[Scott A. Brown]

[Gavin Kisebach]

I think the "spared by using the flat" scenario is by far the least likely.

Robber: Gimme the $%^& money man!

Sword collector: Dash it all man, you've broken my spectacles!

Robber: I'll kill you man, gimme the the money!

Sword collector: Do excuse me while I retire to the boudoir for a suitable implement with which to give you a sound thrashing. There's tea on the stove.

Robber: Get back here!

Sword collector: Now see here sir! You've knocked over my prized Ming vase! I shall bludgeon you with the flat so as not to soil the rug - take note of my most excellent form!

[Bryce Felperin]

As someone who has been trained on some law issues of use of force and the legal consequences and rights of self defense (in my case for concealed firearm carry permits) I do have some knowledge of these issues. In the US, in most all states, we follow some tenets of English common law that pertain to defense of one's home and person.

If you are walking down the street and are assaulted, you may use deadly force if you perceive that the attacker intends "gross bodily injury" to you or "death". If the assailant retreats though, you are not in the right to persue and kill them. So it is only for he period that you perceive you are in danger that you may use deadly force.

Now if in your home, most states grant you more leeway. IF someone invades your home while it is occupied by a lawful resident, then it is "assumed" by law that he is there to do bodily harm. You then have the right to kill him if you perceive a danger to yourself or others in the home, or simply because he invaded your home in the first place. However, you don't have the right to kill him if he's fleeing or incapacitated. Then of course, he is no longer a threat. Also note that if he is fleeing with your property, you don't have the right to kill him if he's fleeing the premises (i.e. shoot him in the back).

However, probably no jury is going to convict you if all the wounds on him were to his front and you can testify that he was perceived as a threat. Of course if the invader is a little old lady who walked into your house and you are 250 pound guy, you might have harder time convincing a jury. :-)

A good example was a case in New Orleans several years ago where a Japanese person (visiting Mardi Gras and drunk) wandered into a guys house and was shot and killed. There was a big protest from the Japanese about it, but the guy was not Indicted. He basically invaded the guy's home uninvited (thinking it was ok) and died because he didn't ask permission of the property owner. Harsh, but legal nonetheless.

So in the case of the swordsmen, he would be legally permitted to defend his home with whatever means were at his disposal against an armed assailant and to kill him as long as the man was a threat. End of story.

[Patrick Kelly]

Gentlemen,

Be VERY cautious when dispensing legal advice on the internet. (in the military we used to call you "sh*thouse lawyers" ) As someone who has had extensive experience in enforcing the law I can assure you that laws vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Words like "maybe" and "probably" have no place in legal terminology or the enforcing thereof. It is most unwise to give out legal advice regarding deadly force on the internet, nor was this website meant to be a hosting place for such discussion. Do us all a favor (especially the guy that owns this place) and leave those discussions for other venues.

[Jason M. Rogers]

Arizona Revised Statute:

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.


13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.


I am perfectly willing to stand corrected but I belive since we are a community of sword (and other weapon) owners it serves a vital community function to talk about the last thing any of us would ever want to do, find oneselfes in a fight for there life and having to use one's weapons to that end. I would whole hartedly agree we should take the high road specifically stoping any sort of blood lust posting. I feel this tread has stayed focused on lawful actions only.

Defending life is as legal (in the jurisdiction in question) and moral (in all places) as the act of owning the weapon in the first place. Very Respectfully, Jason M. Rogers.

[R. D. Simpson]

[Patrick Kelly]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

If your analysis of the situation is true Patrick, and I can't say I know better, it is somewhat worrying for the status of free-speech... Basically you're saying that we can't discuss laws because someone might go wrong reading things stated as our opinion and sue us for
that? Is there anyone left entitled to discuss laws publicly then?

[Michael S. Rivet]

I don't think his point was that we don't have the right to discuss these things openly. Only that other people also have rights, one of which is to make law suits. Even frivolous or absurd ones, like the one leveled at SFI, can bring expense and stress. The members of SFI were well within their rights and law-abiding folk. I don't think that means they get a refund.

If each member alone could be held accountable for his or her own silly opinions, I think Mr. Kelly would be perfectly happy to let us express them without comment. But as we are expressing them through a public vehicle, namely this site, that can make the site itself a target. None of us wants that. So, quite reasonably, Mr. Kelly is suggesting that we do not act like judges and lawyers if we are not such.

Forgive and correct, Mr. Kelly, if I am misinterpreting you.

[Bryce Felperin]

Good point on the legal ramifications of giving advice on this forum. Therefore...

I Bryce Felperin do hereby swear that all advice, past, present and future I give on this issue is of my own opinion. I also state that my opinions and remarks do not reflect any opinons, advice, position or policy of myArmoury.com and the sites mediators, administrators or owners in this or any other matter that I may comment upon on the myArmoury.com forum. All litigation, insults or dirty words directed at my posting should be directed back at me and not at this forum or its host website, owners or moderators.

That probably won't hold water in court for everything, but at least it had to be said. :-) I'm no lawyer though, so the wording might not be legally correct, but anyway...it's something.

Regards,

Bryce

[Chad Arnow]

This forum is not for giving or seeking legal advice of any kind. Please protect yourself and this site by keeping that stuff off of here.

I'd ask people to remember that people outside this community can (and have and will) find this site easily. If we wish our hobby to continue without risking a wave of reactionary legal restrictions, then we need to paint ourselves and our hobby in the best light possible. In short, if we act like loonies, we'll be treated as such. Don't let your arguments and comments (and sometimes rantings) on this site or any site be a nail in the coffin of hobbyists', collectors' and martial artists' passion.

If you have legal questions, contact a lawyer. If you're unhappy with the laws that affect you, talk to your elected government representation.

Discussions about these things here gain this hobby and this site absolutely nothing and can only hurt our cause.

Thank you.