Where is the line drawn between what is considered self defense vs murder?

[skj2013]

I have always been told that if you are in fear for your life then you have the right to protect it, even if by deadly force. I know every state has different laws but is there a general guideline for where the line is drawn between self defense and murder? I have come across so many stories lately where law abiding citizens shoot an intruder, rapist, or someone who is physically trying to harm them or their family; and they end up getting punished more severely than the person who caused the crime?!? When we are put in a distressful situation are we supposed to take the time out to think, "Ok is my life really in enough danger that I can prove in a court of law I had the right to use my gun?" How threatened do we have to be to be allowed by law to react to the situation with force?

The reason I am asking is because I have a very special situation. I am a single mom and my son is Type-1 diabetic. We live a very time sensitive lifestyle. Proper scheduling of meals, proper administration time for insulin, and very close monitoring of his blood sugars is his lifeline. If he has a hypoglycemic reaction (low blood sugar) he can be dead in minutes or seconds. My life or my son's life doesn't have to be directly threatened by physical force or some type of weapon in order to put us in a situation I fear for my son's life. Someone simply taking my time and attention away from my son against my will is enough to indefinitely harm my child. If I am being physically or sexually assaulted, even if the person has no intention of killing me after, could be taking my attention away from my son enough that he could have a hypoglycemic reaction. Hurting me to the point I am unconscious (but alive), drugging me to the point I can't think clearly, tying me to a chair, locking me in my room, or even stealing my purse that has my sons supplies in it all put my childs life in immediate danger. My uninterrupted attention to my son is his life support. So how do I determine at what point in time a threat is enough for me to react to by force? In my eyes anything against my will is a direct threat to my sons life. Any type of a threat at all to me would make me fear for my sons life.

I am just finding it very hard to research online how gun laws would work in my situation.

Thanks,

 

[Chrisdrummer]

Somewhere in your town is an attorney who specializes in the use of lethal force. I would suggest that you take the time to find him or her, spend what it takes to get an hour or so of his or her time, and develop a professional relationship with him/her. An armchair lawyer will be of no help if the SHTF in your life. Better to be prepared than to be wrong.

 

[Sauer]

As you said, it varies by state. Here in Missouri, you are allowed to neutralize the threat of aggression when imminent death or great bodily harm (including rape), to yourself or another, is likely to occur. The nitty gritty to keep you from spending a long time in jail...The attacker needs to be close, probably armed, facing you (no shooting someone in the back that's trying to run away) you have serious wounds or visible signs of an attack, in your home...You get the idea. The more you have on your side, to prove you are an armed victim, acting in self defense, the better. It's also important to remember, if it comes to that, you're going to jail till they get things sorted out. It could be many hours. Given your son's medical issues, you need to get plan b, c, d and e worked out asap. This site, a bunch of others and your local gun range is a great place to go for advice specific to your state. Cops (LE) are a good source of info too as they're first responders. Wouldn't hurt to find a lawyer, ideally one who specializes in self defense cases, but any lawyer can get you out of jail sooner. Memorize the phone number. One last piece of advice that's repeated a lot, when you call 911, ask for an ambulance first, then police. You NEVER want to kill someone, you simply neutralized the threat of aggression. Good luck on getting the answers you're looking for...my guess is this will be an active thread.

 

[telpinaro]

In any of those situations deadly force can be justifiable (except possibly the purse situation... though purse snatching can be very violent), even without your son's condition. Being restrained, being attacked, you can't know for sure if it's going to end in death or not. BG's lie... if they say "Just let me tie you up and I'll leave you alone," how do you know they don't want you helpless so they can assault you any way they please with no resistance?

A jury is supposed to go by a "reasonable person" doctrine... if you can make them see things from your point of view, then you'll be fine. Education is key... take classes, watch lectures, DOCUMENT your training and you can use it in your defense at trial. Check out the Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network... joining for even just a year is well worth the training materials they provide. And the "They" is extremely impressive: Marty Hayes, Massad Ayoob, Dennis Tueller and several other big names. I bet they'd also be able to provide resources about your situation as well.

Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc.

 

[3gunshooter]

This is not to offend anyone.......Talk to a lawyer. Don't ask cops, don't ask people at the range and don't get legal advise off an internet forum.

 

[Rich kid]

Somewhere in your town is an attorney who specializes in the use of lethal force. I would suggest that you take the time to find him or her, spend what it takes to get an hour or so of his or her time, and develop a professional relationship with him/her. An armchair lawyer will be of no help if the SHTF in your life. Better to be prepared than to be wrong.

The best advice you can ever get is to ask someone that knows. Before you decide that it's too expensive consider what it would cost to have a lawyer defend you on a homicide charge.

 

[telpinaro]

This is not to offend anyone.......Talk to a lawyer. Don't ask cops, don't ask people at the range and don't get legal advise off an internet forum.

Definitely. Internet is great for getting ideas... but when it comes to legal matters, double-check everything! Including what I say, since I was trying to be as general as possible because states can vary widely. :wink:

 

[FrontTowardEnemy]

And should you ever have to get involved with the police, never, EVER, talk to them about ANYTHING without a lawyer. You can be as polite as you want, but just tell them that you'd been advised to have professional representation before you answer ANY questions. No matter how small, they will try to use anything you say against you. That's their job. Please take the time to watch this: Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

 

[telpinaro]

And should you ever have to get involved with the police, never, EVER, talk to them about ANYTHING without a lawyer. You can be as polite as you want, but just tell them that you'd been advised to have professional representation before you answer ANY questions. No matter how small, they will try to use anything you say against you. That's their job. Please take the time to watch this: Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

Some recommend that, others have a different idea. Cops hear bad guys saying "I want a lawyer" all the time... after a self-defense incident you don't want to sound like the BG!

Massad Ayoob recommends telling the cops 5 things (from a lecture I watched), and the first one anyone should be okay with saying: "That guy attacked me." Giving details is bad, your perception changes when your life is in danger, but that's one thing you can be very clear about without accidentally saying something to make you sound bad. After that, the list goes:
2. Offer to sign a complaint.
3. Point out evidence (casings, etc).
4. Point out witnesses.
5. Offer to fully cooperate after speaking with representation.

Not talking at all is certainly fine, just be polite, of course. If you don't trust yourself to not start talking a hundred miles an hour (people do when nervous sometimes!) definitely go that route. Hopefully I'll never have to, but I'd probably follow Mr. Ayoob's advice if necessary.

 

[Pir8fan]

You stop the threat. Beyond that, you become the aggressor and dig yourself a very deep legal hole. If in stopping the threat, the bad guy survives, that's fine. If he doesn't survive, that's too bad. If the guys out of the fight, the threat has been stopped.

 

[Sauer]

This is not to offend anyone.......Talk to a lawyer. Don't ask cops, don't ask people at the range and don't get legal advise off an internet forum.

By "anyone" you mean me. That's cool, I'm not offended. I agree, speaking with a lawyer is solid advice. I'm sure you noticed I offered that same advice. But you know personal defense is more complex than just legal issues. Why wouldn't you want to build a knowledge base as broad as possible? Tactical training, practical advise, range time, trigger control, holster choices, gun safety, firearm storage...It's nearly endless. Conversations with as many people as possible will undoubtedly raise new questions, likely un-thought of prior. Forums like this and countless others, wouldn't exist if all the answers could be found in the advice of a lawyer. I have to admit though, I assumed skj2013 was intelligent enough not to build a legal defense on "I saw it somewhere on the interwebs".

 

[3gunshooter]

By "anyone" you mean me. That's cool, I'm not offended. I agree, speaking with a lawyer is solid advice. I'm sure you noticed I offered that same advice. But you know personal defense is more complex than just legal issues. Why wouldn't you want to build a knowledge base as broad as possible? Tactical training, practical advise, range time, trigger control, holster choices, gun safety, firearm storage...It's nearly endless. Conversations with as many people as possible will undoubtedly raise new questions, likely un-thought of prior. Forums like this and countless others, wouldn't exist if all the answers could be found in the advice of a lawyer. I have to admit though, I assumed skj2013 was intelligent enough not to build a legal defense on "I saw it somewhere on the interwebs".

I have heard way too much advice given out at gun ranges, gun shops and cops that would get you in trouble. Having had taken tons of tactical training classes most teach you how to shoot a person and not what leads up to it and very little on the aftermath (mainly gun fighting). The OP needs to know how to shoot which is the easy part. The only guy I have been to that teaches the best classes that teach all of what I said is Massad Ayoob. I don't know where the OP lives but she should look into that I know he travels around the country training. It's something you have to live and keep up on.

 

[Sauer]

3gun-
Agreed. It's not like keeping a jack in your car in case you have a flat, it's a lifestyle that requires constant attention.

 

[telpinaro]

I have heard way too much advice given out at gun ranges, gun shops and cops that would get you in trouble. Having had taken tons of tactical training classes most teach you how to shoot a person and not what leads up to it and very little on the aftermath (mainly gun fighting). The OP needs to know how to shoot which is the easy part. The only guy I have been to that teaches the best classes that teach all of what I said is Massad Ayoob. I don't know where the OP lives but she should look into that I know he travels around the country training. It's something you have to live and keep up on.

I'd jump at a chance to take one of his classes. I did the next best thing and took one from someone who JUST got back from his MAG40 class, so I got some second-hand info. And I have a couple lectures by him on DVD. Not as good as in-person, but hopefully I'll get the chance some day.

 

[3gunshooter]

I'd jump at a chance to take one of his classes. I did the next best thing and took one from someone who JUST got back from his MAG40 class, so I got some second-hand info. And I have a couple lectures by him on DVD. Not as good as in-person, but hopefully I'll get the chance some day.

He was the first class I had ever taken. It is a life changer as far as making you think about this kind of stuff. I mix a lot of his teaching into the classes I give. He gave classes about 5 miles from my house where i lived in Indiana and is good friends with the guy that owned the range. It would have been stupid not to take them. Check his website out for a class near you.

 

[telpinaro]

He was the first class I had ever taken. It is a life changer as far as making you think about this kind of stuff. I mix a lot of his teaching into the classes I give. He gave classes about 5 miles from my house where i lived in Indiana and is good friends with the guy that owned the range. It would have been stupid not to take them. Check his website out for a class near you.

I'm in Colorado, I haven't seen any yet. Think there was one in Utah last month or something... but I can't afford the class and travel expenses both, so I have to wait.

Looks like he's been upgrading his website... a lot is under construction. Funny thing is I think I recognize the template... lol (I've been building websites for work.)

 

[BluesStringer]

As to the OP's original question, the "line" that is drawn in all American jurisdictions is the same - it boils down to the "reasonable person" standard. Sometimes that standard is predetermined by law in the form of Castle Doctrine statutes that allow the residents of a given domicile to assume a deadly threat when a stranger is either trying to enter or has already entered their home. Other times the reasonable person standard is determined by a jury charged with deciding if the fear of great bodily injury or death was reasonable to the point of justifying using deadly force against the threatening person. There are local and state variables such as a duty to retreat (if safe to do so), but in all cases the bottom line judgment to use deadly force against another human being must comport with a "reasonable person's" view that that force was justified in the defense of self or others.

The OP's son's condition is a unique situation that may complicate determining whether deadly force was justified or not, but if delaying his meds is as deadly as the OP states it would be, then I don't see how it would prevent a successful claim of defense of self and/or others if she used deadly force. It depends on which state she lives in before a reasonable prediction about what level of law enforcement or the "justice" system the determination might be made at, but as long as the reasonable person standard can be met, the defense of self and/or others claim should ultimately prevail.

I am not a lawyer, but I do know the laws of my state, and can reasonably predict whether I'd have to explain my justification for pulling the trigger to LE, a DA or a jury. In most cases, my state's deadly force laws will protect me from having to face a jury as long as a "reasonable person" would've done the same thing I did. The OP needs to fully understand the law in whatever state she lives in, and she also needs to research how those laws are typically enforced in her town and county in order to predict how she will most likely be treated should she ever have to use deadly force. Knowledge is power. Getcha some of both.

Blues

 

[bowserb]

Get Massad Ayoob's books "In the Gravest Extreme" and "Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry". Learn real stories of when a gun should have been available and used, should have been used, and should not. Good starting place. You'll have better questions in the event you decide to invest $175 for an hour of a lawyer's time.


Sent using Tapatalk...so please excuse the typos!

 

[Alicia D]

I think the recently famous Trayvon Martin case may help shed some insight on the specifics, of course you do need to keep in mind a multitude of other factors that are situation dependent. I'm not a legal consul so I can't elaborate any further.

Nonetheless, depending on where you live, and where the act in question is committed, the eyes of the law will interpret the behavior in their own manner.

 

[The_Outlaw]

I have always been told that if you are in fear for your life then you have the right to protect it, even if by deadly force. I know every state has different laws but is there a general guideline for where the line is drawn between self defense and murder? I have come across so many stories lately where law abiding citizens shoot an intruder, rapist, or someone who is physically trying to harm them or their family; and they end up getting punished more severely than the person who caused the crime?!? When we are put in a distressful situation are we supposed to take the time out to think, "Ok is my life really in enough danger that I can prove in a court of law I had the right to use my gun?" How threatened do we have to be to be allowed by law to react to the situation with force?

The reason I am asking is because I have a very special situation. I am a single mom and my son is Type-1 diabetic. We live a very time sensitive lifestyle. Proper scheduling of meals, proper administration time for insulin, and very close monitoring of his blood sugars is his lifeline. If he has a hypoglycemic reaction (low blood sugar) he can be dead in minutes or seconds. My life or my son's life doesn't have to be directly threatened by physical force or some type of weapon in order to put us in a situation I fear for my son's life. Someone simply taking my time and attention away from my son against my will is enough to indefinitely harm my child. If I am being physically or sexually assaulted, even if the person has no intention of killing me after, could be taking my attention away from my son enough that he could have a hypoglycemic reaction. Hurting me to the point I am unconscious (but alive), drugging me to the point I can't think clearly, tying me to a chair, locking me in my room, or even stealing my purse that has my sons supplies in it all put my childs life in immediate danger. My uninterrupted attention to my son is his life support. So how do I determine at what point in time a threat is enough for me to react to by force? In my eyes anything against my will is a direct threat to my sons life. Any type of a threat at all to me would make me fear for my sons life.

I am just finding it very hard to research online how gun laws would work in my situation.

Thanks,

I don't know where you are going exactly with this 'type-1 diabete's' situation and I'm truly hoping that you are not 'trolling'.

I'm not trying to be a smart@$$ either, but some people just don't seem to have very much common sense whatsoever and that's why we as a society need law's on the book's and prison's to incarcerate those type's of violent fool's. (You are not a violent fool now are you?)

The fact remain's that if someone is keeping you from your kid's proper scheduling of insulin/food/injection procedure's, that you simply cannot just pull out a weapon and start attacking people because of your kid's diabete's.

For Example's;
You cannot kill the pharmacist because he/she is taking too long to fill your kid's insulin prescription, you can't kill the tow truck driver because he is taking too long to change your flat tire and your kid need's his insulin....You cannot kill the doctor or nurse because you are sitting too long inside of the waiting room and your kid need's his insulin....You cannot kill the teacher or principal for giving your kid an hour's detention and it's insulin time....Etc....Etc....

If you start assaulting people with a deadly weapon simply because they are keeping you from taking care of your kid's meal's/shot's, then you most likely will end up either dead or in prison.

That's just my .02 cents.