Talk:Self-defense (United States)

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Manual of Style. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation

site.

Not relevant to article

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Self Defence or Murder?

I have a question about a situation in which a person is forced to kill another person (directly or indirectly) in order to save him or her self, even if that other person is not the apparent cause of imminent threat. For example if a lion is chasing a friend and me, can I trip my friend so that he falls and gets eaten by the lion if it means that I will escape certain death? Will I be held culpable for killing that person? It may not be the greatest example, but the general idea is there. 01:02, 10 Aug 2006 (UTC)

This case is murder

Because you are taken action which causes another death that isn't threating you.

assault

Is it a open closed self- defense case when a person is outside with two other people- One of which she knows. The thrid party sucker punches the known male and he is knocked out on the side walk - she then attacks the assalent of whom she does not know, later being arrested for harrassment in the second degree?

Does the US care about its people at all?

These self-defense rules are crap. For all the defender knows, the criminal has gun(s)/lethal hand-to-hand/knives/a bomb on him. In reality, you have to assume that your life is as stake and that its either you or him. If you just retreat (duty to retreat), the criminal may go after someone else. As an American, I just don't see how these rules are practical in a real situation and I don't see how someone can relaibly defend his/her self without getting arrested by the police for assault/homicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.87.22 (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have citations to this claim that you can kill a police officer for false arrest?

Sounds crazy.TheThomas (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some cases here that talk about using force to resist an unlawful arrest:

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Don't take these cases too seriously. They do not reflect the law in most jurisdictions. Leave this issue to the lawyers. Few things are more patently stupid than reaching your own (invariably wrong) conclusion that your arrest is unlawful and electing to use force against an official to resist it. Going further and using deadly force is one of those more stupid things. If you try it you will probably die and no one will weep for you except you mother. If you manage to squeak through alive then you can tell all the other guys in the ultramax, including your new BF, how you were in the right, and how the system screwed you, and how you can't understand why the Supreme Court didn't grant you cert even though your lawyer said he found a federal question in your case. Don't kid yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.156.83 (talk • contribs)

Duty To Retreat Suspended In 'Most States'?

" Most states no longer require a person to retreat before using deadly force. " This refers to the 'Stand Your Ground' legislation that was pushed through by ALEC and the Koch brothers. However, I doubt that Stand Your Ground legislation is in effect 'in most states'? Is there a reliable source for that?MrSativa (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear as mud

"In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force in his or her own defense or the defense of others..."

There gotta be a better way of sayin' this. Start at the beginning- is this definition special to the United States? Then untangle the meaning of four separate uses of the word "defense". Even a lawyer oughta be able to say something clearer than that. Felsic (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I pretty much rewrote the entire article, for the following reasons:

Most of the article dealt with justification defenses that were not related to self-defense.
Many of the cases were not cited properly, nor did they in many cases support the material cited.
Parts of the article dealt with issues that were factually incorrect.
The citation style appeared to mix Bluebook and I don't know what - I replaced all cites with Bluebook.
I replaced cites to internet sites with cites to the actual case from Google Scholar.
I used appropriate secondary sources as the principal source for the article.
I also hatted off a good deal of comments on the talkpage—asking if one can legally kill a police officer is not relevant to this article.

Let me know if I missed something. GregJackP Boomer! 06:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]