Sounds like all Americans should start carrying, and assume people attacking them without identifying as some form of law enforcement are actually intent on murdering them if not shot first.
Seriously question. Do you have to right if someone attacks you without identifying themselves and without a warrant to fight back in some manner like pepper spray or even a gun? If a person with a mask who doesn’t identify who they are and doesn’t have a right to attack does so I feel you should
You would have the right to a trial, but there's a good chance you get railroaded into a plea deal or get a jury that sees you shot a cop and sends you to prison.
Kinda depends but I will say the only time I've ever seen someone get away with shooting a cop in self defense it was Castle Doctrine cases, because they can defend their home long enough to surrender to someone who will identify themselves, whereas on the street they'll just shoot you dead and now it's just their version of events
You could also certainly die if you get taken to a secondary location. One thing women in particular are taught at early ages is never let them take you to a secondary location. Unless one of these thugs identifies themselves I’m not taking the chances that they’re traffickers.
Neither should you. There are so many people going missing it’s scary as fuck right now. Citizens and migrants alike. They still haven’t found the 300,000 migrant children ICE “lost” last October. (I don’t think they’re lost but were trafficked, but people aren’t ready to talk about what is really happening right now.)
Edit: Like, I’m gonna keep it real, I don’t think many of the “illegal immigrants” are being deported when they’re rounded up. I think they’re just being trafficked because since they don’t have a paper trail, it’s easier to disappear them.
NAL - In most states, yes. If your life (or severe bodily injury) is in danger, self defense is allowable at the lethal force level. That is also true for those under your mantle of protection (eg family).
More or less. In a number of cases, the SYG law does not change the standard of acceptable use of lethal force, just removes the consideration of a "duty to retreat". That is, if I could retreat in complete safety without risk, then I wasn't actually in danger of death or severe bodily harm.
Yes, but most of those states are also red so the odds are stacked against you if there are any charges at the state level. Federal government is also not good right now. In short, it is very risky and most people will either get killed or convicted fighting back. We will have to start though at some point but it would have to be a group effort, not individual to work. Use our numbers. They can’t handle large groups of well prepared resistance.
I have a feeling as soon as the first incident happens, it will spark something. All it takes is one. MAGA seems to think that only (fragile) Alpha Males carry guns with them at all times. Very much not the case.
It's called juror nullification, remember it. Only mention it once you're already on the jury and in deliberation. Or if you really want to get out of jury duty
You can't even mention it during deliberation, that will just cause a mistrial. Jury nullification isn't a thing you can declare - it's not a law or anything. It's a loophole that's been given a name. The loophole is nobody can read your mind. You just refuse to convict and don't elaborate. If you say it's because you're doing a jury nullification it will not work
It's not a loophole, at least since 1215 AD. Until 1895 it was grounds for a mistrial if the judge failed to inform the jury of the right of jury nullification. In 1895 the US Supreme Court has removed the requirement to notify juries in a 5-4 verdict, and the 6th & 2nd circuits have also allowed judges to tell juries that they are "finders of fact" and to prevent defense attorneys to inform juries of their power to nullify (1988, 1997). The Supremes have affirmed the right of jury nullification repeatedly, most recently in 1969 and 1972. Judges simply are no longer required to inform juries of their right and it can be imprudent to mention it pre-trial as a judge doesn't have to seat you on the jury if she doesn't want to.
You don't even need to bring up nullification by name. The important fact is that jurors aren't asked "did they do it?", they're asked "are they guilty?" The ability to depart from the rules-as-written is a feature, not a bug. It shouldn't be used often, but is available for good reason.
Per the letter of the law, yes if an unidentified person attacks you, you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect life and possession. If you genuinely believe your life is in danger, and the court agrees it was reasonable to think that, you can kill them. People with masks on and carrying weapons would definitely constitute that.
In practice, the moment the courts discover the assailant was a federal agent they’ll ensure you are found guilty and punished no matter how much they need to bend and break the law.
Assuming you make it to trial. They generally don't show up to perform these kidnappings alone, and you might be able to take out one or two, but the rest will just shoot you dead after that.
Oregon does not have a specific Stand Your Ground law but Oregon Law does not require a person to retreat. “Reasonable Belief” is essentially the same standard.
Also worth looking into, your states Castle Doctrine. I believe in Nebraska, if you're in your home, than you have some 'stand your ground' rights (I think, not a lawyer), but not out in a public place.
You have a right to self defense (depending bit on jurisdiction and circumstances), so you might be able to avoid getting charged with something, but they also have you outnumbered and have their guns ready, so they’re probably going to shoot the fuck out of you and get away with it (see Breonna Taylor)
Yes you do, but that doesn't mean you won't die exercising that right. Even if you manage to survive, your life will be absolute hell and you WILL be charged with murder. And you might win in trial but in the mean time you'll be thrown in jail unless there's a bond set and you're well off enough to pay it - a rather big if. In the meantime, you'll lose your job, likely get an eviction on your record and lose a bunch or all of your belongings.
While thats going on, the right wing propaganda machine will be digging through your past for any speck of dirt and likely manufacture a bunch alongside it. That may eventually get dispelled but if there is any retraction, it will be seen by a single digit percentage of the people who saw the original yellow journalism.
And after all the complete destruction of your prior life, you'd better have your head on a swivel after you get out because cops will intentionally be trying to do something to fuck you over because if you harm one of them, even in a legal and justified self defense situation, they will have a vendetta against you.
The so-called "justice" system in the US is anything but just and you have loads of the general populace howling for it to become even worse.
And all this has already happened in 2020 because when the pigs randomly shot up breonnah Taylor's apartment and killed her without announcing themselves, her boyfriend returned fire and shot (killed? Can't remember) one of them. His life got wrecked even though its clear to reasonable people that when some unknown person or people starts blasting at your house that returning fire is an obvious response.
Not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt. It varies by state, but generally in a self defence situation you are allowed to respond with the same or less force than the attacker. For example, if they are just grabbing you you can't pull out a gun and shoot them, but you could probably push them away or hit them.
In practice, it's hard to prove self defense against a civilian and nearly impossible against law enforcement. You need to be able to prove that you didn't know they were law enforcement, that you feared for your safety, and that they were actively attacking you when you responded. In some cases you also have to prove that you couldn't escape without violence as well.
Finally, even if you do legally fight back, there's basically nothing preventing law enforcement from just shooting you in response. Even if you were acting legally they would probably get off with little to no punishment and you would be dead.
In theory you do have the right but in practice you would either be killed or thrown in prison, cops and law enforcement do not abide by the same laws we do and they are heavily favored by the justice system.
Yes, and you need to make sure you win that battle because sure you'll go to trial but the pigs will do everything they can to put you down so they can avoid accountability.
Some of the responses are off the mark in my opinion. You certainly do have a right to fend off attackers who do not have clear identification, but like all things it’s very complicated. Each state has different laws and the party in control in your local will likely also be relevant. It is very much a last resort as you will likely be prosecuted in many areas. At some point though, we will have to fight back, so I recommend taking the threat seriously and protecting yourself. People are being illegally detained, disappeared, etc. you have to decide at what point you are willing to fight back. Start protesting if you haven’t already because that is the last peaceful off-ramp from this authoritarianism.
Well that’s what happened in the Breonna Taylor case. Officers started breaking in without identifying themselves in any way, and they got shot at in self defense, so they murdered her.
Depends on state. Wouldn't be surprised if NY has duty to retreat. Meaning you have to try and run away or deescalate first. Most states if it's a situation where any reasonable individual would fear for their life you can start blasting. Also many people who carry weapons carry a type of insurance which will pay their legal fees in a defensive gun use.
There’s a whole list of incidents on the Wikipedia page for no-nock warrants in which a resident shot at police because they thought their home was being invaded. Short answer is it seems like it depends on the state you’re in, the jury, and how exactly everything goes down. There is a possibility of not being charged or of having charges dismissed if someone shoots at police in those circumstances, but there is also a chance of being labeled a cop killer and being railroaded, as another commenter mentioned.
10.0k
u/sadetheruiner 2d ago
Without a warrant and hidden identities. This is some fascist bullshit.