Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[x2yzh9]

Just a quick question, if someone were to hit me with their bare hands say out on the street and walk away, would I be in my legal right to attack them with something classified as a deadly weapon, ie. a knife? Also, I really need a link to the website saying this.

[PenguinOverlord]

if you are in legal trouble get an attorney
Though, you shouldn't be. You're too young to be in legal trouble.

[Retro]

Attacking someone after they walk away, whether they punched you already or not, isn't self-defense. Out of curiosity, did you actually do this or are you planning on it? :|

[Sowelu]

Just a quick question, if someone were to hit me with their bare hands say out on the street and walk away

No.  The italics mean you don't get the "your home is a castle", and the bold means that they are not a clear and present threat.  In some places (Texas would be my first guess), someone in your house might always be considered a clear and present danger, but the law never quite looks kindly at shooting someone in the back.  I think you might get away with it in your house.  On the street, you have absolutely no legal defense whatsoever.

Especially given that it's bare hands.

See, if there's someone in your house, you have no idea what they might do or what their intentions are, and you can rightfully feel afraid.  But outside, they're walking away, they clearly didn't assault you with anything deadly...yeah.

[x2yzh9]

Attacking someone after they walk away, whether they punched you already or not, isn't self-defense. Out of curiosity, did you actually do this or are you planning on it? :|

Uh..Neither apparently? I think that law's pretty fucked up. I think you should be able to harm the attacker(s) if they attack you, even if they walk away. Maybe not kill, but at least harm.

[Sowelu]

Attacking someone after they walk away, whether they punched you already or not, isn't self-defense. Out of curiosity, did you actually do this or are you planning on it? :|

Uh..Neither apparently? I think that law's pretty fucked up. I think you should be able to harm the attacker(s) if they attack you, even if they walk away. Maybe not kill, but at least harm.

Remind me not to be anywhere nearby when someone hits you from behind.  God forbid you stab the wrong guy.  Seriously, you want to knife the guy?  That's just sick.  What if you're drunk and a moron?  Also, haven't you seen that GIF where some guy in school reaches back and sneakily whacks his neighbor from behind, and said neighbor stands up, rips his shirt off, and pounds some other innocent kid who he thought did it?  Now imagine that he stabbed him to death instead.

Also, I really don't think that non-deadly violence should be answered with deadly violence regardless.  Plus, if fighting is correctly responded to with fighting, then fighting never stops.  SOMEONE has to walk away.  Be the better man, dogg.

[Retro]

That's one opinion, but I find that we've evolved past the "an eye for an eye" days of old. I don't really think not being able to 'maybe kill' someone after they punch you once is really, uh... balanced. Or to be able to attack them with a knife.

[Blargityblarg]

Down here in Australia, you have a reasonable murder defence if you had reasonable belief that they were going to cause you or someone else serious harm. Once they were walking away, hell to the no.

F'rexample, a year or two back some kid was all over the news 'cause he'd been shot and killed by the police after he basically flipped out and advanced on the with two knives, and capsicum spray didn't do anything. AFAIK, they haven't been charged, but there has been a lot of controversy (since the cops did, after all, kill a kid) and it's resparked the taser debate.

Granted, this is based off Aussie law, which is significantly more sane less insane different to Yank law.

[Sowelu]

Also, let me ask:  Fighting words.  Are you a sane and stable enough guy that absolutely NOTHING could EVER get you to hit someone?  No words?  No words at ALL?  Are you sure?  Let's say the guy whispers that he's planning to kill your family and then do unsavory things to their bodies.  At some point, you're going to deck him, and witnesses will see you do it, without necessarily knowing what provoked it.  Hell, maybe you see some guy kicking the shit out of a dog--maybe it's your dog!--or doing something that's considered very, very odious...but maybe not even a felony.  Maybe he's spraypainting unpleasantries on your garage.  Or your dog.  At some point, somewhere...you're gonna hit the guy.

And now he has the legal right to kill you.  Great.

[malimbar04]

Also, let me ask:  Fighting words.  Are you a sane and stable enough guy that absolutely NOTHING could EVER get you to hit someone?  No words?  No words at ALL?  Are you sure?  Let's say the guy whispers that he's planning to kill your family and then do unsavory things to their bodies.  At some point, you're going to deck him, and witnesses will see you do it, without necessarily knowing what provoked it.  Hell, maybe you see some guy kicking the shit out of a dog--maybe it's your dog!--or doing something that's considered very, very odious...but maybe not even a felony.  Maybe he's spraypainting unpleasantries on your garage.  Or your dog.  At some point, somewhere...you're gonna hit the guy.

And now he has the legal right to kill you.  Great.

That is scary, very scary. And this is why we don't have vigilante justice.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh, we have vigilante justice, but it's illegal. Despite what some would say, this is a good thing. Once somthing unjust enough has happened that a vigilante kills someone, and it really is that unjust, then chances are that the police investigation will go cold with unprecidented speed. If it's just some lunatic who thinks he's a real life Punisher, then the police will go after them. So, our stance of vigilante justice is fine how it is.

[Sowelu]

Vigilante justice does NOT work when the authorities are simply willing to walk away from a crime that they think was justified.  That is called "corruption."

Vigilante justice only works when the person committing it is fully willing to accept any and all punishments brought down on him for his actions.  It must be bought dearly, or it is no longer justice.

[Tellemurius]

Down here in Australia, you have a reasonable murder defence if you had reasonable belief that they were going to cause you or someone else serious harm. Once they were walking away, hell to the no.

F'rexample, a year or two back some kid was all over the news 'cause he'd been shot and killed by the police after he basically flipped out and advanced on the with two knives, and capsicum spray didn't do anything. AFAIK, they haven't been charged, but there has been a lot of controversy (since the cops did, after all, kill a kid) and it's resparked the taser debate.

Granted, this is based off Aussie law, which is significantly insane to Yank law.

i fixed that for you. You guys are notorious for banning guns for self defense. Yank laws (depending on some states like Colorado and Texas), if the guy is threatening your life you have the right to pull out your gun and waste him. Now does that mean you should kill him? No. It wouldn't be hard to put one in the leg to at least incapacitate the person. But at least the laws will protect the victim for possible charges. now granted you have to give the guy a chance to walk away or get down on the floor and hold position until the cops show up but thats unless he was unarmed.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you shoot someone in the leg you'll probably rupture the femoral artery, which is quite fatal indeed.

[Zrk2]

I believe that you are only allowed to retaliate if your, or someone else's, life is in danger, once the person stops you are not allowed to do anything.