Self Defense- Lethal Force- Taser &amp; Knife Vs. Fire Arm I was thinking of buying a taser for self defense. However, if someone were trying to attack me such as pulling a gun out on me, I fear a taser will just leave a criminal pissed off and still wanting to kill me. If lethal force is used (in self defense) in the form of a taser &amp; a knife, is that Legally equivalent to the same lethal force of a gun. Assuming all weapons are legal. Location-Pennsylvania
Self-Defense is an active Defense for Homicide (note, this is the legal term for taking a life. Criminal Homicide and Justified Homicide are two subsets of Homicide and are denoted by illegal actions and legal actions. Homicide as a result of Self-Defense is a Justified Homicide, regardless of the weapon, so long as it was applied with the minimal amount of force required to stop the criminal harm to oneself). Suppose you use a taser and the current causes the attacker to go into cardiac arrest and die. Your intention in using the taser was to stop the criminal from injuring yourself, your property, or another person or their property (defense of others). Even though the Taser is non-leathal, it's more like less lethal. Death by Taser is uncommon, but not impossible or rare. It would be handled as a defensive use of a weapon (same as if the attacker was killed by a gun) and processed as such. Pennsylvania is a Stand Your Ground State, meaning that in a public place, you do not have a duty to flee if your attacker approaches you in a public place, you do not have to prove that you could not flee in order to claim self-defense. However, if you pull a weapon and your attacker decides to flee, you can not give chase and kill him upon capture. You also need to have a reasonable expectation that the attacker is about to use deadly force (this normally means having sight of the weapon or what would reasonably look like a weapon i.e. a realistic toy gun without the orange safety cap would be reasonable). You also cannot claim self-defense if you were engaged in another crime when the attacker approached you (i.e. If you rob the Krusty Krab and the Hash Slinging Slasher approaches you with a knife, sucks to be you cause you don't have a right to be in the Krusty Krab after closing.).
It is a good idea for a story: that’s why it’s a trope It features (with drugs instead of guns) as the core plot point of 2019’s Knives Out. Shooting someone with a BB gun is problematic because it’s hard to see what legal justification there could be for that type of assault. However, if we instead thing of paint ball guns, C is a murderer and A &amp; B have committed no crime. Real life examples: While performing a suicide scene in a production of Mary Stuart by Friedrich Schiller in Vienna, actor Daniel Hoevels￼ accidentally slit his own neck, as the theatre company's order for the originally sharp knife to be dulled for the stage was overlooked; a police investigation never determined who was responsible, or whether it was due to negligence or a deliberate attempt to kill or injure him. The wound was almost fatal, but Hoevels quickly returned to the stage after emergency treatment in the hospital. Never treat a blank in a gun as harmless. They can maim or kill you. Anyone who says otherwise is not your friend. Read the article here on Gun Safety for more details. There have even been two sad cases listed in Fatal Method Acting: Brandon Lee, accidentally killed during The Crow because the crew left a cartridge in the barrel before loading the blanks, which then hit his spine; and actor Jon-Erik Hexum, who in-between takes of the show Cover-Up, goofed around with a gun and by firing it into the side of his head, had a blank cause enough trauma to shatter a quarter-sized piece of his skull and propel the pieces into his brain. More than 20 illusionists have been killed performing the 'bullet catch' trick. It is generally considered the most dangerous magic trick as so many things can go wrong. Some of those killed were murdered when someone (often their partner/assistant) substituted a live round for the blank or—in earlier days, when single-shot black powder guns were used—placed the ball back in the barrel after it had been removed.
First of all, we need to determine what laws this new hybrid gun falls under. We got a normal shotgun, which in itself might be under the National Firearms Act (NFA) a Class 3 Destructive device, but most aren't. So, let's assume &quot;Shotzooka&quot; is a standard Remington 870. Because Billy wants his gun to be more compact, he shortens the gun with a telescopic stock. Great, there are 2 options for that: a full stock that can be lengthened and one that is pretty much folding out completely. This can be a problem if the total gun in its shortest configuration gets below 26 inches length - then it is illegal under Texas law as a short barrel firearm. And the complete removal makes it no longer a shotgun under federal law but pushes it to a different weapon category: Any Other Weapon. Since it once was a proper shotgun (which means it had a stock) it can't ever become a Pistol Grip Firearm. Now, here comes the crux: owning and operating these is totally fine if you have them registered at the Bureau of Alcohol Tabacco and Firearms. But you need to register your intent to manufacture them before you start with the conversion and have the approval of your project. It also costs 200$ tax -but you need to also make sure your new gun is allowed locally (see below). The Laser sight likely isn't a problem... but now comes the really big problem: The laser-guided anti-tank missile. THAT is a problem. Because anti-tank weapons are explosive and all explosives are classed as Destructive Devices under the NFA (well,technically that's Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 amending the NFA of 1934...). And possession of such a Title II weapon like a Destructive Devices demands them to be registered and tax-stamoed for 200$ federally - and manufacturing them is prohibited for private citizens. This means in the act of mounting the missile to his shotzooka he turned her into an illegal, unregisterable NFA Class3 DD of the explosive type, illegally manufactured it, and just for the possession alone put himself up to a fine of 250k and 10 years jail time: The charge of unlawful possession of a destructive device in violation of the National Firearms Act carries a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine. But the trouble doesn't stop there, Texas itself has a penal code that defines that anti-tank missile somewhere! Texas Penal Code, Title 10, Chapter 46: 46.01 DEFINITIONS (2) &quot;Explosive weapon&quot; means any explosive or incendiary bomb, grenade, rocket, or mine, that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage, or for the principal purpose of causing such a loud report as to cause undue public alarm or terror, and includes a device designed, made, or adapted for delivery or shooting an explosive weapon. (10) &quot;Short-barrel firearm&quot; means a rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches or a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches, or any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle if, as altered, it has an overall length of less than 26 inches. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice: (A) an explosive weapon; (B) a machine gun; or (C) a short-barrel firearm; Sec. 46.09. COMPONENTS OF EXPLOSIVES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly possesses components of an explosive weapon with the intent to combine the components into an explosive weapon for use in a criminal endeavor. OUCH! See that? The mounting of the missile launcher just turned the gun highly illegal, and even in the act of shortening the shotgun by altering the stock to be telescopic, it might have become illegal if the gun became too short. And it gets worse. The mere possession of the guided missile is impossible unless it's a curio or relic (which would mean it is old!) or registered, but it can't be because private citizens can't make it... and even owning the parts for the missile would be illegal if they would be used in a crime... wait, manufacturing of a missile is a crime, so owning the parts also is a crime! tl;dr: Billy is screwed under both texas and federal law.
The specific elements of the crime in question are going to be defined by Maltese law, which appears to be a blend of a European-style civil code with English-style common law. However, under ordinary Anglo-American standards, the alleged acts do seem to meet the legal definitions of these terms. At common law, an "assault" consists of placing someone in fear of an unwanted touching, and a "battery" is a completed assault; that is, an actual unwanted touching. If Mr. Suda, as alleged, took the victim's hand and touched it to his own genitals, without her consent, he committed an assault and battery. Any touching can constitute a battery, from a tap on the shoulder to a bullet in the head. Likewise, at common law, "violence" is any degree of physical force. If he tricked her into touching his genitals, that would not be a crime of violence; if he physically moved her hand to his genitals with his own hand, then he used physical force, or violence, to commit the crime. Again, what actually needs to be proven will depend on specifics you would need a Maltese lawyer to go into--but under general common law principles, neither "assault" not "violence" are particularly surprising.
You face two legal perils when you use a firearm against a wild animal: Most wild animals are protected or regulated as game by state and/or federal law. Unnecessarily discharging a firearm is forbidden in many jurisdictions. With respect to both charges, self defense is almost always a justification (assuming the possession of the weapon used was lawful). The specifics vary a little by jurisdiction, but this Utah rule is pretty typical: R657-63-3. Self Defense. (1) A person is legally justified in killing or seriously injuring a threatening wild animal when the person reasonably believes such action is necessary to protect them self, another person, or a domestic animal against an imminent attack by the wild animal that will likely result in severe bodily injury or death to the victim. (2) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors: (a) the nature of the danger; (b) the immediacy of the danger; (c) the probability that the threatening wild animal will attack; (d) the probability that the attack will result in death or serious bodily injury; (e) the ability to safely retreat; (f) the fault of the person in creating the encounter; and (g) any previous pattern of aggressive or threatening behavior by the individual wild animal which was known to the person claiming self defense. (3)(a) A person shall notify the division within 12 hours after killing or wounding a wild animal under Subsection (1). (b) No wild animal killed pursuant to Subsection (1) or the parts thereof may be removed from the site, repositioned, retained, sold, or transferred without written authorization from the division. (4)(a) A person is not legally justified in killing or seriously injuring a threatening wild animal under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person: (i) has the ability to safely retreat from the threatening animal and fails to do so, except when the animal enters a home, tent, camper, or other permanent or temporary living structure occupied at the time by the person or another person; or (ii) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly provokes or attracts the wild animal into a situation in which it is probable it will threaten the person, another person, or a domestic animal. Federal law is a little more terse: The Endangered Species Act includes the following: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no civil penalty shall be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered or threatened species. Defense of property One can be fined for killing threatened or endangered animals in defense of property or livestock (see, for example, Christy v. Hodel). These instructions from the Missouri Department of Conservation are typical: If wildlife is damaging your property, you ... may shoot or trap most damage-causing wildlife out of season and without a permit to prevent further damage. Note: Wildlife you may not shoot or trap under this provision are migratory birds, white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, turkeys, black bears, mountain lions, and any endangered species. For conflicts with these species, contact your local county conservation agent or nearest Department office. Control action may be taken only on your property. Wildlife you take under this provision may not be used in any way, and you must report it to the Department within 24 hours, then dispose of it in accordance with Department instructions. Check with local city or county authorities regarding the use of traps and firearms in local jurisdictions.
It Depends This will depend on the jurisdiction. In the US it will depend on the state. In some states it is legal to use deadly force in defense of property. In some an aggressor is not entitled to self defense. Oregon Rule The page &quot;Self-Defense and Deadly Force in Oregon&quot; by Susan G. Hauser states: According to Oregon law, “A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making a [citizen's] arrest or in preventing an escape.” “In Oregon,” says Portland criminal defense lawyer Lisa J. Ludwig, “it’s not really organized around a location so much as the reasonable perception of a threat.” One may defend one’s life, no matter the location, or use force in defense of a person or defense of property. Oregon Laws ORS 161.209 provides that Except as provided in ORS 161.215 (Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person) and 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person), a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. ORS 161.215 provides (in relevant part) that: Notwithstanding ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if: (1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or (2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or ... ORS 161.219 provides that: Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is: (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. ORS 161.225 provides (in relevant part) that: (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises. ? (2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only: (2) (a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person); or (2) (b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser. ORS 161.229 provides that: A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. Analysis When the question states: it is not legal to use deadly force in defense of property this is incomplete. While deadly6 forcwe cannot be used to defend &quot;property&quot; under ORS 161.229, a person may use deadly force to defend &quot;premises&quot; under ORS 161.225. This includes both a home an any other building. Under ORS 161.215 one who provokes another or is the aggressor in a confrontation may not use physical force, and therefore is not entitled to assert a right of self defense. Under ORS 161.219 one may use deadly force against a person who is &quot;Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person&quot; Conclusion As John is stealing from James, it would appear that John is the aggressor, and has provoked James. Moreover, John is (probably) engaged in a felony, and may well be using physical fore in committing that felony, depending on details not states in the question. Thus it would seem that in the circumstances described in the question, John does not have a right of self-defense as against James in Oregon, and will not prevail if he raises the issue of self defense in an Oregon court
If I did punch him , would that be okay? No, that would be Assault and Battery. If you did him serious injury you could face a charge of Grievous Bodily Harm. If you killed him, that would be murder. If you are in the UK, Canada or Australia and you were charged with murder you could claim provocation in an attempt to have the charge reduced to Voluntary Manslaughter. If you were in the US you could attempt to argue "extreme emotional or mental distress" if you are in a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code for any of the charges; if successful your sentence would be reduced. I saw people punch one another over this in movies. And I saw aliens invading the Earth in the movies - what happens in the movies if not necessarily true. Kissing my wife is adultery right? No, extramarital sex is adultery. Notwithstanding, adultery is not illegal in common-law countries. I'm pissed and don't know what to do? I sympathise with you but this is not a legal question. Whatever is going on between you, your wife and your neighbour is a social situation; not a legal one.
The show ignored the existing legal framework. Almost all U.S. police officers are employed by state and local governments and do not report directly to the President, even in an emergency. A small number of law enforcement officers are federal employees with a direct line of command to the President (e.g. the Secret Service and the security guards in the General Services Administration and TSA officers), but a law enforcement officer, unlike a member of the military or a CIA officer, does not simply follow the orders of the civilians to whom his superiors are responsible without the intervention of their law enforcement superiors based solely upon that civilian's whims and directions the way that a soldier would. The Secret Service has some limited authority to direct and even deputize local law enforcement officers in pursuit of their missions, but that would probably not extend to the kind of national security kill order contemplated in this episode. This said, lots of law enforcement officers are ex-military, most law enforcement agencies has a quasi-military organizational structure, and in the extreme circumstances of Designated Survivor, it wouldn't be shocking for law enforcement officers to follow their natural military chain of command intuitions rather than the law that actually applies in these situations. Law enforcement officers are personality types that are very deferential to authority which is a natural counterpart to support for their hierarchical view of the world that endows them with their own authority. There is no one in the loop to play devil's advocate for the suspected terrorist. But, strictly speaking, the proper protocol within the U.S. would be to have a CIA agent make the strike (because the military is prevented by the posse comitatus act from doing so, unless these events counted as an "insurrection" which they very well might in which case the military could be involved), rather than a law enforcement officer. Incidentally, the U.S. Supreme Court has basically held that the citizenship of the suspected terrorist is irrelevant, even though policy makers in all of the Presidential administrations since 9-11 have not been very comfortable with that state of the law and have sought to distinguish U.S. citizens from non-U.S. citizens in their own policies.