lawful defense in Oklahoma

1987Luke v. Patterson, 192 Okl. 631 , 139 P.2d 175 (1943); Gee v. Security Bank & Trust, 186 Okl. 477 , 98 P.2d 922 (1940).

1987Luke v. Patterson, 192 Okl. 631 , 139 P.2d 175 (1943); Gee v. Security Bank & Trust, 186 Okl. 477 , 98 P.2d 922 (1940).

1987Luke v. Patterson, 192 Okl. 631 , 139 P.2d 175 (1943); Gee v. Security Bank & Trust, 186 Okl. 477 , 98 P.2d 922 (1940).

1987Luke v. Patterson, 192 Okl. 631 , 139 P.2d 175 (1943); Gee v. Security Bank & Trust, 186 Okl. 477 , 98 P.2d 922 (1940).

1945When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.’ *422 “In Collegenia v. State, 9 Okla.

1914When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.” In Collegenia v. State, 9 Okla.

1971Home Owners’ Loan Corporation v. Baker, 299 Mass. 158 , 12 N.E.2d 99 [ 12 N.E.2d 199 ].” Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition.

1971Home Owners’ Loan Corporation v. Baker, 299 Mass. 158 , 12 N.E.2d 99 [ 12 N.E.2d 199 ].” Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition.

1971Subrogation has been defined as: “The substitution of one person in the. place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand or right, Whyel v. Smith, 101 Fla. 971 , 134 So.2d 552 [ 134 So. 552 ], 554; so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or securities.

1971Subrogation has been defined as: “The substitution of one person in the. place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand or right, Whyel v. Smith, 101 Fla. 971 , 134 So.2d 552 [ 134 So. 552 ], 554; so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or securities.

1958In Ging v. State, 31 Okl.Cr. 428, 438 , 239 P. 685, 689 , we said : "At the point where the apparent danger ceases, the right of self-defense ceases.

1958In Ging v. State, 31 Okl.Cr. 428, 438 , 239 P. 685, 689 , we said : "At the point where the apparent danger ceases, the right of self-defense ceases.

1954In the case of Dickinson v. State, 3 Okl.Cr. 151 , 104 P. 923 , this court discussed the law of self-defense as applied to a prosecution for the alleged unlawful pointing of a pistol at another, and we there held that where the evidence justified, the defendant was entitled to an instruction advising the jury that where the weapon is pointed in the lawful defense of his person, the law would excuse such action.

1954In the case of Dickinson v. State, 3 Okl.Cr. 151 , 104 P. 923 , this court discussed the law of self-defense as applied to a prosecution for the alleged unlawful pointing of a pistol at another, and we there held that where the evidence justified, the defendant was entitled to an instruction advising the jury that where the weapon is pointed in the lawful defense of his person, the law would excuse such action.

1953Furthermore, instruction No. 6 reads as follows: “As applicable to the facts in this case, homicide is Justifiable when committed by any person in resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or when committed in a lawful defense of his person when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony against him, or to do him great personal injury, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished.” The foregoing instruction has been approved verbatim in Brantley v. State, 15 Okla.

1953Cr. 6 , 175 P. 51 , as instruction No. 7 therein.

1921New v. Territory, 12 Okla. 172 , 70 Pac. 198 .

1921New v. Territory, 12 Okla. 172 , 70 Pac. 198 .