pragmatism as in her world you didn't beat someone up or even break there legs because that tends to upset folks. and upset folks can respond later. dead ones not so much (have to take into account any connections they have who will survive - family or otherwise - and either find a face saving way out for all concerned, or kill enough of them pour discourage les autres).

I mention that because in the west proportionality is also based on the practical - where the rule of law does exist there is usually no reason to kill people over stuff. including just in case. and can therefore afford to react with less than everything you can muster.

Sometimes I do wonder whether if I get into some serious personal aggro in this part of the world whether I will be able to avoid a reaction that would be entirely sensible in the far east........

.....but fortunately I am a laid back fella who is not up to no good. anymore.

[Jason]

Who was it that said something like 'When you do injury to a man, be sure to do it so he can never exact his revenge on you'?

Sun Tzu or Machiavelli was it?