What to do when the police won't help in a violent situation

[Keith502]

What is the name of your state? I live in Kentucky.

Hello. Recently, I posted a thread about an altercation I had with a landlord of an apartment I used to live in. The thread was locked by the moderators but it can be found (link removed) if you are interested in the details of my situation. I decided to write a shorter post here that is related to that situation.

In short, I was living at an apartment where my landlord was a violent psychopath who would repeatedly visit me for no other reason than to physically assault me, often involving breaking into my apartment. During these altercations, I would call 911 and was invariably met with an operator who was hostile and apathetic to my problem and would not send the police per my request. I have two questions related to this:

1. If someone attacks me at my home and I am unable to get the police to come immediately to apprehend my attacker, would I be authorized to kill the attacker in order to permanently neutralize the threat? In other words, could my inability to receive police assistance be seen as extenuating circumstances justifying murder/manslaughter?
2. If I am in a fist fight with a person who has attacked me unprovoked, if I see fit to kill my opponent, such as by snapping his neck or strangling him, am I allowed to do so without threat of being charged with a crime?

 

[quincy]

You can use only the force necessary to protect yourself from physical harm.

 

[Keith502]

You can use only the force necessary to protect yourself from physical harm.

I might think that the best course of action would be to kill my attacker, but the legal system might disagree. How do I know what the legal system would consider "the force necessary to protect myself from physical harm" in the situation?

 

[quincy]

I might think that the best course of action would be to kill my attacker, but the legal system might disagree. How do I know what the legal system would consider "the force necessary to protect myself from physical harm" in the situation?

It can sometimes take a judge and jury to decide if the amount of force used was necessary or if it was excessive. This decision will be based on the facts.

 

[Keith502]

It can sometimes take a judge and jury to decide if the amount of force used was necessary or if it was excessive. This decision will be based on the facts.

Is there no a priori rule of thumb concerning my ability to kill an attacker, or do I have to just take a gamble with a judge and jury?

 

[quincy]

Is there no a priori rule of thumb concerning my ability to kill an attacker, or do I have to just take a gamble with a judge and jury?

If your life is in imminent danger, or someone else's life is in imminent danger, and using deadly force is the only option you have to protect your life or the life of another, then you might not be convicted of murder or manslaughter. You can still be arrested and charged.

You will want a good criminal defense attorney.

 

[TigerD]

You can also expect this thread to be an exhibit regarding your premeditation.

 

[quincy]

... if Keith can be sufficiently identified from his postings.

 

[Keith502]

You can also expect this thread to be an exhibit regarding your premeditation.

I'm not arguing for premeditated murder. Rather, I am arguing for having full latitude during an attack to do what I deem necessary to neutralize the threat without fear of losing my freedom. I shouldn't have to be in fear of the law at the same time I am being in fear of my physical safety.

 

[quincy]

I'm not arguing for premeditated murder. Rather, I am arguing for having full latitude during an attack to do what I deem necessary to neutralize the threat without fear of losing my freedom. I shouldn't have to be in fear of the law at the same time I am being in fear of my physical safety.

You should not use unreasonable force.

If you fear for your safety, it is best to call the police. If calling the police is not an option, and your life is in danger, you take what measures you feel are necessary to protect yourself.

And if you kill someone, and you are arrested and charged, you have to trust that the prosecutor, the judge and the jury will find that your actions were necessary. Your criminal defense attorney will work with you toward that goal.

 

[adjusterjack]

Is there no a priori rule of thumb concerning my ability to kill an attacker, or do I have to just take a gamble with a judge and jury?

You ignored the question about your state. I'm surprised Quincy didn't ask.

Laws differ from state to state about self defense and "castle doctrine."

You can also expect this thread to be an exhibit regarding your premeditation.

I don't see it that way.

I often consider the question for myself when I read about how others have protected themselves and the tragedies when they aren't able to.

Being cognizant of scenarios and potential outcomes and consequences doesn't necessarily imply pre-meditation.

 

[quincy]

You ignored the question about your state. I'm surprised Quincy didn't ask.

Laws differ from state to state about self defense and "castle doctrine."



I don't see it that way.

I often consider the question for myself when I read about how others have protected themselves and the tragedies when they aren't able to.

Being cognizant of scenarios and potential outcomes and consequences doesn't necessarily imply pre-meditation.

The state name was provided in the original (reported) post. I was hoping the edited post would be returned before I had to trust my memory.

But it's Kentucky.

 

[cbg]

If the poster in the link that was removed is our poster here, he showed a frightening determination to be allowed to kill his landlord and was quite unwilling to hear any points of view that did not allow for that possibility. Let's be careful what roads we go down.