Hey folks,
The Federal lawsuit filed by Kayla Giles against USCCA (and company) for failure to pay her legal expenses in her recent self-defense trial has been dismissed. What’s that dismissal tell us about the merits of her self-defense claim specifically, and our perception of USCCA generally?
We also discussed some other self-defense law cases in the news, including:
- A notable police shooting in Colorado of a suspect armed with a BB pistol;
A remarkably solid overview of self-defense law by a West Virginia prosecutor, reported by a WV newspaper;[my bad, accidentally skipped this one]- A story out of Wisconsin where police are discouraged from protecting high-school students from violence;
- A Maryland news story describing how a police officer shot and killed a man who bit off the officer’s finger;
- Story of Chicago DA Kim Foxx regretfully declining to prosecute to perfectly clean police shootings of suspects;
- Story of St. Louis DA Kim Gardner refusing to charge man who carjacked police vehicle, held officers at gunpoint
- IMPORTANT: Upcoming series of FREE Law of Self Defense “Hard to Convict” webinars!
We also conducted our usual Q&A during the course of today’s live show.
Enjoy the show!
Until we next meet up, remember:
Remember
You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.
Know the law so you’re hard to convict.
Stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Law of Self Defense Platinum Protection Program
Would the 5 elements of self defense apply in the case of a security guard or LEO shooting?
Generally, we refer to such shootings a ‘justified’ instead of self-defense.
Innocence might be an issue. If I tell someone they need to leave, they are trespassing, I’ve potentially lost ‘innocence’, After all, I started the fight. OTOH. It’s my job, I ‘might’ not need innocence.
Similarly, I have a problem with ‘avoidance’. Actually, as security, I can keep avoidance. I don’t have to grab them and throw them off the property. I can call 911, report the trespass and ask the LEO to throw them off. Here again, it’s the LEO job, he does not ‘have’ to meet the ‘avoidance’ element.
We’d both need to meet imminence, proportionality and reasonableness elements/standards.
If you “lawfully” tell someone to do something you have a legal right to tell them not to do, you don’t lose your “innocence” under the aggressor rule. It is only the “initial unlawful aggressor” who loses his innocence.
Here is Missouri’s codification of the “aggressor rule.”
The actor has the right to meet force with force in self defense “unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
As you can see, under subdivision (b) an actor who is a law enforcement officer using lawful force pursuant to section 563.046 does not lose his innocence under the aggressor rule and, pursuant to subdivision (c) an actor who is not a law enforcement officer using lawful force pursuant to section 563.064, but is private person using lawful force pursuant other provisions of chapter 563 or other provisions of law does not lose his innocence and become barred from using force in self defense under the aggressor rule.
So, the bottom line is this:
When you have a legal right to use reasonable non-deadly force in protection of property, to prevent or terminate a trespass, in prevention of crime, or to make an arrest for a crime committed in your presence, you do not lose your right to meet force with force in defense of self if your use of lawful force is resisted with unlawful force. At that point you switch from using force for whatever original purpose you were using it and began using force in defense of persons.
What you have to be careful of is exceeding your legal authority to use force under other provisions of chapter 563 or other law before you are attacked with unlawful force. For instance, if you brandish a weapon readily capable of lethal use in a situation where you only have a right to use non-deadly force, you are in the process of committing a forcible felony and you lose your “innocence” under the aggressor rule.
The law is basically the same in all states, it is just paraphrased differently in other states codifications of the law and in other states Supreme Court Opinions of what the law is in that state.
In Missouri, the Legislature repealed our state’s codification of the English Castle Doctrine in 2007. We now have no statutory right to use force to prevent or terminate a trespass and the Supreme Court Approved Castle Doctrine jury instructions have been removed from the list of Supreme Court Approved Jury Instructions. You have to be real careful how you handle mere trespassers in Missouri or you will lose your right to self defense under the aggressor rule and under the unlawful exhibition of a weapon rule. We are one of the few states in the United States that does not have a codification of the lawful use of force in defense of habitation, curtilage, or real property.
I am a member. I am logged in under my member account, so why is it that I get partially through a post only to read this: “I’m sorry, but this content is not available to people who are not members.
Not yet a member? You can find out more about our memberships at lawofselfdefense.com/join!”
Something is broke on the website, and it is very frustrating.