How is self-defense defined?

[ishi]

This is Arkansas state code. Your state's law may differ.

5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3)

(A) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

(B) As used in this section, “domestic abuse” means the same as defined in § 9-15-103.

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:

(1)

(A) By retreating.

(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:

(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or

(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or

(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.

(c) As used in this section, “curtilage” means the land adjoining a dwelling that is convenient for family purposes and habitually used for family purposes, but not necessarily enclosed, and includes an outbuilding that is directly and intimately connected with the dwelling and in close proximity to the dwelling.

History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 507; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-507; Acts 1997, No. 1257, § 1; 2007, No. 111, § 1.

[robbiev]

TN defines it as follows:

http://www.rrmemphis.com/law002.html

[Muzz]

From Missouri Revised Statues, Ch. 563 - Defense of Justification:
(this isn't the whole thing, only the applicable excerpts - Muzz)
Use of force in defense of persons.
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided
(a) He has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or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 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;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson.

[S.C.]

SC and NC see things in a different light, there is a duty to retreat, can’t shoot to kill in your house icky sticky mess and that how to transport a firearm variance.

I live in one state work in another and stay confused as the laws bend back and forth.

[Hondov65]

As of Dec 1, 2007 there is no duty to retreat in North Carolina. The Castle Doctrine is in effect.

SC and NC see things in a different light, there is a duty to retreat, can’t shoot to kill in your house icky sticky mess and that how to transport a firearm variance.

I live in one state work in another and stay confused as the laws bend back and forth.

[Red Hat]

As of Dec 1, 2007 there is no duty to retreat in North Carolina. The Castle Doctrine is in effect.

I'm not too sure it has been enacted. I searched and can't find anything on it becoming law in NC. Here is the latest I found. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillL...&BillID=hb+476 It looks like nothing has been done on the bill since 03/05/2007.

[CA CCWInstructor]

From California Penal Code:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.


198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

[CA CCWInstructor]

California has had a Castle law since 1995. We just don't call it that.

"shall be Presumed" is the kicker. They need to prove you were not in fear, you don't have to prove anything.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

[gvaldeg1]

Arizona passed the "Castle Doctrine" in April of 2006. This superseded the antediluvian "need to retreat" requirement and the necessity to "present an affirmative defense" that existed previously. The legislature has restored the presumption of innocence that had previously been taken away (de facto).

[rmarcustrucker]

ohio is working on a castle doctorine bill. About time. They've only excepted our 2nd ammendment rights for alittle under 4 years (got my ccw 5/04). Bout time they catch up.