What is a minimal use of force?

1. 61

   days leaperposted 12 years ago

   What is a minimal use of force?
   
   The Law says a citezen can use a minimal amount of force to deter an intruder.  But isn't minimal defined as making the other give up?  And what do you do when some-one wont give up or disist?   Does the Law actually define what minimal force is, or does it keep us all guessing?  If the law can't or hasn't defined it how can it claim to know what it is or isn't.  And for that matter how can it distribute actual justice if no-one is clear what the rules are?

   replyreport
2. 69

   drdspervezposted 12 years ago

   Citizens should respect the Law but they should be allowed to do anything in their self defence.   
   
                    DR.DURRESHAHWAR PERVEZ

   replyreport
3. 59

   Shahid Bukhariposted 12 years ago

   Try ... if you can ... solve the Equation.
   
   You will understand the required, if you can calculate the Input/Output Ratios and Proportions ... explained in the Theory of Relativity ... e = mc 2 ... and then Observe Newton's Laws ... You may then freely determine, the Minimal Retort, in a Maximal Assault Situation.
   
   But its incomparably better, infinitely simple, much more practicable ... to try being a Peaceful, Forgiving, Human ...
   
   Peace ... does not need Brute Force ... nor requires being Replied with a Feeble Retort ... or the minimal or maximal ability to solve the Variable/Situational Equations ...

   replyreport
4. 77

   slehman1021posted 12 years ago

   This is definitely a tough question, that doesn't have a concrete answer, but will always be up to interpretation depending on the situation. However, If I was to answer it, I would have to say that a minimal use of force is whatever the smallest amount of forceful action is, that still deter the intruder. This means that whatever method is used, no less could have been used to deter the intruder, but more would still have worked. An example of this would be yelling at an intruder as opposed to hitting them, or hitting them as opposed to shooting them. The problem is, no one, aside from the intruder, would have known or have been able to know what that minimal amount of force is. As for how a court of law will define it, if a jury feels that the method taken was acceptable, considering the circumstances, then they would logically rule in favor of the the use of minimal force. It also seems that in time, some level of precedence will being to evolve, making a more defined definition of what is minimal force. Great Question!

   replyreport
5. 67

   ptosisposted 12 years ago

   
   
   It depends on which state you live in.
   If you live in New York and the burglar hurts himself while stealing your HDTV - you can be sued! In NY - cannot defend your property legally.
   
   In Texas & Arizona able to use deadly force to protect property.
   
   Yeah buddy - when all by yourself with nobody around for miles & miles - minimal force can be deadly force.
   
   But in a city apartment where nieghbors call the police at a drop of a hat - yelling might be all you needed.
   
   A good defense is a good offense - just like harmless animals that copy-cat deadly ones - putting on a Oscar performance of a berserker works only with a person who is not crazier than yourself.

   replyreport
6. 61

   Ken Bartonposted 12 years ago

   It kind-of depends on the particular situation.  If you are out on the street walking and someone attacks you, minimal force is whatever you have to do to get away from your attacker safely. That might entail kicking him in the knee to put him down, or popping an eye, so you have time to escape. You can't stand there and beat the attacker though, once you've handled the situation, even if you'd like to.
   
   If someone is breaking into my house, I can use lethal force to protect myself and my family, when they are coming in. However, if they change their minds and are trying to leave and get out the door, I can't. So, the police advice that if you shoot an intruder and they get out the door, to drag them back in before calling them.  Either way, personally, if an intruder breaks into my home and I'm here, they best have made peace with their maker first!  I'd rather face the law, than deal with an intruder who may do whatever.

   replyreport
7. 60

   Sunny2o0oposted 12 years ago

   The minimal use of force is whatever force is required to end the intrusion/attack.  Depending upon the incident, this can mean the intruder fleeing, being grievously injured, or even killed, should the need arise.  My problem with the minimum use of force clause is that it assumed omnipotence on the part of the person being attacked--how you supposed to know that the attacker merely wants to rob, rather than rape and murder?  And how do you know that your first blow won't also be your last?  From the standpoint of the attackee, it makes sense to respond with maximum force from the get-go rather than wait around to determine the full seriousness of the situation.

   replyreport
8. 61

   Daffy Duckposted 12 years ago

   It depends on a number of factors including the threat the intruder represents, the belief of the person or persons living there, whether or not there are children present, if anyone has some kind of disorder like PTSD, and other factors.

   replyreport