When Deadly Force Is Involved Quotes

“determine if the killing was really necessary”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Leaving a place of safety to engage an adversary is misbehavior because it increases the chances of a deadly encounter. It contributes to the circumstances that lead to the victim’s death, and for that reason the shooter forfeits the right of self-defense.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Deadly force may not be used against a person who has been rendered incapable of committing deadly violence.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Finally, for the use of deadly force to be reasonable there must be no easy path of retreat, no reasonable, non-deadly alternative to the killing.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“As a general proposition, all states say that there is no duty to retreat in one’s own home. We know it as the Castle Doctrine.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“The court described what it called the “American mind” observing that “when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force with force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“the shooter’s perception of the threat doesn’t have to be accurate. It has to be reasonable. If it’s reasonable, then the shooter may respond with deadly force even though a real threat doesn’t actually exist.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“but they didn’t search anyone else.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Reputation is so important in furtive gesture cases that some courts have said the meaning of a furtive gesture cannot be determined except in light of the actor’s reputation for violence.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Words alone are not an act of aggression which permits the use of deadly force, nor can the placing of a hand in a pocket be considered an act of aggression although, when considered together, such actions may foster an apprehension of danger which would support the use of deadly force in self-defense.” The judge’s statement sums up nicely the relationship between words and furtive gestures, but makes clear that it is up to the jury to decide whether John's words turned his furtive gesture into a hostile act.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“He didn’t speak, however, so the reason he pushed Sara out of the way remains a mystery, part of the case’s fact pattern, but still a furtive gesture, insufficient to allow the use of deadly force.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“If the victim speaks during a confrontation, the question becomes whether the words, when coupled with the behavior, make it reasonable for the shooter to believe that he or she is facing an imminent threat of death or serious injury.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Words alone are not a basis for people to reasonably believe they face an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, and they cannot be used to justify deadly force against the speaker.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“There are no hidden threats in self-defense The unlawful, deadly force that triggers self-defense must also be overt, plain to see.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“The force that justifies self-defense must not only be unlawful, but also deadly, presenting an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury unless action is taken to stop it.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“You are not free to resist a police officer with physical force, for example, even if you are the subject of an unlawful arrest, and even if you believe the use of such force is necessary to avoid a physical assault.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“People who shoot other people don’t get to make the final decision about how serious the threat is. The law gives that job to the police, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury. The point cannot be emphasized too often, because the facts determine how dangerous the threat is and what force is permitted in response to it, and what the facts are is influenced by who gets to decide them.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Shooters with alcohol in their systems are punished invariably for misbehavior, regardless of whether they’re found to be “legally drunk.” The old adage, “if you drink, don’t drive,” applies in spades to self-defense claims. If you drink, don’t carry a gun, and if you carry a gun, don’t drink. If you do and someone dies, count on going to jail.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Misbehavior by a shooter and self-defense are incompatible, mutually exclusive.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Put another way, a person who provokes a confrontation, prolongs an encounter, or contributes to the circumstances that lead to another person’s death may not later claim the killing was necessary.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“The gun fired accidently, not by design, but as an unintended result of the circumstances. In short, Michael had no intent to shoot the gun, no intent to kill his victim, no intent to save himself from injury. He had no intent at all.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“two factors. First, is the shooter’s belief honestly held? In other words, did he or she really believe there was a deadly threat? Second, do the facts, as they appeared at the time of the shooting support the shooter’s belief in imminent peril?”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“States following this approach say that reasonable behavior is what a prudent person would have done or believed in the same or similar circumstances. Where do these states find such a prudent person? They crowd source it. It’s called a jury. Juries make up a cross section of the community’s members, and reflect collectively its values, beliefs, and its judgment about what is reasonable behavior.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“At a minimum the threat must be such that it transforms a person’s undifferentiated fear into a fear focused on a specific danger.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Jason played no part in bringing about the dangerous situation. He didn’t provoke the gunfight, didn’t prolong it, and didn’t contribute in any way to the gunman’s decision to start shooting during the robbery.”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Was it really necessary to kill the victim?”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense

“Deciding necessity is the goal of every
self-defense inquiry”
― Bruce M. Lawlor, When Deadly Force Is Involved: A Look at the Legal Side of Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat and Other Questions of Self-Defense