Quote:
Originally posted by crockett
I think you need to reread your GFY law books
|
GFY Law books?
GFY Law Book would be a darwin award of explanations...
If the guy set foot on her property with a drawn weapon she has immediate right to self defense within bounds masured by the assault, or at least place an immediate call to the local police.
Brandishing a fire arm is assault.
NOTE:
"The defense of property is a possible justification for breaking the law. Defendants who use this defense are arguing that they should not be held liable for a crime, since the actions taken were intended to protect the defendant's property. Courts have generally ruled that "deadly force" is not acceptable in defending property, although it may be acceptable in self-defense"
Self-defense is a possible justification for what would otherwise be breaking the law. Defendants who use this defense argue that they should not be held liable for what is normally a crime, since the actions taken were intended to protect the defendant or others from danger.
Self-defense usually refers to the use of violence to protect oneself; this forms the basis for many of the martial arts. Self-defense is generally understood to have two degrees: reasonable force (or non-lethal force ) and deadly force . Courts generally find that the violence a defendant uses, in self-defense, must in some fashion be comparable to the threat faced, so that deadly force should only be used in situations of "extreme" danger. Many courts have ruled that a " path of retreat " exists, and that self-defense is only acceptable, as a legal defense, when there was insufficient opportunity for the defendant to flee. However, in defense of property, the " castle exception " (see: Edward Coke) argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home.