Reddit reviews The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide to the Armed Citizen

Yeah, I have a CCW and I'm an attorney and I'm licensed in Oregon. I'm absolutely floored that you're an attorney without understanding even the basics of self defense law.

The required non-aggressor element of self defense isn't even remotely related to the concept of actual-cause. Criminal law has no concept of "well, he did nothing wrong, wasn't the aggressor, but since he initiated the contact, but not conflict, he's responsible."

That's such an absurd thing to argue. Not one single jurisdiction has that rule.

Suggested holiday reading

This. And god forbid that it’s someone from a different race or economic class and the media gets a hold of it.

Self Defense

Well, for your sake, I really hope you are never in the situation where you have to test that, because you are likely to be in some trouble.

I would strongly recommend you read this.

https://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-Indispensable-Citizen/dp/0988867702

Now, you might be able to argue that you believe that anyone who breaks into your house is there to harm you. But that is where the reasonableness part comes in.

If an 8 year old breaks into your house, there is no way any reasonable person would believe that you were in physical danger.

Of course, if by this

>anyone I deem a threat that unlawfully entered my house.

you are simply taking a short cut to the Reasonableness and Proportionality aspects, that's fine. But if that is the case, why are you arguing?

[This] (https://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-Indispensable-Citizen/dp/0988867702) is probably the best summary you can get on how it works in the US.

My source is

The Law of Self Defense By Andrew F. Branca (Attorney at Law)

(This is gonna take a while for me to type...)

>Burden of Production

>You do not have an automatic right to tell the jury you acted in self defense. Yes, you read that correctly

>If you want to say to the jurors "it was self defense" then there must be some evidence that you were defending yourself. And the job to get that evidence, called the burden of production, falls squarely on you. If you fail to meet this burden to the jury will here about a body, a gun in your hand and not one word about self defense.

So, my point with the above is that there can be cases where important information is omitted. I am not a lawyer, I just recalled this and inferred, perhaps incorrectly. I am not lawyer, just saying what I think. Which is the point.

I just wanted you to know I wasn't making crap up.

A link to the book, so you know what I am talking about:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Self-Defense-Indispensable/dp/0988867702