minor doing harm to an adult

[OldGuy]

Jurisdiction

US Federal Law

Not sure if this is a federal or state question. This is not something that happened, only a thought that occured. If a young man or woman (let's say between the ages of 14 and 17) assaults an adult, what recourse would the adult have in that moment other than be harmed by the minor?

If the minor was brandishing a knife would the adult be allowed by law to defend themselves against an attack so long as they didn't end the minors life?

What about assault without a deadly weapon?

 

[adjusterjack]

Sorry, but this is one of those hypothetical questions that depend on so many variables that it would waste our time getting into it. You can look up Arizona criminal statutes on the internet just as easily as anybody else can.

Thread closed.

 

[adjusterjack]

Reopened per request of Zddoodah.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Not sure if this is a federal or state question. This is not something that happened, only a thought that occured. If a young man or woman (let's say between the ages of 14 and 17) assaults an adult, what recourse would the adult have in that moment other than be harmed by the minor?

If the minor was brandishing a knife would the adult be allowed by law to defend themselves against an attack so long as they didn't end the minors life?

What about assault without a deadly weapon?

It would virtually always be under state law. I know of no state that makes a distinction about self-defense based on the age of the attacker.

 

[Zigner]

In other words, the "recourse" would be the same as that for an adult who was doing those things.

And with THAT said, this question has been answered and the thread can be closed, right?

 

[adjusterjack]

Waiting for Zddoodah's words of wisdom as it was Zddoodah who wanted it reopened.

 

[Tax Counsel]

And with THAT said, this question has been answered and the thread can be closed, right?

Close it for what reason? The thread is not objectionable in any way that I can see except perhaps that some people seem to find hypothetical questions to be somehow offensive to them. If you don't like answering hypothetical questions, then simply don't answer them. It's not a reason to close a thread, IMO.

 

[Zigner]

Close it for what reason? The thread is not objectionable in any way that I can see except perhaps that some people seem to find hypothetical questions to be somehow offensive to them. If you don't like answering hypothetical questions, then simply don't answer them. It's not a reason to close a thread, IMO.

Tongue in cheek...

 

[zddoodah]

Not sure if this is a federal or state question.

Self-defense, as a defense against a criminal charge, is governed by the laws of the jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred (be that a particular state or federal jurisdiction).

If the minor was brandishing a knife would the adult be allowed by law to defend themselves against an attack so long as they didn't end the minors life?

Yes. It is generally the case that one may use deadly force to defend against deadly force. Thus, even if the adult "ends the minor's life," it may still be legal. That the attacker is a minor doesn't negate the availability of self-defense, but it is a relevant fact, and specific facts matter greatly in any self-defense case.

What about assault without a deadly weapon?

What about it? This question doesn't appear to be substantially different than your other question. Or are you thinking that a knife isn't a "deadly weapon"?

Reopened per request of Zddoodah.

Thank you.