In the US, are people allowed to shoot and kill someone who is in any way attacking them?

This is following the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. In the US, are people allowed to shoot and kill someone who is in any way attacking them? Or does it need to be a certain degree of attack?

 

I'm not too up on it but I believe it varies by state. Some have 'stand your ground' laws that allow me to kill you if you put me in fear of your taking my life.

 

Does that mean that some States don't allow someone to shoot and kill someone even if the person they shoot is pointing a gun at them?

 

No snd yes. Self defense requires a person be in fear of imminent life threatenning danger. If someone is, say, attacking you with a garden hose, that could be considered assault but is highly unlikely any jury would ever agree that loss of life or even serious injury was a reasonable fear. Similarly, if a large, fit man were to be assaulted by a small unarmed elderly woman, responding with lethal force would not likely result in a finding of legit self defense.

Also, an attack may not necessarily need to occur, but merely need be reasonably expected to occur ('reasonable' being defined by a jury). Someone approaching in a hostile manner and refusing to stop when told they were being considered as hostile, have resulted in jury findings of legit self defense. But sometimes also found not legit. As with anything, much depends on the circumstances, the bias of the court and the quality of the lawyers.

Its easier for a woman to 'prove' a legit fear of life threatenning harm from a hostile man than vice versa, for another example. Its really all about whether the jury believes they would be in fear of their life or not in the same situation.

 

Go to YouTube and pull up Massad Ayoob's excellent videos discussing the use of lethal force, VERY informative for those who have questions concerning defending themselves, others, and their homes.

 

It does vary by state. But in most states you can so long as you fear for your life. We value the natural right of self defense. Don’t think this just allows you to shoot anyone. In cases like Rittenhouse’s, At a bare minimum you will likely be tried in court. In other cases you may not.

For example, in my area there was a man that went into a gas station at closing time (around 11 PM) he had a .22 caliber rifle. He robbed the store and tied the two female clerks up. He set his gun down after he tied them up. He was of Spanish decent and spoke spanish most of this time. One of the girls there understood spanish.

After he tied them up and was down he told the girls he was going to rape them in spanish. The one that understood told the other girl. That girl wriggled out of her rope laced hands, grabbed the .22 rifle and shot the man killing him.

He was unarmed but his clear intent justified the action of self defense. Why should anyone who is in self defense be charged with a crime? Why would any country not allow the right of self defense?

I think it’s not humane to allow a criminal the right to violate other humans without having to worry about them lethally defending themselves. I’m proud of my country for allowing this right.

 

There are other ways of putting me in fear of losing my life than pointing a gun at me.

 

How can a jury know if someone was in fear of imminent life threatening danger?

 

How can a jury determine if someone feared for their life?

 

I think running (in Kyle Rittenhouse’s case) definitely justifies the existence of fear. I believe you can tell when someone is in survival mode.

 

I think it depends on the state, however your post seems to be all encompassing therefore I'd say that if someone was attacking you verbally, in the 50 states, that would be illegal to kill them.

 

By imagining themselves in the same situation. This is why seemingly irrelevent details of the event are presented to the jury- in order to give them the best context of the event possible for them to determine whether they would have felt the same fear of life threatenning danger as the accused.

As far as 'knowing for certain' goes, thats of course impossible, which is why much of our criminal law is predicated on 'reason' such as reasonable doubt or reasonable fear. If the accused would have been reasonable in their claim of fearing for their life, the jury will tend to agree that they also would probably have feared for their life in the same situation.

 

Don't want to get shot? Then don't assault people in the first place. It's that simple...

 

According to the JOKE prosecutors in the Rittenhouse trial, Rittenhouse WAS the first to assault people by simply being there with a gun!

 

You're not CERTAIN that it would be illegal?

 

Yes, but what about if it IS a gun? Only in States with 'stand your ground' laws would it be deemed self defense if you killed them?

 

Which is impossible for anyone to know other than the person.

It seems pretty damn clear that this case should never have even been brought. Purely political! Just imagine if following Trump's election loss, a bunch of Trump supporters took to the streets to burn everything in sight, and an armed black kid and BLM supporter took to the streets to rightly protect property just like Rittenhouse, and then the EXACT same events followed. Does that kid get charged?

Man, that is the best story that I've ever heard! What a girl! Good for her! She WASTED that filthy thug animal!

 

I’ll have to find the article and post it. It happened in 2009 if I remember right

 

I don't know. I never had a reason to research the question and I'm not a lawyer.

 

No, I said it would be Illegal.

 

if you're carrying an ar-15 and pointing it at people, that could jeopardize any self-defense claim

 

It varies depending on state and legal jurisdiction.

And you should also recognise that justice does not always act according to the law. People can still end up being found guilty and get a long prison sentence even if they did not technically break the law. Or they might not face any repercussions in certain types of other situations even if they did technically break the law.
A lot of this comes down to the "culture" of the society in that area, and what specific police officers, prosecutors, judges, and juries decide to do.

Using deadly force against anyone can often be legally risky, regardless of exactly what any laws covering that jurisdiction say.

The usual standard is whether there was reasonable cause to believe that your, or someone else's, life was in danger. (You also can't use self defense as an excuse if it was in the middle of you committing a serious crime)

 

That largely depends on the jurisdiction.

In say California, every effort must be made to get away and deadly force can only be used if there is no alternative.

Then you have "stand your ground' states. Where once somebody threatens you, you are justified in the use of deadly force for self defense.

This is a very tricky issue, and each locality handles it differently.

This can even be seen in California. Where in 1995 a man threatened with a screwdriver by two people used his gun in self-defense. Killing one and wounding the other. Both of them were gang members, and the survivor had a long arrest record before the shooting, and has been in and out of jail since for charges up to aggravated assault.

Meanwhile, the media and others still try to say he was an "innocent kid", and that a screwdriver is not a "deadly weapon".

Honestly, I fear the "court of public opinion" more than I do the criminal court in most cases. Because that often drives the other. Where facts do not matter, only getting what they want.

 

depends on the jury often times

this is a new case in the US to watch

"Georgia Black Man Charged with Murder Claims He Shot at White Teens in Self-Defense"

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-shot-at-white-teens-in-self-defense.594598/

 

The reasonable man/woman test.
"The reasonable person is a hypothetical person used as a legal standard to determine whether the conduct of the parties in a case was proper in the circumstances. It is the standard of conduct adopted by persons of ordinary intelligence and prudence."