Proposal for change in self defense laws

[JustifiedForce]

Here in the USA by law if you're attacked you're allowed to defend yourself. However there are certain conditions that must be met in order for your actions to be considered "self defense" by law. For one thing obviously you have to be attacked. Also, you can't continue to beat on an assailant after you've stopped them. Lets say an attacker is coming at you, you knock them out with a punch and as they're laying there unconscious you proceed to kick and stomp them. At that point it is not self defense as you've stopped them and they're no longer a threat. Both those things I mentioned above I think are good guidelines. However what I do disagree with is having to respond with force on force. Having to use a level of force that is in proportion to the level of force your attacker is using. This is just an idea but my proposal is to get rid of that standard. Another words, to make it so that there is no limit to the level of force you can use against an attacker as long as you stop when the attacker stops. This is just a thought and if anybody disagrees they are welcome to state their opinion and as to why.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is a forum that discusses military matters not civil rights issues. This discussion is not pertinent to this forum and is best served at another venue. Secondly this is not a US centric forum so again is not the platform upon which to discuss US domestic civil issues. Finally this thread is political and as such contravenes the rules of this forum.

 

[OPSSG]

Thread closed, pending Mod Team discussion (please bear with us for a day or two).

 

[Preceptor]

Following discussion among the members of the Mod team,
the thread will remain locked, as the forum is an International and not a US-only forum, also we take a dim view of sociopolitical, since this is a defense forum.

Further, a few points of correction and clarification are needed. In the US, the right to self-defense, what constitutes self-defense, and also what constitutes an attack one can defend against varies widely depending on what state, county, and/or municipality one is located in. Blanket statements that people in the US can always defend themselves is inaccurate, because some areas people are required to flee unless that isn't an option for some reason.

As for the use of proportional force, and especially changing that notion, one is of course entitled to their own respective opinions. I would suggest though, that the OP stop and study what the current rules are for their area, and why they are what they are. The general rule in most areas of the US, where the use of force is permitted, is that the responding force has to be in proportion to the initiating force. In other words, if someone with a gun or knife on them has someone else take a swing at them, the defending person cannot just shoot or stab their attacker. There are of course exceptions, since one of the key areas is whether or not the assailant is using sufficient force to cause death or serious injury. That is really what determines what degree of force is proportional. If the defender is someone with health issues which can cause issues healing, or the effects of injury to be greater than normal, then a normal punch like can occur in a fistfight could cause them death or serious injury, which could permit a response using a weapon. I think very few reasonable people would consider an intracranial .45ACP injection in response to a slap to the face to be an appropriate response, in most circumstances.
-Preceptor