I’ve been doing some research about self-defense and something that caught my eye was that you cannot “provoke” the situation. But what does that mean?
For example, if you cuss someone out and they pull a gun out, you can shoot them because those are two different things right? What about if you punch them? Obviously, using a knife or pulling out a gun first would be aggressive. But where do you draw the line?
E: I live in Texas
11 comments
Look up Castle Doctrine cases in your state. Default to walking away or de-escalation. Don’t look for reasons to become violent. Take a self defense course.
*Typically* words don’t rise up to the level needed for self-defense; *however* there is the concept of [fighting words](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words). On the other hand, good luck arguing that in court, it’s an incredibly narrow legal definition.
Law student here so obviously not legal advice. An aggressor is anyone who “initiates” the conflict. In the laws relating to self defense, you are only permitted to respond in a manner that is proportionate to the threat received and if the necessary force to resolve the situation is considered reasonable.
So if someone punches you, you cannot escalate with a gun. However, if someone pulls a gun on you, you may be entitled to utilize a firearm as an act of self defense. It depends on the jurisdiction but those are the basics. Proportional force if the user’s life is in danger and it matches the level of force of the perpetrator.
Ya know, since it’d be a legal thing, it’d probably be better to ask a lawyer.
Alright there are a few definitions for this, but it all depends on the judge you have.
In some states, they have the Castle Doctrine, and your home is your castle and you defend it. However that doesn’t mean it will always protect you.
For example, lets say that someone is just standing on your property and you kill him for just standing there, yeah the law is not on your side on that one.
But lets say a burglar breaks into your house to steal your stuff, and you pick up a Shotgun to defend yourself against the intruder, and you catch him and shoot him, that is reasonable force as he broke in and you had reason to fire the shotgun to effectively neutralize him.
We have 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws.
I think that it generally depends on witness testimony of how the altercation went down. If one side is talking shit and the other gets into a fighting stance, that might get misconstrued as the stance guy escalating the situation.
It is gonna depend by state and there are so many situational factors. So put a giant “typically” or “generally” in front of all of this. Basically “provoking” in this sense would mean you instigated the attack that you defended yourself from using lethal force. It has to do with the physical confrontation itself. If person A attacks person B with fists and then shoots person B when person B overpowers them, person A doesn’t have a good self defense case. Cussing out, arguing, taunting, wouldn’t legally be considered a provocation in the legal sense. A judge would likely stick to the “your right to swing your fist ends where another person’s nose begins” principle. There are some exceptions but generally verbalizing something doesn’t factor in to assault and self defense cases. Threats being an obvious possible exception.
It depends where you live. In my state, if someone said they were going to punch me I have legal right to use a gun. Threatening me with violent bodily harm is enough.
In a state I lived at for a short while, if I walked in on them killing my dog while beating my wife, I couldn’t do anything besides call the cops without possibly being arrested.
Do not “provoke” is simply do not escalate. If, as in your example you are cussing someone out any escalation is aggressive. Words *responding* to words is(usually) not being the aggressor. Attempting ( or credibly threatening) to inflict bodily harm is an escalation- Provoking a situation. What is missing in your example is the start of the incident. Did you respond to an innocuous act by verbal abuse? Example: some drunk guy bumped you in the bar and spilled your drink. Did you begin cussing him out? If so, *you* are the aggressor. You provoked a *confrontation.*
The rule of thumb is: “A reasonable fear of imminent severe bodily harm or death”
Someone trying to gouge your eyes out?
Damage to your eyes could be easily articulated as severe bodily harm. Since they’re in the action of attempting to gouge your eyes out, you’re justified in magdumping them until they cease attempting to gouge out your eyes.
There’s also the easy examples of what provocation isn’t.
For example, X says: “Go fuck yourself” and Y decides this insult is worthy of a stabbing, X is fully within his rights to kill Y in defense.
However, lets say X’s home has been burgled multiple times by the same people. So he lays out “bait” in order to lure the burglar into his home, where he then lies in wait. As the burglar walks into his home to burgle it, he kills him from his hiding spot, he then waits for the burglar’s accomplice to come in and kills her as well.
That is an actual case that happened. Under normal circumstances, it would have been absolutely legal, as it was a home invasion. However, it was the act X laying out bait and intentionally lying in wait for the burglar to come in to kill him that changed it to murder.
Physical fights is going to become a bit muddier. If X gets into a fistfight with someone and then half-way through, X pulls a gun, even the best lawyer is going to struggle to defend X. But if X gets in a fistfight with Y, it comes to a stop, X is walking away and Y grabs a deadly weapon and attacks X with it, X could likely articulate a reasonable fear of imminent severe bodily harm or death, regardless of the fact that just a few seconds before, he had been in a fistfight with Y.
Of course, X could likely articulate a reasonable fear of imminent severe bodily harm or death if Y’s buddies also begin ganging up on him in a fistfight.
Self defense laws vary wideley by state. As a very, VERY general rule of thumb what a prosecutor is going to look for in such a case is that a credible imiediate threat to your life or the life of another existed, that you did not create the situation yourself (an act of self defense cannot be pre-meditated or orchestrated), and that you utilized all means possible to avoid lethal force. (lethal force defined as any act which a reasonable person could expect to cause loss of life or grievous injury to another.)
You should study your specific state laws. They vary a lot and a ton of people are wandering around thinking they can get away with killing somebody just by saying “I was in fear for my life!” It is not actually that simple.