(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(1) The defendant would have been justified under § 464 of this title in using such force to protect the defendant against the injury the defendant believes to be threatened to the person whom the defendant seeks to protect; and
(2) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been justified in using such protective force; and
(3) The defendant believes that intervention is necessary for the protection of the other person.
(b) Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person.
(c) When the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing, the defendant is obliged to try to cause the person to do so before using force in the person's protection if the actor knows that complete safety can be secured in that way.
(d) Neither the defendant nor the person whom the defendant seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other's dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than in their own.
Quote(b) Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person.
I can legally usedeadlyforce (deadly when permitted under § 464 ), without retreating or giving up my possessions, regardless of my safe ability to do so, as long as I am protecting another person. and, if retreating would endanger the other person. For example, you are with a child who can't run as fast as you can.Quote(c) When the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing, the defendant is obliged to try to cause the person to do so before using force in the person's protection if the actor knows that complete safety can be secured in that way.
I have to encourage the other person to retreat or give up their possessions, before resorting todeadlyforce (deadly when permitted under § 464 ),if there is a safe way to do soif complete safety of the other person can be achieved thereby.
But, if only physical force is necessary, I don't have to try to get the other person to retreat or give up their possessions.
I wrestle with this a lot. The circumstances would have to be ultra clear to want to engage. My biggest concern is that I would likely not know who are the true aggressors or who are defending themselves. I can see using force against an animal, such as a dog attack, but other than that it’s a tough call.
Quote(b) Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person.
I can legally usedeadlyforce (deadly when permitted under § 464 ), without retreating or giving up my possessions, regardless of my safe ability to do so, as long as I am protecting another person. and, if retreating would endanger the other person. For example, you are with a child who can't run as fast as you can.Quote(c) When the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing, the defendant is obliged to try to cause the person to do so before using force in the person's protection if the actor knows that complete safety can be secured in that way.
I have to encourage the other person to retreat or give up their possessions, before resorting todeadlyforce (deadly when permitted under § 464 ),if there is a safe way to do soif complete safety of the other person can be achieved thereby.
But, if only physical force is necessary, I don't have to try to get the other person to retreat or give up their possessions.
I wrestle with this a lot. The circumstances would have to be ultra clear to want to engage. My biggest concern is that I would likely not know who are the true aggressors or who are defending themselves. I can see using force against an animal, such as a dog attack, but other than that it’s a tough call.
Quote(b) Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person.
I can legally usedeadlyforce (deadly when permitted under § 464 ), without retreating or giving up my possessions, regardless of my safe ability to do so, as long as I am protecting another person. and, if retreating would endanger the other person. For example, you are with a child who can't run as fast as you can.Quote(c) When the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing, the defendant is obliged to try to cause the person to do so before using force in the person's protection if the actor knows that complete safety can be secured in that way.
I have to encourage the other person to retreat or give up their possessions, before resorting todeadlyforce (deadly when permitted under § 464 ),if there is a safe way to do soif complete safety of the other person can be achieved thereby.
But, if only physical force is necessary, I don't have to try to get the other person to retreat or give up their possessions.
I tend to agree with your clarification regarding the reference to (deadly when permitted under § 464 ) in both parts (b) and (c)...thank you for correcting that.
I suspect I'm missing something, but...
- I'm having difficulty seeing where the addition to part (b) is coming from - and, if retreating would endanger the other person.
- In part (c), I'm struggling with the difference that is suggested by:
if there is a safe way to do soif complete safety of the other person can be achieved thereby.
Thank you for your input, this is a wonderful way to try and figure out the intention of these laws.
In (b), I must admit, I'm having trouble finding your interpretation. I don't see where, in the code, it mentions - and, if retreating would endanger the other person.Sometimes understanding increases when the wording flipped over to the opposite meaning with a negative qualifier. For example, obliged to retreat if in complete safety can be expressed as not obliged to retreat if retreating would put the other person in danger
...
(b) Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person.
(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
...
(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform...