Several of the above posts by knowledgeable people have articulated very well the position that intervention to protect a third party can expose one to the very real risks of losing virtually everything. My idea of what to do and when mirrors that of Dr. Raoul Duke as set forth in a couple of posts above.
For those who might choose to be less risk averse, they should at least not proceed in ignorance. State laws vary a great deal.
This subject as come up from time to time, and during one of its earlier orbits, Marty Hayes, president of The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, LLC. offered the following comment:
Quote:
For all of you pontificating on this subject, answer this question please.
Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?
If you cannot answer this question, then I submit you had better spend some time researching this topic, because to get the answer wrong, means perhaps a long time in prison.
|
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...6&postcount=94
Here's more on the network.
http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/
As an illustration of the intricate but crucially important complexities involved, I noted with interest something in the link on Kentucky law posted above by Vanya in Post #31: In Kentucky, as in most places, the use of deadly force for self defense is justified if there is a
reasonable belief that the danger of death or serious bodily harm is imminent and that the immediate use of deadly force is necessary to prevent it. However, when it comes to the defense of a third person, a reasonable belief will not suffice--
the imminent danger must actually exist. Wow.
Laws and case law in other states vary, but I think it likely that one thing is the same all over: the citizen is not indemnified against civil liability.
For those who might be traveling in Kentucky, and that includes me, this might prove worth your careful perusal:
http://www.kentucky-concealed.com:/I...20Homicide.pdf
The whole paper is worth reading, but the following excerpt applies to this thread:
Quote:
Justifiable Homicide is a legal defense as long as the belief that the Defendant’s life is in danger is reasonable. Deadly force can be used to defend a third person. However if deadly force is used to defend the life of another the threat must be actual not just believed under KRS 503.070.
Although 503.100 says that the Defendant must believe that the threat existed it does not remove the requirement that the threat actually existed when deadly force is used to protect another.
|
I am confident that the above is not the case where I live. As Marty Hayes advises, it is a good idea to find out just what does apply.