Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I don't know what I'd be capable of in a life-or-death situation. I
    know I couldn't kill or maim with little or no reason.  But I
    continually find I'm made of stronger stuff than I think I am -
    mentally, emotionally, and physically.
    
    -Jody
    

    re .0   Of course it is permissible to use lethal force when in
    defense of your life (or as the Doctah stated, another person's).
    Being a martyr does you no good when you're dead.
    
    ---kim

    If you are not known to have trained in the martial arts and/or if you
    are unarmed, then use of deadly force in self defense is easy to get
    away with in a court of law.  However, if it is known that you have
    trained (for any amount of time) in a martial art and/or if you are
    armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the attack, then you must be
    able to convince the jury that you believed that at the moment of the
    attack your life or the life of a loved one was in immediate danger.
    (I should point out that this is especially true in Massachusetts
    where the law tends to favor the criminal.)

    Another reason for living in Colorado where a woman's home is her
    castle.  This state with all of its crazy legislation occaisionally
    does something right.  Here the rules are if someone is breaking and
    entering your home and you feel that you may be in danger, it is legal
    to use lethal force of your choice.  (May the day never come that I
    need to)
    
    Being a lot older and hopefully wiser than I was 12 years ago, I don't
    think I would hesitate if it were necessary for me to defend myself 
    or my family, but I don't know, I haven't been in a position to find
    out.  I hope I never have to.  I would prefer using bear repellent if
    possible, but in my home there are too many who are precious to me to
    put them at risk with a berserker.  
    
    Meg

Several years ago my mother-in-law in Virginia heard someone breaking glass at
the back door in the middle of the night. She grabbed the pistol and ran 
downstairs. The intruder ran off when he saw the pistol (which very much 
relieved my mother-in-law).

The police officer told her later that it could be considered assault or 
manslaughter if someone was shot while he still outside the house.
However, it is considered self defense to shoot someone inside the house. His 
advice was to shoot first, and if he dies on the doorstep to drag the body in.

Bruce 
 

B.

catch-22

if you are prepared to defend yourself (with martial arts, or a weapon, and
a 'deadly weapon' includes kitchen knife and scissors), you can't

if you are not prepared to defend yourself, you may

----------------------

it was given in quite another context, but I'm all for Grace Hopper's advice

    For those of you that live in Massachusetts this might make you ill,
    for the rest of you, be thankful.  The law in Massachesetts is that if
    you seriously injure or kill a person who has broken into your house,
    and it can be shown that you could have fled instead YOU CAN BE HELD
    LIABLE FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT OR MANSLAUGHTER!!!!   Too bad Dukakis
    never had his home broken into!  
    
    Sorry for the harsh words, but I get stormed about this issue.
    
    
    ron

re: .4  (ISSHIN::MATTHEWS)

>    If you are not known to have trained in the martial arts and/or if you

	I've heard about this before -- people who have trained for
	several years in martial arts, then using it in self-defense,
	then being questioned on if their use of it was pre-meditated!
	Amazing.  

re: .5 (CUPMK::SLOANE)

> Several years ago my mother-in-law in Virginia heard someone breaking glass at
> the back door in the middle of the night. She grabbed the pistol and ran 
> downstairs. The intruder ran off when he saw the pistol (which very much 
> relieved my mother-in-law).

	Good for your mother-in-law!  Yes, the gun is an effective deterrent.
	No one was injured.  

re: police officer's advice
>                  -< Shoot first, then drag the body inside >-

	This is unethical and totally *idiotic* advice.  
	It won't work.  Investigators know this "secret".

						nancy b. 
                                                                  

>          <<< Note 81.6 by CUPMK::SLOANE "Is communcation the key?" >>>
>                  -< Shoot first, then drag the body inside >-


>The police officer told her later that it could be considered assault or 
>manslaughter if someone was shot while he still outside the house.
>However, it is considered self defense to shoot someone inside the house. His 
>advice was to shoot first, and if he dies on the doorstep to drag the body in.

>Bruce 
 
This kind of *MYTH* will get you 10-20 for *MURDER* 

*NEVER* *NEVER* touch anything at a crime scene. Learn the law!!!!!!!!!!
IT IS LEGAL in MASS to Kill in self defense. take one of Nancy B's courses
or other suitable course and learn the law!

Bruce, please never never tell this story again. *YOU* will get an otherwise 
innocent person sernt to *JAIL*.

Amos who has taught this stuff for years!

>      <<< Note 81.9 by ISSHIN::MATTHEWS "Let's stand him on his head!" >>>

>    For those of you that live in Massachusetts this might make you ill,
>    for the rest of you, be thankful.  The law in Massachesetts is that if
>    you seriously injure or kill a person who has broken into your house,
>    and it can be shown that you could have fled instead YOU CAN BE HELD
>    LIABLE FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT OR MANSLAUGHTER!!!!   Too bad Dukakis
>    never had his home broken into!  
    
>    Sorry for the harsh words, but I get stormed about this issue.
    
    
>    ron

AND I GET STORMED OVER PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!

Please stop spreading misinformation!
in Mass you do not have to flee your home. You may defend yourself or loved 
ones at home or *ANYWHERE* legally. I will not re-iterate all the
applicable stuff here. if you need to know then take a course. The NRA
offers an excellent one on Self defense, among others. 
Martial arts are legal as are guns, knives, scissors, etc. done properly.

*INNOCENT* people go to jail for listening to bad advice when they actually
could/should have been free-people after rightfully defending themselves.

LEARN THE LAW! DON'T LISTEN TO MYTHS
Amos

    Furthermore, anyone who advises you to tamper with the evidence
    at the scene of a crime is himself guilty of suborning perjury
    and obstruction of justice. (Makes ya wonder where this cop 
    got his 'training'. 

RE:.13 forgot that one Dana, thanks.
Also some state recently since the person was convicted of murder the
person who recomended evidence tampering was convicted of conspiracy to commit
murder. they are both serving hard-time.
Amos

        re .8,
        
>> it was given in quite another context, but I'm all for Grace Hopper's advice
        
        What was Grace Hopper's advice?
        
        Dan

    re:.15, Let me be the first:
    
    "Do it first, apologize later."

    Or is it "its easier to beg forgiveness than ask for permission?"
    
    Jim

    re: .12
    Amos,
    
    	You seem to be an _expert_ about the law.  If I'm wrong, I
    apologize for the misinformation.  Do you suppose you could enlighten
    us with something a little more substantive than just telling me I'm
    wrong?  (e.g. Quote chapter and verse of the applicable laws or put a
    pointer to where they can be found.)  
    
    			Ron

    all states have laws stating that citizens can use deadly force to
    repel opposing deadly force.
    
    it depends on the situation of course, how this axiom is applied.  for
    instance, any man can kill most any woman or child or sometimes other
    men with their bare hands.  use of deadly force can be justified to
    repel an attack of this nature.  the circumstances of the events are
    examined and taken into account in reaching a determination of
    self-defense.
    
    simply put, i'd rather defend myself, both in my home and in court if
    necessary, than be dead.
    
    what one has to be careful of is provoking the attack.  if the attacker
    backs off when you (generic) show your weapon, you may not fire UNLESS
    the attacker resumes the attack.
    
    it gets confusing, i learned some of this stuff in my paralegal
    criminal justise classes.  Amos's advice about getting educated for
    your particular area will help in clearing up misinformation.
    
    sue

>      <<< Note 81.18 by ISSHIN::MATTHEWS "Let's stand him on his head!" >>>

>    re: .12
>    Amos,
    
>    	You seem to be an _expert_ about the law.  If I'm wrong, I
>    apologize for the misinformation.  Do you suppose you could enlighten
>    us with something a little more substantive than just telling me I'm
>    wrong?  (e.g. Quote chapter and verse of the applicable laws or put a
>    pointer to where they can be found.)  
    
>    			Ron

I apologise for the anger. I have taught self defense/firearms stuff for
a long time. There is more misinformation "floating" around than real fact.

Are you in Massachusetts? many laws are slightly different from state to 
state.
to get a truly accurate assesment for your state, check with a lawyer or
look at the state laws available in your library.
But generally self defense as a defense in court must meet 3 criteria
1) the person attacked was in fear of death or grave bodily harm(this extends 
to those under your care and protection[as defined by some laws])(children,
siblings,spouses,etc all are included, friends acquaintences are not excluded
but are a little different)
2) the attacker must have the ability to commit bodily harm to the victem.
3) the attacker must *BE* threatening. (a man walking on the other side of the 
street merely carrying his hunting rifle has the means but is not threatening 
therefore you would not be in fear, etc.

All 3 must be met. The self defense "method" must stop when the attack on your 
person stops.  (don't pump 20 rounds into him, unless he keeps coming)

Most states, including Mass, have a "home is castle" law that says you do not 
need to leave your home(business' privately-owned is also covered)
You do not have to flee, unless it can be done safely, from anywhere
(you don't have-to nor want-to turn your back on a "gang" and try to
outrun them) 

The old legends about "drag em inside" will get you a murder conviction
there are volumes of law information regarding self defense and the use of 
lethal force.
The notesfile LOSER::FIREARMS has much information. use directory/key=legal

Amos

    Problem seems to be, at least in Massachusetts, that the ACLU has
    succeeded in interpreting the laws in favor of the criminals.  Two
    personal friends of mine narrowly escaped doing time for aggravated
    assault because they used their empty-hand skills to defend themselves
    against 4 attackers.  I don't care what anyone says, that's not right.
    
    ron

>      <<< Note 81.21 by ISSHIN::MATTHEWS "Let's stand him on his head!" >>>

>    Problem seems to be, at least in Massachusetts, that the ACLU has

Very often the "problem" is that the victim's lawyer doesn't know the law
either. calling in Expert testimony on the use of self-defense or looking for
a lawyer who specializes in these areas(as opposed to calling the ol' family 
lawyer who helped you write your will) will make a difference in the outcome.

the much maligned NRA and GOAL in Mass can help with lawyer referals.

Amos

    Thanx for the info, Amos.  I didn't know that the NRA did lawyer
    referrals.  I know what the NRA is, but what's GOAL?  Are there any
    orgs that can provide this type of info on general legal self defense
    guidlines?  I run a Martial arts school and I need a resource that I
    can point my students to.
    
    
    				Thanx again,
    
    				    Ron

    
    GOAL = Gun Owners Action League
    
    They are a statewide organization in Massachusetts for
    gun-owners' rights, based out of Southboro.
    

    Amos,
    	It might be well to add that "the LAW" is not just the legislated
    codes, but the "case law" established in court.  My understanding is
    that Mass. has a precedent-setting case on record from the late
    seventies/early eighties where a person (female?) was convicted of
    manslaughter for killing an intruder who had pursued her all the way
    into the home's basement.  The rationale for the conviction was that 
    there were (casement) windows through which she could have escaped,
    rather than engage the attacker.
    	Has this been overturned by an appeals court?  superceded by a more
    recent case?  {Am i totally misinformed?}
    	[dale]

>                       <<< Note 81.25 by HIGHD::ROGERS >>>
>                        -< ... the whole law, and ... >-

>    Amos,
>    	It might be well to add that "the LAW" is not just the legislated
>    codes, but the "case law" established in court.  My understanding is
 >    	[dale]

It was because of that very case that the state legislature drafted a law
stating "home is castle" the law was written to overturn any precedent from 
that case, and to clarify the use of self defense.
 I'll say it again, in Massachusetts
You may use deadly force in your home or anywhere else if
1) you are in fear of death or grave bodily harm(applies to those under your
   care or responsibility, also strangers in some cases)
2) the person/attacker is threatening you
3) the person/attacker has the means to carry out said threat.

*TAKE A COURSE IN SELF DEFENSE* *FIND OUT WHAT THE LAWS ARE*

A good course in self defense will include lectures by police and/or officers
of the court, on the law and ramifications. I am not talking about 
martial-arts so-called self defense courses.

Amos