Do you feel that using lethal force against another human in order to defend the life of your dog, should fall under the same protections of justifiable homicide?
It is an interesting case. I have read around a bit (following a string of similar questions) for German law. I had to read as even though I am a lawyer the last time I had to do with anything other that IT / IP / Media was quite a bit ago.Anyway: in principle and if less intrusive means are not feasible it is possible here to use deadly force even to “just” prevent a threat to an animal or property (technically under German law an animal is not property but in absence of different regulation treated as if it were).There is, however, a boundary condition: the severity of the attack and the severity of the means to defend yourself / a third person from such attack must not be in crass disproportion. The Reichsgericht (Imperial Supreme court, it’s been a while) had to decide a case where a poor guy who stole a few apples was shot almost to death while fleeing with the fruit. It found the force used disproportionate compared to the relative small infringement of the property right to the fruit.Now a dog is not fruit. And almost shot to death is not actually shot to death. But you get the point: shooting somebody lethally to defend a dog is *at least* a very, very disputable case. There might be a combination of circumstances that can justify even such a harsh defense (ideas: very valuable price winning breeding dog that generates main income of owner, assault on dog in a very severe way, offender is a scary guy, you get the idea), but I would be very careful here.
MMA / Firearm / Lethal Force Use?
After some research, it appears that, at best, someone with training MIGHT be charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" only in some jurisdictions, and even, then, that other factors aside from their training play a bigger role in such a case. I think it would be hard to justify using deadly force because you "felt" threatened. Even "deadly weapon" charges don't necessarily result from life-threatening injury. "Courts have found that various parts of a body can be weapons, including: hands feet teeth the mouth, and even elbows or knees. In deciding if a body part is a deadly or dangerous weapon, courts will consider the following factors: the manner of blows, hits, or kicks the degree of force used the number of times the defendant struck, kicked, or bit the victim the extent of the victim’s injuries, and the location of injuries on the victim’s body. In states where human body parts can be deadly weapons, courts determine whether they actually are on a case-by-case basis. Normally, an assault involving punching wouldn’t make the hands deadly weapons. But if the punching was repeated, extremely severe, and caused permanent damage, then a court would be more likely to rule otherwise. Courts have also declared hands to be deadly weapons when the attack involved strangling, suffocating, choking, pushing, or dragging. In some states, such as Texas, a defendant’s martial arts training may make the body a deadly weapon. But in many states like Illinois the defendant’s training and skill—no matter how lethal—doesn’t transform the body into a deadly weapon." http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/res... I think in order to justify the use of firearms against an unarmed attacker, one would have to be able to prove that the attacker was capable of causing serious, permanent injury, and considering that the rings and cages of the world aren't littered with corpses, that might be a tough sell. If there was some clear physical disparity (ex: 220lbs world champion fighter vs. 110lbs, wheelchair-bound grandmother), then it might be easier to justify, but in the case of two people of similar physical size and conditioning, it would probably be a lot harder.
In the US, can you be sued for not using lethal force in a home invasion?
There’s two ways to read this question: (1) that you had the option of using lethal force, but chose to use no force and as a result someone other than the home invaders was injured; or (2) you had the option to use lethal force but chose to use lesser force and in doing so injured but did not kill one or more of the invaders.As to the first reading, there is generally no duty to intervene in the law, even within one’s own home, so it would be incredibly challenging for one to be sued for choosing not to act, even if someone was injured as a result. That said, some creative lawyer might try to have a family member sue you in order to get an insurance pay out; there’s actually a case of a woman suing herself in order to force an insurance payout for an automobile accident — I could see a similar theory applying here, even if there’s no legal duty to act.For the second reading, it’s not uncommon for people who are injured in robberies or other criminal activity to find a lawyer to sue a homeowner for their injuries. Sometimes, these cases actually result in an insurance settlement. But more often they’re stained by the initial illegal activity in which the plaintiff was involved, and fall prey to the principle of “unclean hands” in tort law (that one who enters into a situation with bad intent cannot then benefit from the natural consequences of their choices). Most of these cases are very fact-specific, and depend largely on the exact happenings in and around the home.
Why is it illegal to use lethal force when someone has broken into your home?
Your question, “Why is it illegal to use deadly force when someone breaks into your home?” is not worded well. In most places here in the USA, there are circumstances where one might legally use deadly force, and other circumstances where one may not.The general rule of law is that one can only use deadly force as a last resort to protect themselves from someone who is clearly going to kill or injure them if they don’t stop the attack immediately.So, that means it would not be legal to use deadly force if you should drive up, and knowing that no one should be in your home, you see folks in there gathering up your property. You may not use deadly force to protect property. Your life is not in danger. You have the opportunity to get back in your car and drive away. Recently a Washington State man was charged with murder because when he drove up and discovered someone in his house he fetched a firearm, went inside and shot and killed the intruder. The prosecutor said, and the jury will most likely agree, that he should have retreated to a safe place and called the police.On the other hand there are numerous cases every month where attackers kick down doors, and enter homes where they rape women, beat the occupants and steal whatever they want. There are also cases where attackers kick down doors and are shot when they enter. These cases are generally found to be legal uses of deadly force.So again, you cannot use deadly force just because someone is stealing from you. If you are standing outside your car and the bad guy jumps in and flips you off as he drives away, you cannot shoot him, as tempting as that might be.
What are the consequences of an Illegal use of Deadly force? What would several circumstances be of not using?
AN illegal use of Deadly force could equate into assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder. When that attacker is fleeing, is not posing an imminent danger to you or another, has surrendered / been rendered unconscious etc would mean you would not be able to use delady force. The only legal way to use deadly force outside of the military (and that has a whole range circumstances different to civilian) is when life and limb are being threatened. In Texas, even your own personal home. It is called the Castle Doctrine, which states a man should not have to flee his home in the event of an attack, and the attacker does not retreat. Just remember: Life and limb of you or another being threatened, you can use UP TO deadly force. If it is shown that you could have easily subdued / disabled by any means the attacker, that might translate into an issue, but in all reality, in the heat of the moment, if someone points a gun at you and your brother shoots him from behind, he wouldn't have known if the gun was empty and had to assume it was loaded and the attacker willing to use = justifiable homicide. That's what they call proper use of deadly force.
Is legal to the US law enforcers to use lethal force against illegal immigrants while they are trying to enter the county?
If their illegal entry is the sole reason for using deadly force, no.If entering the country unlawfully was justification for the use of deadly force, we could place snipers and machine guns at vantage points along the border and just mow down anyone who was seen coming over or under the fence. Obviously, we don’t do that. Officers conducting border enforcement generally use deadly force to defend their lives. This is the case with most uses of deadly force by police in the United States.
Should non lethal weapons replace lethal weapons?
i say no.....
A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence.?
Every victim reacts and copes differently with domestic violence. Adding "Repeated" to the phrase "Domestic violence" can seem redundant to someone who has experienced it since domestic violence is rarely if ever a one time occurrence unless measures are taken to ensure it doesn't happen again. In the scenario you've presented, the victim is doing just that. Assuring that the violent abuse will not be repeated. In some cases, the victim uses deadly force because they genuinely believe that their abuser will kill them (which may very well be true and quite often is). It's more likely that a victim will kill the abuser if it is the same abuser that has repeatedly abused the same victim. In the case of a person who has been abused in a number of relationships (familiar or otherwise), they are more likely to escape and later enter the cycle of abuse again at a later time because they don't feel that they deserve better. The victim that feels trapped and isolated may kill their abuser because they feel there is no other way to be free. Often in this situation they feel that the said authorities will side with the abuser (usually because the abuser has instilled this fear into the victim). No one here can judge someone who has gone through this situation. No, not even if you've gone through it yourself because we're often hardest on ourselves and those that remind us of such. Only if you're inside the bubble of terror that an extreme abuser creates can you truly understand. Let me clarify that I'm not saying that it's best to kill one's abuser. I'm just answering a vague question from a purely analytical perspective. I'm not referring to a verbal abuser, or one who uses emotional blackmail. That, too, is a terrible situation, but nothing that would excuse physical force in return. In such a case, the victim's weakness truly is only in their mind. There are plenty of non-violent alternatives to escape from emotional abusers.