WOW an interesting peice of info from a police man!

[myosim]

Again the problem with getting 3rd hand information from a cop. Which by the way does not qualify them to make legal assessments like this.

 

"My mom is a Georgia State Patrol officer and here we are allowed to defend ourselves to the full extent of our potential."

 

Yes chambering the arm does constitute assault(although not battery) which does then open the door for reasonable force. But "the full extent of our potential"? Deadly force or mailicious wounding are not reasonable responses for someone throwing a punch at you. For that matter an aggravated assault charge is a likely outcome. Ask the Boston hockey dad if you can defend yourself to the full extent of your potential.

[shotochem]

I ve always assumed the law was to use equal or reasonable force against an attacker???

 

IMHO I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

 

But thats just me......

 

 

[Blade13]

"To the full extent of our potential"...I dont mean killing them, I mean we are allowed to hurt them enough to stop the danger. If that consitutes killing them, then we can. If they have a gun, knife, or other weapon that puts you in fear of your life (and you are unarmed), you have the right to kill. Loopholes are fun arent they? I could find more....but I really dont care enough about this to do it, lol.

 

 

[Don Gwinn]

Cops are expected to know more law than the average lawyer does, and they get strange ideas. Don't rely on them for legal advice. It's not their fault, it's just the nature of the job they do.

 

Phantasm, just because someone is in your house does not necessarily mean you can shoot him. The standard is whether you were reasonable in believing that he was a threat and your life or the life of someone else was in danger. If you confront a burglar with a gun, for instance, and he gives up and follows your commands, you'd better not fire. This is a pretty reasonable law. If he advances upon you, refuses to drop his weapon, etc, you are justified in stopping him.

 

NEVER think in terms of what justifies "killing" someone. NOTHING does, legally. You are to STOP him. This is also better from a self-defense standpoint; there are many things you can do that would kill the attacker but unless he is immediately incapacitated he can continue the attack and kill you before he goes. Not much of a victory.

 

In empty-hand terms, you might be able to open a cut that will eventually be lethal. However, that can't be your concern because in the meantime he can still fight and will kill you before he dies unless you STOP him. Make him incapable of attacking again or cause him to give up. And again, nothing in law justifies the attitude that you will set out to kill him, even if he tries to kill you. It only justifies using a level of force that could or likely will kill him. That's why we speak of "using lethal force" rather than "killing." The two really are different.