Argentina: Is it permitted to shoot a knife-wielding intruder to my property with a handgun? I'm wondering how can I defend against an intruder in my house if I legally possess a handgun. I'm in Argentina. Supposing the intruder doesn't possess a firearm himself but is wielding a deadly melee weapon such as a fighting knife or sword like weapon. Can I shoot if the intruder is running towards me? What if he slowly tries to approach me and says no to my warning? (E.g., "Please don't go near me or I'll shoot you.") Let's suppose the intruder doesn't possess nor claims to have a firearm, only a melee weapon. Edit: This is the criminal code of Argentina, it's a official website. "Codigo Penal" means "criminal code", as the comment requested.
It looks like this is covered by article 34 of the criminal code you linked: ARTICULO 34. - No son punibles: [...] El que obrare en defensa propia o de sus derechos, siempre que concurrieren las siguientes circunstancias: a) Agresión ilegítima; b) Necesidad racional del medio empleado para impedirla o repelerla; c) Falta de provocación suficiente por parte del que se defiende. Se entenderá que concurren estas circunstancias respecto de aquel que durante la noche rechazare el escalamiento o fractura de los cercados, paredes o entradas de su casa, o departamento habitado o de sus dependencias, cualquiera que sea el daño ocasionado al agresor. Igualmente respecto de aquel que encontrare a un extraño dentro de su hogar, siempre que haya resistencia; English (my translation, no guarantees): ARTICLE 34 - Not punished are: [...] Someone who acts in self-defense or in defense of their rights, as long as the following circumstances apply: a) illegitimate aggression b) a rational need for the means used for preventing or repelling the aggression c) a lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the defender It is understood that these circumstances apply with respect to someone who during the night defends from a housebreaking or a breach of the enclosure, the walls or entrances to their home, or the home of their dependents, no matter what damage is caused to the attacker. Reading these rules, which look quite similar to the law in most other countries, I'd say shooting an armed intruder would be covered. It would probably already be covered under the general rules ( a) to c) ): There is an illegitimate aggression, and shooting is necessary for stopping the agressor, because no milder means is practical in the situation. Additionally, the last paragraph would apply, which provides additional protection to someone defending their home, so even if a judge decided that normally shooting someone attacking with a knife is not necessary for protection, it would still be ok for home defence.
The UK has particularly strong (indirect) restrictions on self defense. Askthe.police.uk appears to be an official police agency. As a police agency, they can only give their version of what the law is, but they could be mistaken. They say "The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm". This by itself does not mean that pepper spray and the like are definitively illegal: There are other self defence products which claim to be legal (e.g. non toxic sprays), however, until a test case is brought before the court, we cannot confirm their legality or endorse them. If you purchase one you must be aware that if you are stopped by the police and have it in your possession there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, it's contents and legality can be verified. One can infer that they somewhat disapprove of pepper spray: There are products which squirt a relatively safe, brightly coloured dye (as opposed to a pepper spray). A properly designed product of this nature, used in the way it is intended, should not be able to cause an injury. The underlying theory seems to be that the dye will frighten the assailant so it might be useful. Nevertheless, they do not fully endorse spray dye: However, be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone's eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury. This underscores the point that "intent" determines the criminal nature of the act. If you accidentally spray a dye into someone's eyes, that probably would not make the thing an offensive weapon. Moreover, if at the moment of defending yourself with dye you intentionally spray it into someone eyes, that does not make it an offensive weapon (see below on per se offensive weapons). The difference between pepper spray and dye lies in the outcome that you expect, that pepper spray will cause actual and non-trivial physical discomfort, and it's foreseeability (the point of having pepper spray is to injure). The police are not making any definitive "rulings" (only a court can make a ruling), and they warn The above advice is given in good faith, you must make your own decision and this website cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the possession, use or misuse of any self defence product. Possession of other weapons (mostly knives, also weapons for beating people) is more clearly illegal, due to numerous acts enacted by Parliament over the years. The gov't. prosecutor offers useful details on their (current) policies and the underlying laws. The underlying authority for these restrictions seems to be the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953, which outlaws having an offensive weapon in a public place, and an offense weapon is simply defined as any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him A brick or an egg could be an "offensive weapon", if a person intends to use it to cause injury. It is more difficult to see how an egg could cause injury, but actual injury is not required under the law, only intent to injure. It is thus a bit surprising that the police would be so bold as to say that a "rape alarm" is fully legal, but this may refer to a specific thing, the "Personal Guardian", which silently notifies the police, and is not a loud whistle (which could injure a person). Intent being crucial to the determination of "offensive weapon" status, CPS points out that where a person uses an article offensively in a public place, the offensive use of the article is not conclusive of the question whether he had it with him as an offensive weapon within section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. If you use a chain or stick offensively, that does not establish that you had it with you as an offensive weapon. You crucially had to previously intend to use it as an offensive weapon: as they say: Having an article innocently will be converted into having the article guiltily if an intent to use the article offensively is formed before the actual occasion to use violence has arisen. There are a number of per se offensive weapons: those made for causing injury to the person i.e. offensive per se. For examples of weapons that are offensive per se, see Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, (Stones 8-22745) and case law decisions. (Archbold 24-116). The Criminal Justice Act (1988) (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008 came into force on 6th April 2008 with the effect that a sword with a curved blade of 50cm or more (samurai sword), has been added to the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 but sticks and chains would not be included. Spices are not likely to be shown to have a per se purpose of causing injury to others; but carrying pepper powder with the intent of throwing it in someone's eyes (for whatever reason) and thus injuring them fits the definition of "offensive weapon". Pepper spray even more clearly fits that definition (you don't use pepper spray in curry), and has resulted in arrests. In fact, the Firearms Act 1968 (S5) (b) specifically makes it illegal to possess any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing
The Missouri trespass law is here. The police will not detain a person for expressing himself, even repeatedly, though a court order to stay away would change things. The law says A person does not commit the offense of trespass in the first degree by entering or remaining upon real property unless the real property is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or as to which notice against trespass is given by: (1) Actual communication to the actor; or (2) Posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders. You can also use purple paint markers. There is also a law against stalking which prohibits unwanted communication that may be threatening, intimidating, frightening or causes emotional distress to another person. However, you need to petition the courts for an order of protection. If granted, violating the order would be a felony, and more likely to get the attention of the police. Getting an attorney is the simplest immediate solution, since I expect that purple paint won't mean much to him.
washington Under the laws of Washington State, USA, a dog can be considered a deadly weapon. See State v. Hoeldt, 139 Wash. App. 225 (2007). Hoeldt allegedly released a dog which attacked a police officer, and was convicted of second degree assault with a deadly weapon. He appealed, claiming that a dog was not a weapon for purposes of the assault statute. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction: Because a dog is an instrument that can be used to cause death or substantial bodily harm, we hold that a dog can be a &quot;deadly weapon&quot; under RCW 9A.04.110(6).
New Hampshire is a "constitutional carry" state. The term "constitutional carry" is not a legal term but, rather, a catchphrase used to describe states that have adopted, either by statute or state constitution, that no permit is required to carry a gun either openly displayed or concealed. The phrase comes from a belief among many that the constitution is a permit to carry. New Hampshire passed its constitutional carry statute in 2017. Prior to this date it was permitted to carry a gun openly (not concealed) without a permit and had been legal to do so since the founding of the state. The Federal government originally passed The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 which prohibited the carrying of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. This act was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995 (United States v. Lopez). Subsequently, the Federal government amended the law by adding the language, "...a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce..." This law has not been overturned and is still active. Here are two of the several exceptions to the Federal restriction: The individual is licensed to carry a firearm by the State in which the school zone is located The gun is unloaded and locked in a container There are other exceptions related to law enforcement officers, permission of the school, etc. These exceptions are independent; if one is licensed there is no need to unload the firearm and lock it in a container. The first exception listed, an individual licensed to carry a firearm by the State, generates a fair amount of controversy. Many states license individuals to carry concealed firearms within their borders by recognizing, or granting reciprocity, to the licensee's home state's firearms license. Many people believe this is a grant of a license by the State to the individual to carry a firearm. The ATF disagrees with this position and has taken a position that only licenses issued by the State in which the school is located are valid as it relates to the Federal school gun safety act. Further reading on this particular issue can be found in the paper, "Federalism Implications of Non-Recognition of Licensure Reciprocity Under the Gun-Free School Zones Act." The New Hampshire legislature has been working on a bill (as of June, 2019) prohibiting the carrying of firearms on school property. Governor Chris Sununu has previously indicated he would veto a series of gun-control bills headed to his desk via a spokesperson's statment, "the governor is not looking to make any changes to existing gun laws." The bill as written, prohibits the possession of firearms on school property, it does not prohibit firearm possession near school property. (The bill does appear to allow a firearm in an automobile being used to pick up or drop off a student at school.) The bottom-line for firearms around schools in New Hampshire: There is no state requirement to be licensed to carry a firearm openly or concealed There is no state prohibition from carrying firearms near a school There is a Federal prohibition from carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school without a license There is no Federal requirement that a firearm carried near a school be concealed You can expect to be interviewed by law enforcement if you are openly-carrying firearms near a school. It is perfectly legal for law enforcement to approach you and engage in a voluntary interview. You can expect many such engagements if you make it a practice to openly carry firearms near a school. You can make people nervous if you are openly-carrying firearms generally, and you will absolutely make people nervous if you openly-carry firearms near a school.* New Hampshire still issues Pistol and Revolver licenses and one should have such a license if carrying a firearm within a school zone. As it relates to knives, New Hampshire is very liberal as its laws apply to knives. There are few, if any, restrictions on knives. In 2010, New Hampshire passed a law removing some of the restrictions on the types of knives that could be carried. *I do not have a specific citation to provide regarding the expectations of a law-enforcement interview when openly-carrying a firearm near a school. This statement comes from my experience as one who is licensed to teach concealed carry courses and firearms laws in Louisiana and Arizona. I am not an attorney and I am not licensed teach the laws of New Hampshire. I recommend speaking with a competent attorney who specializes in firearms law in New Hampshire to learn what is legal and, just as importantly, what is reasonable.
Bob can probably print the firearm for personal ownership if Bob is not prohibited from possessing a firearm himself, but after that it gets problematic. This is ignoring any potential safety violations and liability issues or patent violations which might arise. According to an ATF spokesman quoted in this article : it is legal for Americans to build their own firearms without a license so long as they are not prohibited by law from possessing firearms, the firearms are legal to own, for personal use, and not for sale or transfer to others. Whether the gun parts are printed, created by other ways of manufacturing, or legally purchased from a licensed dealer has no impact on whether it is legal for an American to build a gun for personal use, though some states like California have placed additional requirements on the process. So transfer of ownership is possibly problematic. It's notably not a way to avoid normal firearm possession restrictions : Knight [the ATF spokesman] emphasized it is not legal for felons or somebody otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms to build their own guns under any circumstance. &quot;Title 18 of the United States Code, section 922(g) prohibits several categories of persons (i.e., persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year) from possessing firearms in or affecting interstate commerce,&quot; Knight said. &quot;Title 18 of the Unites States Code, section 922(d) prohibits persons from disposing of any firearm to a person the transferor has reason to believe is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law.&quot; Finally there's a rather crucial point to note about the design of such firearms : He said the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 outlaws the manufacture or possession of firearms that can pass through a walk-through metal detector or X-ray machine commonly employed at airports without being detected. &quot;A person or manufacturer cannot produce an undetectable firearm as prescribed in Title 18 of the United States Code, section 922(p),&quot; he said. So making a weapon that's undetectable by a metal detector is not allowed (at least according to the ATF).
Illinois has a &quot;Castle Doctrine&quot; which includes dwellings and other qualified buildings, but not a general &quot;Stand your Ground&quot; doctrine. Normally, to claim self-defense one has to show that they were not able to retreat and had to use force, but in Illinois you do not have a duty to retreat if you are preventing criminal interference with a dwelling or with real property that you or a family member owns, or you have a legal duty to protect (see Ill Code 720-2 and Ill Code 720-3). In order to use deadly force in any case, it must be to prevent a forcible felony, which is defined as (720 ILCS 5/2-8): &quot;Forcible felony&quot; means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. So, assuming you have no legal duty to protect the 7-11, you would not be justified in using deadly force against rioters merely on the basis that they were committing a forcible felony against the building. On the other hand, if you were in the store or could see someone in the store being attacked, you may be able to successfully defend deadly force used to protect yourself or that person.
I think it would depend on how a jury viewed the "challenge" to her audience. The general rule for self-defense in Texas is that the person needs to reasonably believe that force is immediately necessary to protect herself from someone else's use of force. I think a jury would find it reasonable to believe that someone forcefully attempting to steal your gun was planning to use it against you. More importantly, the law generally presumes that that belief is reasonable if the person is being robbed, assuming that she isn't otherwise engaged in criminal activity. Since openly carrying an AR-15 is -- as far as I know -- legal in Texas, I think she'd probably be fine. But: The law also says that the use of force is not justified when a person consents to the other person's use of force, or if the person has provoked the other person. So now you have the question of whether the student's challenge constitutes a provocation or consent to the use of force. I think you can make a decent argument for provocation, which means that "the defendant did some act or used some words intended to and calculated to bring on the difficulty in order to have a pretext for inflicting injury." Neal v. State, No. 12-14-00158-CR, 2016 WL 1446138, at *11 (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2016). You might also make out a decent argument for consent, which doesn't necessarily seem to require that the parties exactly spell out the rules of engagement, just that there is some kind of agreement between the two parties. In one case, for instance, a defendant tried to argue that a fight had gone beyond the rules because one party used a chokehold and knocked the other out. But the court said that the only actual rule agreed to was that there would be no weapons used. Padilla v. State, No. 03-07-00513-CR, 2008 WL 5423139, at *2 (Tex. App. Dec. 31, 2008). That makes me think that as long as there's consent to some kind of fight, you don't necessarily need rules, though you do need to abide by them if you agree to them. So what's the scope of consent in this case? If we say that she's agreed to the use of force by challenging people to take something from her, and she hasn't said how you can do it, can you do it by any means you choose? I don't think a court would let someone shoot her to get it, but maybe they would be allowed to pry it out of her hands. So all of that is a long way of saying that this is a tricky question, and that any decision would probably depend a lot on the specific facts of who she was talking to, what exactly she was saying, how she was carrying the gun, and so on.