Justification -- Use of force for the protection of other persons

[fdegree]

In an attempt to simplify the code, and interpret the legal terminology into everyday language, I'm going to give my interpretation of the "Use Of Force" codes.  Now, I am not a lawyer, and my interpretation may not even be close to a lawyers interpretation, so don't take mine as "gospel".  Also, I'm hoping others will chime in if they think my interpretation is not quite right.
______________________________________

TITLE 11

Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Delaware Criminal Code

CHAPTER 4. DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY

§ 465. Justification -- Use of force for the protection of other persons.

(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.

I can legally use physical and/or deadly force to protect someone else, as long as I was legally permitted to do so if I were the only one in this situation...AND the other person would be justified in using the same level force if they were able to do so...AND my actions are necessary to protect 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.

I can legally use deadly force, without retreating or giving up my possessions, regardless of my safe ability to do so, as long as I am protecting another 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.

I have to encourage the other person to retreat or give up their possessions, before resorting to deadly force, if there is a safe way to do so.
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.

(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.

I, nor the other person are required to retreat if we are in the the other persons home or place of employment.

[Cbmarine]

@fdegree, excellent exercise.  Below are my interpretations.

(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 use deadly force (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.

(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 to deadly force (deadly when permitted under § 464 ), if there is a safe way to do so if 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.

[Obleo]

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.

[Cbmarine]

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.

Appears best to classify in at least two groups: someone that you have responsibility for/custody of; and someone in a social situation that you have the capability to help.  I'd up the ante a lot more quickly in the first case.  In the second case, the courts may consider that your actions didn't measure up to the Good Samaritan principle (if applicable).  I find it valuable to run a "worst case" analysis: what is the worst thing that can happen if I act or don't act. Hope this helps.

[fdegree]

(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 use deadly force (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.

(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 to deadly force (deadly when permitted under § 464 ), if there is a safe way to do so if 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 so if 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.

[fdegree]

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.

Every circumstance is different, and every individuals situation is different.  If you didn't see the altercation from the very beginning, I fully understand your reluctance to get involved.  I, personally, would find it difficult to judge someone without first knowing all of the circumstances behind the situation, as well as the things in the individuals life that might impact their actions/decisions.

[Cbmarine]

(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 use deadly force (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.

(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 to deadly force (deadly when permitted under § 464 ), if there is a safe way to do so if 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 so if 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), "if retreating would endanger" is the reverse meaning of "complete safety can be secured".

The sentence in (c) should be worded as:
If complete safety of the other person can be achieved through compliance, I have to encourage the other person to retreat or give up their possessions, before resorting to deadly force (deadly when permitted under § 464 ), if there is a safe way to do so.
Still awkward wording but closer.

[fdegree]

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.

In (c), I think we are on the same page, and trying to say the same thing.  At least, what you wrote is what I meant, just different wording, and perhaps mine was not quite as clearly worded.

[Cbmarine]

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
My rewording may still be incomplete but hope this helps.

[fdegree]

After rereading this section, and § 464, I am actually rewording my own interpretation.  Which seems to be different form my original interpretation, and different from your interpretation, too.

(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.

Just because § 464 says before I can use deadly force, I should retreat, give up possessions and comply with the attackers commands, I don't have to if I'm protecting another person.  Unless, I am 100% certain that I can guarantee that persons safety by doing so.

Some of the reason for my reinterpretation is because, in § 464, it states:

(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...

Funny how this legal talk can bee seen in different ways at different times and by different people.

[Cbmarine]

I agree. Nicely worded. Writing law is similar to writing requirements in that both must be unambiguous, i.e., one and only one interpretation is possible (which in itself, can be nearly impossible).

[Adrenolin]

Try looking at it from the point of a prosecutor and how it could be twisted. Thats the real law.. unfortunately. 

[kent]

Interpretation...(example)....throw the horse over the fence a bale of hay.

[jstgsn]

You never know.  My partner and I pulled up to 11th and Thatcher to find a huge man in the middle of the intersection.  He had one woman by the throat and punched a second woman, knocking her to the ground.  We grabbed the man and wrestled him to the ground, at which time someone in the crowd did a field goal with my head.  When I came to, backup had arrived and cuffed the man.  We found out he had been attacked and stabbed by the two women before we pulled up.  (The women got away.)   He was the victim.

Also, all to often men who beat their women are forgiven the next day by the very same women.  Go figure.