Legalities of self defense prepping.

jmjkd

Instructor
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
623
Likes
53
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Just having a gun is not the only prep you will need. You will also need tools to de-escalate. Not only do you want to win the attack, but also the legal battle that follows.

You will need to justify your actions when Lawyers start bombarding you on the stand. So you better have a well thought out reason why you shot this guy rather then run, or subdue them.
 
You will need to justify your actions when Lawyers start bombarding you on the stand. So you better have a well thought out reason why you shot this guy rather then run, or subdue them.


Typically one uses lethal force when one is threatened with lethal force. I would simply tell the Lawyer that.
 
Just having a gun is not the only prep you will need. You will also need tools to de-escalate. Not only do you want to win the attack, but also the legal battle that follows.

You will need to justify your actions when Lawyers start bombarding you on the stand. So you better have a well thought out reason why you shot this guy rather then run, or subdue them.

Depends on what State you're in.

In MA you need to justify your use of lethal force by meeting expectation of flight requirements, however in other states, you do not.

New Hampshire, for instance, provides that there is specifically no expectation of flight in your home, on your property or in your vehicle, so such a line of questioning at trial would be irrelavent and cause for objection to the line of questioning. Since New Hampshire law does not include an expectation of flight outside of those three areas, a similar objection could be made against that line of questioning outside those three exempted areas.

In states with "Stand your Ground" laws, there is no expectation of flight anywhere, so such a line of question is also irrelavent.

Given that the majority of the people in this forum are, for better or worse, residents of MA or reasonably often travel in MA, MA's expectation of flight statute bears merit to consider.

Anyone have the specific self defense statute?

I found this summary:

Everyone has the right to defend himself. To do so however the following circumstances must be present: 1) that the defendant had a reasonable belief that he was being attacked or about to be attacked; 2) the he limit the force he uses to that which is reasonably necessary under the circumstances and 3) that he do all he reasonably can to avoid combat. In close cases judges in Massachusetts are supposed to give the defendant the benefit of any doubt and give a self-defense instruction.

So, if you're going to claim self-defense in the State of MA, be prepared to establish these three conditions.

Well, this is interesting, Part IV, Title II Chapter 278 Section 8A provides castle doctrine in the state of MA. Anyone know if there's a law supersceeding this?

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
 
In a true SHTF / teotwawki situation....dont think many people will be getting sued.

Yes, but using deadly force in self-defense and a legal defense to justify it in the court of law is a much more likely survival senerio that you should be prepared for.
 
In a true SHTF / teotwawki situation....dont think many people will be getting sued.

Yeah, Yankeeprepper says that there won’t be any consequence for killing people after SHFT. So learn to shoot and blast away at anything moving at 500-600ft. [rolleyes] [laugh]
 
Just having a gun is not the only prep you will need. You will also need tools to de-escalate. Not only do you want to win the attack, but also the legal battle that follows.

You will need to justify your actions when Lawyers start bombarding you on the stand. So you better have a well thought out reason why you shot this guy rather then run, or subdue them.

If it is criminal case you'll never be on the stand. Criminal defendants virtually never take the stand in own defense.
 
Her card is hot pink, so you can find it in the dark, just like her AR.

Few if any of the Korean shopkeepers who took to the rooftops during the LA Riots were ever prosecuted.

For anything less than TEOTWAWKI, I have Penny Dean's business card, and can shut up.
 
The legalities of this vary from state to state.

Rather than using internet advice, I've paid a lawyer admitted to my state's bar and recommended to me by my LTC instructor (and Sheriff's Office LT) as someone he would go to if he got jammed up.
 
The laws and the in interpretation of the law may very from state to state but the actual actions of the person will not.
You
Your gun
The corpse.

No matter what state your in.
 
The laws and the in interpretation of the law may very from state to state but the actual actions of the person will not.
You
Your gun
The corpse.

No matter what state your in.

While your statement is true...wasn't the topic of your thread the legalities of self defense? If that was the intent then the state you are in matters significantly. It seems like your statement above contradicts your original post.
 
IMO, one of the best things you can possibly do to help your legal situation is to render first aid immediately after stopping the threat. It would no doubt take great presence of mind once the craziness ended, but safe to say if you just stand there and let the guy bleed out, it makes it easier for a prosceutor to paint some sort of mal intent or indifference to life.
 
Hand the wife one of the two shotguns in the bedroom, "Get in the boys room and lock the door. Call 911 and tell them someone's in the house and please send an ambulence"

Take the other shotgun and sweep the house.

Afterwards, when asked why I called for an ambulence, tell them: "If someone has broken into the house, they will send the police, but most 911 operators wont think to send an ambulence, so I asked for one. Someone broke into my house in the middle of the night while I'm home, I was in fear of serious bodily harm or death. If I don't need it, I apologize and pay for the ambulance, but if I do need it, saving 5 minutes might just save someone's life"
 
Hand the wife one of the two shotguns in the bedroom, "Get in the boys room and lock the door. Call 911 and tell them someone's in the house and please send an ambulence"

Take the other shotgun and sweep the house.

Afterwards, when asked why I called for an ambulence, tell them: "If someone has broken into the house, they will send the police, but most 911 operators wont think to send an ambulence, so I asked for one. Someone broke into my house in the middle of the night while I'm home, I was in fear of serious bodily harm or death. If I don't need it, I apologize and pay for the ambulance, but if I do need it, saving 5 minutes might just save someone's life"
Yeah, I think that would actually not be helpful, because it shows you had some preminition BEFORE the event that you were going to pop the guy. I can't see that being a good thing.
 
If it ever came down to it, the first order of business would be ensuring that there is only one side to the story. Send a hearse, don't waste the ambulance.
 
IMO, one of the best things you can possibly do to help your legal situation is to render first aid immediately after stopping the threat. It would no doubt take great presence of mind once the craziness ended, but safe to say if you just stand there and let the guy bleed out, it makes it easier for a prosceutor to paint some sort of mal intent or indifference to life.

Check. So you should keep a sewing kit nearby so that you can try and sew his head back on. Got it. [laugh]

Couldn't resist. You actually give very good advice. I agree that once the threat has ended, if first aid is necessary, it should be administered.
 
Yeah, I think that would actually not be helpful, because it shows you had some preminition BEFORE the event that you were going to pop the guy. I can't see that being a good thing.

Ambulence is for ME. If I happen to not need it and the other guy does, he just got lucky. Now calling for a hearse or a medical examiner would definately be out of line.
 
Last edited:
While your statement is true...wasn't the topic of your thread the legalities of self defense? If that was the intent then the state you are in matters significantly. It seems like your statement above contradicts your original post.

Everyone lives life in their own way. For me the law is to insure I do the right thing and be held accountable for my actions both good and bad..

To tell the truth
To be responsible for my actions with, AND with out my weapon.
To be responsible to control the resistance only to the point of equal and to reduce it at all cost.
To end the violence as soon as possible and stop hurting others..
To help others in need.

If we can get past the BS of man’s paper laws and abide by a much higher law mans laws will fall in place.
If you answer to yourself, and truly do the right thing with the best intentions the % of success will be much higher both in and out of the courtroom.

In God we trust.
 
IMO, one of the best things you can possibly do to help your legal situation is to render first aid immediately after stopping the threat. It would no doubt take great presence of mind once the craziness ended, but safe to say if you just stand there and let the guy bleed out, it makes it easier for a prosceutor to paint some sort of mal intent or indifference to life.

This does sound like good advice, and the right thing to do.

Part of me wonders what the impact of you then being covered in the attacker's blood, possible messing up the crime scene, and making it more difficult to sort out what happened prior to the shooting. Would that help you or hurt you?

Maybe I just watch too much TV.
 
This does sound like good advice, and the right thing to do.

Part of me wonders what the impact of you then being covered in the attacker's blood, possible messing up the crime scene, and making it more difficult to sort out what happened prior to the shooting. Would that help you or hurt you?

Maybe I just watch too much TV.


If you can reasonable present to the police or the jury that you were attempting, to the best of your ability to render aid, it's only going to help you because:

1) Any damage that you did to the crime scene was incidental, any evidence that might have been damaged or destroyed was unintentional.
2) Any evidence that you've accidentally removed from the crime scene by attempting to render aid can't be effectively used against you
3) You now have a very plausible reason for most evidence that might serve to incrimidate you
4) It will be very hard for the prosecution to paint you as a cold hearted killer or "gun nut" who was itching for an excuse to kill someone if you subjected yourself to further possible risk to immedately render aid.

Be smart about it though, make sure your weapon and their weapon (if any) is not available and they are prevented from inflicting further harm while you render aid. Do NOT carry hand cuffs with the intent of binding someone's hands so you can render aid, it will help the prosecution paint you as a "cop wanna be" out looking for vigilante justice.
 
Ambulence is for ME. If I happen to not need it and the other guy does, he just got lucky. Now calling for a hearse or a medical examiner would definately be out of line.

I've seen suggestions to insist on an ambulance ride to a hospital if you are involved in a self-defense shooting. Gives you time to settle your nerves before the police take your statement, and makes it harder for the prosecutor to paint you as a heartless bastard. The Zimmerman case is a good example of where the survivor insisting on going to the hospital would work to his advantage.
 
Ambulence is for ME. If I happen to not need it and the other guy does, he just got lucky. Now calling for a hearse or a medical examiner would definately be out of line.

Respectfully, it doesn't matter if it's for you--it matters what a prosecutor can paint it as.
 
This does sound like good advice, and the right thing to do.

Part of me wonders what the impact of you then being covered in the attacker's blood, possible messing up the crime scene, and making it more difficult to sort out what happened prior to the shooting. Would that help you or hurt you?

Maybe I just watch too much TV.

Crime scene integrity always takes 2nd place to keeping someone alive. Sure being covered in your attackers blood could be used against you, but on balance IMHO first aid will be far more beneficial when you're being Monday morning quarterbacked by the legal system.
 
IMO if i were the Laywer the the questions would be,
"If you you are so interested in helping people, why did you shoot them in the first place?"
 
"If you you are so interested in helping people, why did you shoot them in the first place?"

I didn't want to shoot him. I tried to leave, but couldn't. I tried to talk him down, but he came at me with a <weapon>. All other options having failed, I used the minimal amount of force necessary to alleaviate the threat to myself and my family. Once the threat was alleaviated, I attempted to render what aid I could, because all life is precious.

(thank you for asking a question that allows me to respond with a description that exactly follows the course of actions required by the self-defense law)
 
I didn't want to shoot him. I tried to leave, but couldn't. I tried to talk him down, but he came at me with a <weapon>. All other options having failed, I used the minimal amount of force necessary to alleaviate the threat to myself and my family. Once the threat was alleaviated, I attempted to render what aid I could, because all life is precious.

(thank you for asking a question that allows me to respond with a description that exactly follows the course of actions required by the self-defense law)

What exactly was the minimum amount of force that was used and how was that forced calculated?
 
If somebody is threatening you with deadly force, you are one cool cucumber if you're planning out your future self-defense strategy. However, I'm thinking that most people won't have that much presence of mind in the heat of the moment.
 
If somebody is threatening you with deadly force, you are one cool cucumber if you're planning out your future self-defense strategy. However, I'm thinking that most people won't have that much presence of mind in the heat of the moment.

This is the point guys, Lawyers don’t give a crap about your presents of mind.
You wrote, ‘ If somebody is threatening you with deadly force” just because YOU believe you were threatened with deadly force doesn’t mean the threat was actually valid. And we are not talking about future self-defense, it’s present, hence the incident.

Don’t leave the interpretation up to the lawyers, be responsible for your own actions and let your lawyer represent you with legit solid facts that authenticate your actions. I work with cops all the time, and the progression of their actions should not be different then the progression of the civilians actions when going from assessing a potential threat, verbal communication, to use of force, to use of deadly force. Miss any step in the progression and your butt is hanging out to dry and is left open for interpretation.. And you have to do all this and not get killed in the meantime. Tough Job for cops and even tougher for civilians, especially if they are not trained in this progression and are left to hopefully do the right thing during crisis.




.
 
This is the point guys, Lawyers don’t give a crap about your presents of mind.
You wrote, ‘ If somebody is threatening you with deadly force” just because YOU believe you were threatened with deadly force doesn’t mean the threat was actually valid. And we are not talking about future self-defense, it’s present, hence the incident.
They may not care, but isn't that what the law of self defense is based off of--the defender's objective reasonableness. Let's even take the MA Castle Law definition:
Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.


There needs to be a belief that the force upon you is going to cause deadly harm, and that such a belief need be objectively reasonable. Seems to me your presence of mind is not just relevent, but dispositive to the outcome.
 
Back
Top Bottom