Reacting to a threat With Excessive Force
Jul 24, 2023 18:18:44 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Jul 24, 2023 18:18:44 GMT -5
Reacting to a nonlethal threat With Excessive Force
In my participation in the Twitter venue, I have noticed that there is this very popular albeit weird idea among today's youths that there is no such thing as the use of excessive force except when it involves the police as in the cases of Rodney King and George Floyd.
But of course, that is completely untrue. As private citizens we are under the same obligation as the police officers are to restrain ourselves from employing more physical force than is absolutely necessary. In fact, in a court of law, aggravated assault cases very often hinge on whether or not the person chose to respond to a behavior with excessive or reasonable force against a perceived threat.
So the very popular petty excuses that are constantly being expressed on Twitter, such as,
used as an excuse to hurl the person to the floor and then proceed to deliver multiple kicks to the head and torso until unconscious, and several more afterwards, will not exonerate us from the charge of involuntary manslaughter or intentional murder.
Neither will it prevent us from spending a good portion of our very short life in a state penitentiary with people as murderously inclined as we chose to be, or even far more.
Such potentially lethal force is only justifiable when the person is posing a threat to our life. For example if the person is armed with a knife, machete, a gun, or any other potentially lethal weapon, and is threating to use it, or is in the process of using it against us, then such drastic assaults are justifiable.
However, even then, when the person ceases to be a threat to our life, such as when the person has been rendered unconscious, then we will be expected to stop. If instead we continue angrily showering punches and kicks to the person's unconscious body, then we will be guilty of using excessive force, and will be judged accordingly.
www.athlonoutdoors.com/article/self-defense-realities-justified-vs-excessive-force/
But of course, that is completely untrue. As private citizens we are under the same obligation as the police officers are to restrain ourselves from employing more physical force than is absolutely necessary. In fact, in a court of law, aggravated assault cases very often hinge on whether or not the person chose to respond to a behavior with excessive or reasonable force against a perceived threat.
So the very popular petty excuses that are constantly being expressed on Twitter, such as,
She slapped me on the shoulder.
She pushed me!
She got in my face with insults.
She spit on me!
She spread rumors about me!
She pushed me!
She got in my face with insults.
She spit on me!
She spread rumors about me!
Neither will it prevent us from spending a good portion of our very short life in a state penitentiary with people as murderously inclined as we chose to be, or even far more.
When is such force justifiable?
Such potentially lethal force is only justifiable when the person is posing a threat to our life. For example if the person is armed with a knife, machete, a gun, or any other potentially lethal weapon, and is threating to use it, or is in the process of using it against us, then such drastic assaults are justifiable.
However, even then, when the person ceases to be a threat to our life, such as when the person has been rendered unconscious, then we will be expected to stop. If instead we continue angrily showering punches and kicks to the person's unconscious body, then we will be guilty of using excessive force, and will be judged accordingly.
Self-Defense Realities: Justified vs. Excessive Force
There are two kinds of force: deadly and non-lethal. The first carries a measure of finality and the law is very specific about the taking of a human life. Black’s Law Dictionary defines deadly force as: “Violent action known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.” The “substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm” drives the analysis into whether or not the force used was deadly force.
Non-lethal force is a bit different. However, the “substantial risk” analysis is the same. Black’s Law Dictionary defines non-lethal force as “Force that is neither intended nor likely to cause death or serious bodily harm; force intended to cause only minor bodily harm…A threat of deadly force, such as displaying a [weapon].” The degree of the injury expected determines whether the use of force is deadly or non-lethal. This is why the second part of the definition includes the threat of the use of deadly force.
www.athlonoutdoors.com/article/self-defense-realities-justified-vs-excessive-force/