In particular if the threat can be defused without killing the potential assailant - does any jurisdiction require that non-lethal means be used if possible?

In the Kyle rittenhouse case, Wisconsin laws seem to allow the use of hand grenades by him to neutralize his attackers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"S K" wrote in message news:ea7a2928-3a9e-4de4-befc-b8693070b668n@googlegroups.com...

In particular if the threat can be defused without killing the potential >assailant - does any jurisdiction require that non-lethal means be used if >possible?

In the Kyle rittenhouse case, Wisconsin laws seem to allow the use of hand >grenades by him to neutralize his attackers.

Well common sense would say you have to use what you have. If my life is placed in jeopardy and I have a weapon in my hand, I am probably going to
use that weapon to try to save myself. In that situation, emotions and adrenaline are running high and it just may not be possible to calibrate the response to make it non-lethal. Ultimately the jury has to decide if the defendant's response given the exact circumstances is reasonable

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/29/2021 2:08 PM, S K wrote:

In particular if the threat can be defused without killing the potential assailant - does any jurisdiction require that non-lethal means be used if possible?

In the Kyle rittenhouse case, Wisconsin laws seem to allow the use of hand grenades by him to neutralize his attackers.

If you use a weapon that is illegal to possess, you can still be charged
with (1) possession and (2) using a dangerous weapon.

But AFAIK using an illegal weapon does not change self-defense into
murder. But being armed with one might make it harder to convince a jury
that you were only defending yourself.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

S K wrote:

In particular if the threat can be defused without killing the
potential assailant - does any jurisdiction require that
non-lethal means be used if possible?

In the Kyle rittenhouse case, Wisconsin laws seem to allow the
use of hand grenades by him to neutralize his attackers.

The general rule is that you can't use more force than is necessary
under the circumstances, and retreat if necessary. Some states have
"stand your ground" laws allowing you to use deadly force even if you
can retreat but don't.

If you use a weapon that is illegal to possess, you can still be
charged with (1) possession and (2) using a dangerous weapon.

But AFAIK using an illegal weapon does not change self-defense
into murder. But being armed with one might make it harder to
convince a jury that you were only defending yourself.

I have heard of at least one case where a person was sent to prison
for many years after defending herself with a concealed gun that
didn't have a permit. I don't remember what crime she was convicted
of, but the length of the prison term was consistent with some forms
of murder.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Barry Gold" wrote in message news:so3t33$l10$1@dont-email.me...

On 11/29/2021 2:08 PM, S K wrote:

In particular if the threat can be defused without killing the potential
assailant - does any jurisdiction require that non-lethal means be used
if possible?

In the Kyle rittenhouse case, Wisconsin laws seem to allow the use of
hand grenades by him to neutralize his attackers.

If you use a weapon that is illegal to possess, you can still be charged
with (1) possession and (2) using a dangerous weapon.

But AFAIK using an illegal weapon does not change self-defense into murder. >But being armed with one might make it harder to convince a jury that you >were only defending yourself.

But the weapons charge was dropped in the Rittenhouse case, no?

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/30/2021 2:11 PM, Rick wrote:

"Barry Gold"  wrote in message news:so3t33$l10$1@dont-email.me...

On 11/29/2021 2:08 PM, S K wrote:

In particular if the threat can be defused without killing the
potential assailant - does any jurisdiction require that non-lethal
means be used if possible?

In the Kyle rittenhouse case, Wisconsin laws seem to allow the use of
hand grenades by him to neutralize his attackers.

If you use a weapon that is illegal to possess, you can still be
charged with (1) possession and (2) using a dangerous weapon.

But AFAIK using an illegal weapon does not change self-defense into
murder. But being armed with one might make it harder to convince a
jury that you were only defending yourself.

But the weapons charge was dropped in the Rittenhouse case, no?

--

What is your point?

The S&W AR-15 weapon was never "illegal" in this case. Had the rifle
been automatic, then it would have been illegal. What was charged was
that he was a minor carrying a gun.

The judge found that Wisconsin law allows minors 16 and older to carry a
rifle or shotgun with a barrel of 16 inches or longer. Both the
prosecution and defense agreed the barrel was not shorter than 16" so
the charge was dropped.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/30/2021 1:11 PM, Rick wrote:

"Barry Gold"  wrote in message news:so3t33$l10$1@dont-email.me...

On 11/29/2021 2:08 PM, S K wrote:

In particular if the threat can be defused without killing the
potential assailant - does any jurisdiction require that non-lethal
means be used if possible?

In the Kyle rittenhouse case, Wisconsin laws seem to allow the use of
hand grenades by him to neutralize his attackers.

If you use a weapon that is illegal to possess, you can still be
charged with (1) possession and (2) using a dangerous weapon.

But AFAIK using an illegal weapon does not change self-defense into
murder. But being armed with one might make it harder to convince a
jury that you were only defending yourself.

But the weapons charge was dropped in the Rittenhouse case, no?

Yes. There was an ambiguity in the law. When the law is ambiguous, it
must be interpreted in the way that is most favorable to the defendant.

But if he had used a hand grenade (AFAIK illegal to possess anywhere
except for military personnel), then he would have faced charges of
possession and use of an illegal weapon.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)