PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk about self-defense.- Against clowns.



Pages : [1] 2 3

Omega Supreme
10/06/2016 2:27pm,
So something that started on my facebook page, which I made a glib response expanded in a minor debate that I had to roll my eyes at a few times because I didn't want to have a serious discussion. Unfortunately we did start to get into it so I thought it'd be fun to talk about here.

So that pseudo news hoax that's going around about creepy clowns (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Creepy-Clowns-Social-Media-Los-Angeles-California-Reports-395911421.html) had one of my friends ask when would he be allowed to attack a clown. I glibly answered:

"The serious answer is you live in the state of California. This is a no retreat state which would allow to attack somebody that seems to be threatening you. The not so serious answer is all clowns should be run over 3 to 4 times and make sure to burn the body, because hey clowns are funny and I would absolutely laugh my ass off watching that."

All of a sudden it turned into this big debate that it would be unlawful for a person to defend themselves. Well I've been teaching self defense for over 25 years and had to investigate the law extensively so I can properly educate people who take classes from me. Each state is different. What are the laws in your area and what are the things you are and aren't allowed to do.

In basic terms we are dealing with three different areas:

1. Are you allowed to defend yourself if; you feel threatened, must you attempt to escape, verbally communicate defense etc?
2. How much force are you allowed to use?
3. Are you allowed to be proactive if you perceive a threat, especially if you are not the one threatened?

ChenPengFi
10/06/2016 3:04pm,
"Know your local laws."
?

Holy Moment
10/06/2016 3:05pm,
The clown thing is an old urban legend that just happens to be making the rounds again. Some people speculate that it was initially started as a form of viral/guerrilla marketing for the upcoming "It" remake.

But anyway, New Jersey doesn't have any laws (That I am willing to acknowledge or obey) regarding how much violence you can inflict on another human being.

Omega Supreme
10/06/2016 3:14pm,
"Know your local laws."
?

Yes, that's the point of the thread.

goodlun
10/06/2016 3:16pm,
CA is indeed a stand your ground state
Penal Code 197, 198.5
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199


197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.


198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

So **** them clowns

ChenPengFi
10/06/2016 3:17pm,
The reasonable person standard should dictate that it's perfectly acceptable to run over clowns.

goodlun
10/06/2016 3:22pm,
From a wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat



In Erwin v. State (1876), the Supreme Court of Ohio wrote that a "true man", one without fault, would not retreat.[10] In Runyan v. State (1877), the Indiana court rejected a duty to retreat, implying it was un-American,[1]:551–2 writing of a referring to the distinct American mind,[10] "the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against" a duty to retreat.[10] The court went further in saying that no statutory law could require a duty to retreat because the right to stand one's ground is "founded on the law of nature; and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society."

It really does seem un-American to require a retreat. I am a bit surprised this has never made it all the way up to the SCOTUS, with Heller vs DC solidifying that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms for self-defense reasons.

Morik
10/06/2016 3:23pm,
From a wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat



It really does seem un-American to require a retreat. I am a bit surprised this has never made it all the way up to the SCOTUS, with Heller vs DC solidifying that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms for self-defense reasons.

It does seem a little odd eh? I wonder how often juries exonerate despite the self-defender not retreating when they could have...

Bar Humbug
10/06/2016 3:35pm,
England and Wales

Self Defense: A person may use such force that is reasonable and necessary to defend themselves against attack. Also extends to "Breach of the Peace", empower witnesses of a breach of the peace that is occurring or about to occur to take reasonable steps to stop the person threatening to breach the peace.

R v Palmer 1971: "It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary"
R v Beckford 1988: Pre-emptive strike: "When a person has an honestly held belief that they or another are in imminent danger, they may use such force as in reasonable and necessary to avert danger"

I'll speak to some lawyer friends to get some clarification, but my current understanding in the England and Wales is that you don't have the duty to retreat, though it would probably be good practice as it may lead to a de-escalation that would prevent a breach of the peace. Conversely if the threat is imminent, including a breach of the peace, you are empowered to use all "reasonable force" to stop them

Omega Supreme
10/06/2016 3:50pm,
England and Wales

Self Defense: A person may use such force that is reasonable and necessary to defend themselves against attack. Also extends to "Breach of the Peace", empower witnesses of a breach of the peace that is occurring or about to occur to take reasonable steps to stop the person threatening to breach the peace.

R v Palmer 1971: "It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary"
R v Beckford 1988: Pre-emptive strike: "When a person has an honestly held belief that they or another are in imminent danger, they may use such force as in reasonable and necessary to avert danger"

I'll speak to some lawyer friends to get some clarification, but my current understanding in the England and Wales is that you don't have the duty to retreat, though it would probably be good practice as it may lead to a de-escalation that would prevent a breach of the peace. Conversely if the threat is imminent, including a breach of the peace, you are empowered to use all "reasonable force" to stop them

Breach of Peace?

*edit: Just looked it up. We call it disturbing the peace. Holy **** that is awesome. Unfortunately that's a no fly rule here in most states. No can hands on.

Permalost
10/06/2016 4:12pm,
Once the clown's basement of skin suits is discovered, the case against you should get dismissed.

DdlR
10/06/2016 5:10pm,
The clown thing is an old urban legend that just happens to be making the rounds again. Some people speculate that it was initially started as a form of viral/guerrilla marketing for the upcoming "It" remake.

But anyway, New Jersey doesn't have any laws (That I am willing to acknowledge or obey) regarding how much violence you can inflict on another human being.

The urban legend dates probably back to the late '70s/early '80s publicity surrounding the infamous John Wayne Gacy serial killer case; Gacy, who killed at least 33 young men, performed as "Pogo the Clown" for children's parties, hospitals, parades and such.

Folklorists are having a field day with the current clown panic. From the academic point of view it's partly an example of ostension, whereby people act out scenarios inspired by urban legends - http://www.snopes.com/info/glossary.asp. There was a very similar panic during the late 19th century, when a bunch of young guys decided it would be hella fun to dress up as ghosts.

kimjonghng
10/06/2016 5:11pm,
If a weapon is involved or any kind of power tool, I will rely on my old Bujinkan training of not fighting and running away from a competitive struggle.

MisterMR
10/06/2016 5:18pm,
Italy:
"He who acted cannot be punished if he was forced by the necessity to defend his or someone else's right from the actual danger of an unjust offence, as long as the defence is proportional to offence".

A law from 2006 specifies that, in the spcific case of self defence in someone's home (and extendend to someone's shop etc.) (paraphrase): The defence is assumed to be proportional if someone who is legitimately there uses a legitimately owned weapon with the purpose to defend:
a) his or soeone's else incolumity;
b) his or someone's else goods, as long as the [culprit who is defended again] doesn't desist from his acts and there is a danger of aggression;


This law is still being criticized as too restrictive, though I, being a liberal commie, think that this law is totally OK and this idea that it should be ok to shot anyone that you slightly think could be dangerous is just a brainfart of autoitharian minds.

MisterMR
10/06/2016 5:21pm,
Once the clown's basement of skin suits is discovered, the case against you should get dismissed.

But, if the clown manages to kill you, does this count as self defence if he can show your badass comments on bullshido?

Kravbizarre
10/06/2016 5:52pm,
So something that started on my facebook page, which I made a glib response expanded in a minor debate that I had to roll my eyes at a few times because I didn't want to have a serious discussion. Unfortunately we did start to get into it so I thought it'd be fun to talk about here.

So that pseudo news hoax that's going around about creepy clowns (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Creepy-Clowns-Social-Media-Los-Angeles-California-Reports-395911421.html) had one of my friends ask when would he be allowed to attack a clown. I glibly answered:

"The serious answer is you live in the state of California. This is a no retreat state which would allow to attack somebody that seems to be threatening you. The not so serious answer is all clowns should be run over 3 to 4 times and make sure to burn the body, because hey clowns are funny and I would absolutely laugh my ass off watching that."

All of a sudden it turned into this big debate that it would be unlawful for a person to defend themselves. Well I've been teaching self defense for over 25 years and had to investigate the law extensively so I can properly educate people who take classes from me. Each state is different. What are the laws in your area and what are the things you are and aren't allowed to do.

In basic terms we are dealing with three different areas:

1. Are you allowed to defend yourself if; you feel threatened, must you attempt to escape, verbally communicate defense etc?
2. How much force are you allowed to use?
3. Are you allowed to be proactive if you perceive a threat, especially if you are not the one threatened?
1. Well its dependant on the threat but i think what a court wants to hear is you made it clear you didnt want any trouble then you have to justify how your safty was comprimised initiating self defence.

2.id say enough to get away. Hospitalising someone would be excessive force.

3.do you mean beating up the menace whos threatening somone else? If thats the case the would be victim would have to testify that your actions were justifiable. Really though i wouldnt count on a stranger wording **** in court so you dont get charged.