How is self-defense defined?


ishi

New member
This is Arkansas state code. Your state's law may differ.

5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3)
(A) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

(B) As used in this section, “domestic abuse” means the same as defined in § 9-15-103.​

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:


(1)
(A) By retreating.

(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:

(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or

(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or
(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.
(c) As used in this section, “curtilage” means the land adjoining a dwelling that is convenient for family purposes and habitually used for family purposes, but not necessarily enclosed, and includes an outbuilding that is directly and intimately connected with the dwelling and in close proximity to the dwelling.

History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 507; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-507; Acts 1997, No. 1257, § 1; 2007, No. 111, § 1.​
 

Muzz

New member
From Missouri Revised Statues, Ch. 563 - Defense of Justification:
(this isn't the whole thing, only the applicable excerpts - Muzz)
Use of force in defense of persons.
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided
(a) He has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson.
 
Last edited:

S.C.

New member
Fuzzy

SC and NC see things in a different light, there is a duty to retreat, can’t shoot to kill in your house icky sticky mess and that how to transport a firearm variance.

I live in one state work in another and stay confused as the laws bend back and forth.
 

Hondov65

New member
As of Dec 1, 2007 there is no duty to retreat in North Carolina. The Castle Doctrine is in effect.:cool:
SC and NC see things in a different light, there is a duty to retreat, can’t shoot to kill in your house icky sticky mess and that how to transport a firearm variance.

I live in one state work in another and stay confused as the laws bend back and forth.
 
Last edited:

CA CCWInstructor

New member
From California Penal Code:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.


198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.
 

CA CCWInstructor

New member
California has had a Castle law since 1995. We just don't call it that.

"shall be Presumed" is the kicker. They need to prove you were not in fear, you don't have to prove anything.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.
 

gvaldeg1

NRA Member
Arizona passed the "Castle Doctrine" in April of 2006. This superseded the antediluvian "need to retreat" requirement and the necessity to "present an affirmative defense" that existed previously. The legislature has restored the presumption of innocence that had previously been taken away (de facto).
 

rmarcustrucker

New member
ohio is working on a castle doctorine bill. About time. They've only excepted our 2nd ammendment rights for alittle under 4 years (got my ccw 5/04). Bout time they catch up.
 

Jay

New member
Indiana code
IC 35-41.

Synopsis: Firearms and self-defense. Specifies that a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. Specifies that a person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Effective: July 1, 2006.
 

cmurphy

New member
§ 97-3-15. Homicide; justifiable homicide; use of defensive force; duty to retreat.



(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:


(a) When committed by public officers, or those acting by their aid and assistance, in obedience to any judgment of a competent court;

(b) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or to the discharge of any other legal duty;

(c) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in retaking any felon who has been rescued or has escaped;

(d) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in arresting any felon fleeing from justice;

(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;

(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

(g) When necessarily committed in attempting by lawful ways and means to apprehend any person for any felony committed;

(h) When necessarily committed in lawfully suppressing any riot or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

(2) (a) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section, the term "when necessarily committed" means that a public officer or a person acting by or at the officer's command, aid or assistance is authorized to use such force as necessary in securing and detaining the felon offender, overcoming the offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm; but such officer or person shall not be authorized to resort to deadly or dangerous means when to do so would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The public officer or person acting by or at the officer's command may act upon a reasonable apprehension of the surrounding circumstances; however, such officer or person shall not use excessive force or force that is greater than reasonably necessary in securing and detaining the offender, overcoming the offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm.


(b) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section the term "felon" shall include an offender who has been convicted of a felony and shall also include an offender who is in custody, or whose custody is being sought, on a charge or for an offense which is punishable, upon conviction, by death or confinement in the Penitentiary.

(c) As used in subsections (1)(e) and (3) of this section, "dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any attached porch;


(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;


(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person's failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.

(5) (a) The presumptions contained in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a defense.


(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant acted in accordance with subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section. A defendant who has previously been adjudicated "not guilty" of any crime by reason of subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from same conduct.


Basically: No duty to retreat, civil protection, assumed self defense.. you're good to go in your home, car, or place of business.
 
Last edited:

kelcarry

New member
Not quite sure what this thread is really seeking that is not available on the USA Carry information summaries but a quick answer for most states is simply your response to the presumption of imminent threat of death or great bodily injury and, as mentioned in replies, Castle Doctrine, where the presumption is granted for forced entry in your occupied home or vehicle. Personally I find stand your ground to be a bit closed to alternative ways of avoiding any kind of self-defense confrontation that could result in a shooting--ie. try running away first or backing up, if feasible--the "if" is a big word in this but stand your ground seems not to care about it.
 

alternety

New member
Is there a model Castle Doctrine anywhere that is useful for sending to lawmakers in states that don't have one so they understand what it means and have something to start from?
 

kelcarry

New member
Hey alternety: Go to the USA summaries for South Carolina. Seems to me that their wording for Castle Doctrine and, what appears to be prosecutors support of same when such incidents occur is probably as good as it gets.
S.C Code of Laws Title 16 Chapter 11 Section 16-11-440 (A). www.scstatehouse.gov-LPITS
 

alternety

New member
Hey alternety: Go to the USA summaries for South Carolina. Seems to me that their wording for Castle Doctrine and, what appears to be prosecutors support of same when such incidents occur is probably as good as it gets.
S.C Code of Laws Title 16 Chapter 11 Section 16-11-440 (A). Link Removed

Thanks, but bad link.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,394
Messages
623,166
Members
74,218
Latest member
Evrviglnt
Top