Sotomayor "doesnt know" if we have a constitutional right to self defense in the
Cannabis Cafe forums; the right to bear arms was never brought up.
"self defense", nothing more. not even "defense against an attacker".
the right to bear arms was never brought up.
"self defense", nothing more. not even "defense against an attacker".
the question was very careful in its wording and vagueness to hit a nerve with gullible people,
yet be unanswerable by her or anyone seeking a position on the supreme court.
its meant to make people jump to the conclusion of "defense with a firearm against another
citizen threatening with deadly force." well if that was the "common sense" behind the question
then why didnt he just ask it like that?
I give the point of my argument to you. I see what you are saying and well stated.
In the USA, it is a given than the phrase "self-defense" always revolves around the 2nd amendment. I see how you show how "wide open" the question was as stated.
I am still concerned on her answer though that she didn't know. Toss out the 2nd amendment part....If I am getting my ass beat do I have the right to fight back? And she doesn't know? Does me a lot of good, but hey, I'll be part of that magical health care system then...Meaning I got beat to death.
theyre are many ways to defend yourself pvs so you mite have a couple bearing arms thing will come into play because thats how they choose to defend themselves thats how i defend my HOME,other wise im more of a machete kind a guy...its a natural thing to defend yourself no matter wat the law,,,with or without it i will defend i and iman.....i grew up being told an eye for an eye tooth for a tooth,and since we were in tha jungle thats been the law .....so its the only one i need
Last edited by cbtwohundread; 07-20-2009 at 07:50 PM.
in my musical-trol
ley im greater than muhamad ali
problem is that these are not matters of federal constitutional law. its to be assumed that all questions are based entirely on her qualifications in that regard. i'm not trying to defend her, but rather i think its a bogus topic linked to a bogus opinion piece article based on a bogus ambush question.
Originally Posted by Dirty Harry
in the end nobody knows for sure whether or not she'll is an anti-2nd activist judge, with the exception to a certain minority who have already bought into the propaganda before the hearings even started.
you do not have a blank-check constitutional right to use a firearm and end someone else's life just because they are 'attacking' you. (more vagueness)
Originally Posted by The Warlord
you are basing your entire case on presupposition on top of presupposition.
example: if someone hits you, you do not automatically have the constitutional right to end their life with a firearm.
Last edited by PVS; 07-20-2009 at 07:55 PM.
Actually, not all that is entirely accurate.
Originally Posted by Dirty Harry
In Texas there is no obligation to seek to flee.
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis
Her example of self defense was if i go home get my gun come back and blow you away that isn't self defense. She didn't answer the question. I said before she didn't answer anything important, she ducked, dodged, and side stepped.
Originally Posted by Keenly
Originally Posted by jrh72582
Castle Doctrine in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home. The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day."
This legal doctrine concerning the rights of homeowners to bear arms for self-defense, was recently argued in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller which addressed its relation to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 Conditions of use
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.
In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
- An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
- The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
- The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
- The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
- The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
- The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.
 Immunity from civil lawsuit
In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many versions of the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the use of lethal force. Without this clause, it is possible for an assailant to sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender, or for their next-of-kin to sue for wrongful death in the case of a fatality. Even if successfully refuted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) must often pay thousands of dollars in legal costs as a result of such lawsuits, and thus without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a defender acting lawfully.
The only exceptions to this civil immunity are generally situations of excessive force, where the defender used deadly force fired on a subdued, cooperative, or disabled assailant. A situation meeting this exception generally invalidates the criminal "castle defense" as well. In addition, someone who uses deadly force in self-defense is still liable for any damages or injuries to third parties who were not acting criminally at the time of the defensive action.
"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home. Therefore, any state that imposes a duty to retreat while in the home does not have a "Castle law": the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.
For states that do not require the announcement to be "verbal", other indicators may be used. These are typically not defined by statute, and would be left to the court's interpretation, but may include things such as laser sights or the cocking of a firearm, such as a shotgun. Care should be exercised in studying applicable individual state laws. In the majority of jurisdictions warning shots are illegal, and even brandishing the weapon in a threatening manner can result in criminal charges.
Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that the shooter has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the shooter may legally be. Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."
In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905) where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
The doctrine of "retreat to the wall" had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm
Most anti-gun right groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign denounce "Stand-Your-Ground" clauses as "Shoot First" laws (as in "shoot first, ask questions later"), asserting that the presumptions and other protections afforded to gun owners allow them virtual carte blanche to shoot anyone who is perceived to be trespassing. They also claim it will lead to cases of mistaken identity, so-called "shooting the milkman" scenarios. Pro-gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association claim that such scenarios are unlikely and are not protected under most Castle laws; the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither.
 Adoption by States
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.
Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" legislation already are considered "stand your ground" in their case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had "stand your ground" case law and passed "stand your ground" statutes due to possible concerns of the case law being replaced by "duty to retreat" in future court rulings. Other states, including Washington, have "stand your ground" in their case law but have not adopted statutes; West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self defense in their previous self defense statutes.
Utah has historically adhered to the principles of "stand your ground" without the need to refer to this new legislation. The use of deadly force to defend persons on one's own property is specifically permitted by Utah state law. The law specifically states that a person does not have a duty to retreat from a place where a person has lawfully entered or remained.
In Oklahoma (according to the Oklahoma State Courts Network), the amendment changes a number of other aspects of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, the statutes concerning justifiable homicide. As 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1289.25 now lists circumstances in which it is presumed that a person who uses deadly force "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." In addition, it helps to protect law-abiding citizens from arrest when using deadly force. Law enforcement agencies must now have probable cause to believe that the use of deadly force was unlawful before an arrest can be made.
 West Virginia
§55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary.
(b)A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker in the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section.
(c) A person not engaged in unlawful activity who is attacked in any place he or she has a legal right to be outside of his or her home or residence may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker: Provided, That such person may use deadly force against an intruder or attacker in a place that is not his or her residence without a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that he or she or another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he or she or another can only be saved by the use of deadly force against the intruder or attacker.
(d) The justified use of reasonable and proportionate force under this section shall constitute a full and complete defense to any civil action brought by an intruder or attacker against a person using such force.
(e) The full and complete civil defense created by the provisions of this section is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing or escaping from the commission of a felony; (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, herself or another with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or (3) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, herself or another, unless he or she withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(f) The provisions of this section do not apply to the creation of a hazardous or dangerous condition on or in any real or personal property designed to prevent criminal conduct or cause injury to a person engaging in criminal conduct.
 North Carolina
Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
Justification—Use of force in self-protection.
(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.
(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
(1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or
(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 except that:
a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and
b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and
c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.
 New Mexico
Section 30-2-7A NMSA 1978 provides that a homicide is justifiable when committed in the necessary defense of property. Although this statute has been a part of New Mexico law since 1907, the New Mexico appellate courts have never given the statute a broad interpretation. The New Mexico courts have consistently held, not always referring to the statute, that one cannot defend his property, other than his habitation, from a mere trespass to the extent of killing the aggressor. State v. McCracken, 22 N.M. 588, 166 P. 1174 (1917); State v. Martinez, 34 N.M. 112, 278 P. 210 (1929); State v. Couch, 52 N.M. 127, 193 P.2d 405 (1946).
The statute in Washington state appear to be very simply and broadly stated.
The law allows use of deadly force in the lawful defense of oneself, a family member, or any other person, when there is reasonable ground to prevent action(s) of the person slain to commit a felony or to do injury or harm, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, on those in their presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which they are.
Washington state doesn’t have a specific Castle Doctrine law, but has no duty to retreat as precedent was set when the State Supreme Court found "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."
A Wisconsin "Castle Doctrine" bill, 2007 Assembly Bill 35, passed the Assembly on Friday, May 11, 2007; it died in the Senate and, therefore, did not become law. The bill would have created immunity for an act of self-defense for any person who uses deadly force while in his or her residence and is not engaged in illegal activity. South Carolina HAS adopted castle doctrine law as of january 2008
The American interpretation of this doctrine is largely derived from the English Common Law as it stood in the 1700s. In Book 4, Chapter 16 of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he says:
And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully; State-by-state positions
quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium? For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principal it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.
For the states with a Castle Doctrine, an external link is provided to the text of the specific statute, if available. If a direct link is unavailable, for example if the destination website uses Java, the statute name and/or number is listed.
This list was last verified to be current on June 21, 2008.
 States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat anywhere.
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (August 2007)
 States with a Castle Law
No duty to retreat if in the home.
- California (California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'”)
- Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
- Kansas (§ 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle.)
- Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
- Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the commonlaw castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.)
- Michigan (more recent law—Act 309 of 2006—does not relieve duty to retreat "unless [deadly force is] necessary to prevent imminent death;" this represents no change from common law, which does not require retreat unless it can be safely done)
- Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat")
- Missouri (Extends Castle Doctrine to one's vehicle)
- Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008. Section 2901.09)
- Oregon. (ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).")
- New Jersey ("Statutes" link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4, retreat required outside home if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc.)
- North Carolina
- Rhode Island
- West Virginia (Senate bill 145 signed March 12, 2008. WV code §55-7-22)
 States with weak Castle Law
The duty to retreat is not removed, but deadly force may be used to end invasion of home without presence of immediate lethal threat.
- Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
- Illinois (Use of deadly force is justified if defending a home from "a violent, riotous, or tumultuous" entry or "to prevent the commission of a felony"; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
- Minnesota (Homicide justified to prevent the commission of a felony in the home)
- Montana (Deadly force justified to prevent felony in the home)
- New York (Deadly force justified to prevent burglary or arson of the home)
- Pennsylvania 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505 on the defense of self says there is no obligation to retreat from the home or workplace unless the actor was the initial aggressor or, in the latter case, set upon by a co-worker; however, "surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" and "complying with a demand that [one] abstain from any action which [one] has no duty to take" are listed in addition to retreating as avenues which, if open to the actor but not taken, invalidate justification for the use of deadly force. Deadly force itself is not justifiable unless "the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507 allows the use of deadly force if the actor believes there has been an unlawful entry into his or her dwelling and believes that nothing less than deadly force will end the incursion; if the person on the receiving end of the deadly force is "attempting to dispossess [the actor] of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession;" or if deadly force is the only thing that will prevent a felony from being committed in the dwelling. In any of those cases, the property owner must first ask the interloper to desist — unless the owner believes that doing so would be "useless," "dangerous," or would result in the property being defended coming to substantial harm before the request to desist could be effectively communicated.
- South Dakota "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." SD Codified Laws 22-16-34 (2005).
 States with no known Castle Law
Above sections provide detail findings for 37 states and the District only. Some sources list 16 states as having "Stand your ground laws", but review of the statutes does not make it clear that all listed states have eliminated the duty to retreat outside the home.
- Iowa (Law does not require retreat from home, but may require retreat within the home)
- New Hampshire
- New Mexico
- District of Columbia
 In other countries
Israel passed a law, commonly known as the 'Dromi Law', defining opposition to intruders as legitimate self-defence in response to the trial of Shai Dromi, a farmer who shot intruders on his farm late at night. 
 See also
 Related sayings
- <LI id=cite_note-0>^ "Assembly, No. 159, State of New Jersey, 213th Legislature, The “New Jersey Self Defense Law”". May 6, 2008. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bi...500/159_I1.PDF. Retrieved on 2009-03-19. "The “Castle Doctrine” is a long-standing American legal concept arising from English Common Law that provides that one's abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and immunities, that one is not obligated to retreat before defending oneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear of prosecution." <LI id=cite_note-1>^ Dirk Johnson. "'Make My Day': More Than a Threat". New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A966958260. Retrieved on 2008-06-27. <LI id=cite_note-2>^ Rhinehart, C: "Castle Doctrine and Self-Defense," Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research <LI id=cite_note-multiple-3>^ Florida Statutes Title XLVI Chapter 776 <LI id=cite_note-4>^ Kopel DB: "The Self-Defense Cases," 2000 <LI id=cite_note-5>^ Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895) <LI id=cite_note-6>^ p.19 Brown, Richard Maxwell No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society Oxford University Press 1991 <LI id=cite_note-7>^ p.36 ibid <LI id=cite_note-8>^ Ala. Code 13A-3-23(b): "A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground." <LI id=cite_note-9>^ Utah Code 76-2-405 <LI id=cite_note-10>^ http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?id=188 1 <LI id=cite_note-11>^ http://www.nraila.org/images/cd.jpg 2 <LI id=cite_note-multiple2-12>^ "States allow deadly self-defense" by Richard Willing, USAToday, March 20, 2006, retrieved April 4, 2006 <LI id=cite_note-13>^ See State v. Cain, 20 W.Va. 679 (1882); State v. Laura, 93 W.Va. 250, 116 S.E. 251 (1923); State v. McMillion, 104 W.Va. 1, 138 S.E. 732 (1927); State v. Preece, 116 W.Va. 176, 179 S.E. 524 (1935); State v. Bowyer, 143 W.Va. 302, 101 S.E.2d 243 (1957); State v. Green, 157 W.Va. 1031, 206 S.E.2d 923 (1974); State v. Kirtley, 162 W.Va. 249, 252 S.E.2d 374 (197; State v. W.J.B., 166 W.Va. 602, 276 S.E.2d 550 (1981) <LI id=cite_note-14>^ Utah Code, title 76, chapter 2, section 407 "Deadly force in defense of persons on real property" <LI id=cite_note-15>^ Utah Code, title 76, chapter 2, section 402 "Force in defense of person—Forcible felony defined", paragraph 3 <LI id=cite_note-16>^ http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Te...145%20SUB1.htm <LI id=cite_note-17>^ North Carolina General Assembly. "North Carolina General Statutes §14-51.1". http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedl...s_14-51.1.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-14. <LI id=cite_note-18>^ http://michie.lexisnexis.com/delawar...m&2.0#JD_11464 <LI id=cite_note-19>^ "Homicide; by other person; when justifiable. Revised Code of Washington 9A.16.050". Washington state legislature.. 1975. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050. <LI id=cite_note-20>^ 137 Wn.2d 533 State of Washington v. Studd; Decided 1999/04/01. <LI id=cite_note-21>^ 150 Wn.2d 489 State of Washington v. Reynaldo Redmond; Decided 2003/12/06. <LI id=cite_note-22>^ Blackstone's Commentaries - Book the Fourth - Chapter the Sixteenth : Of Offenses Against the Habitations of Individuals <LI id=cite_note-23>^ "Tully" is a common abbreviation for Marcus Tullius Cicero. <LI id=cite_note-24>^ What more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a man's own home? <LI id=cite_note-25>^ [http://www.mainelegislature.org/legi...7-Asec107.html Physical force justification <LI id=cite_note-26>^ "Senate Bills - Status Report of Legislation, SB 184". http://lsc.state.oh.us/coderev/sen12...4?OpenDocument. Retrieved on 2008-08-09. <LI id=cite_note-27>^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm Connecticut OLR, reporting that such a law was vetoed in New Hampshire. <LI id=cite_note-28>^ "Sixteen states adopt 'Stand your Ground' laws authorizing use of deadly force." Crime Control Digest, August 11, 2006. Viewed at findarticles.com <LI id=cite_note-29>^ NRA-ILA: Self-defense/Castle Doctrine: This Train Keeps a-Rollin'. 7/28/06
- ^ Stoil, Rebecca Anna (24 June 200. "New law allows shooting at burglars". The Jerusalem Post. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1214132677640. Retrieved on 15 July 2009.
Originally Posted by jrh72582
Now from the wiki page we look at this.
Originally Posted by PVS
States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat anywhere.
Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency
Chapter 3. Defenses Relating to Culpability
<A name=IC35-41-3-1>IC 35-41-3-1
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.7.
<A name=IC35-41-3-2>IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and (B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.
<A name=IC35-41-3-3>IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.
<A name=IC35-41-3-4>IC 35-41-3-4
(Repealed by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.148.)
<A name=IC35-41-3-5>IC 35-41-3-5
Sec. 5. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct did so while he was intoxicated, only if the intoxication resulted from the introduction of a substance into his body:
(1) without his consent; or
(2) when he did not know that the substance might cause intoxication.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.10; Acts 1980, P.L.205, SEC.1; P.L.210-1997, SEC.4.
<A name=IC35-41-3-6>IC 35-41-3-6
Mental disease or defect
Sec. 6. (a) A person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of
(b) As used in this section, "mental disease or defect" means a severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably impairs a person's perception, but the term does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.11; P.L.184-1984, SEC.1.
<A name=IC35-41-3-7>IC 35-41-3-7
Mistake of fact
Sec. 7. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact, if the mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the offense.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.12.
<A name=IC35-41-3-8>IC 35-41-3-8
Sec. 8. (a) It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by threat of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or another person. With respect to offenses other than felonies, it is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was compelled to do so by force or threat of force. Compulsion under this section exists only if the force, threat, or circumstances are such as would render a person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure.
(b) This section does not apply to a person who:
(1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally placed himself in a situation in which it was foreseeable that he would be subjected to duress; or
(2) committed an offense against the person as defined in IC 35-42.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.13.
<A name=IC35-41-3-9>IC 35-41-3-9
Sec. 9. (a) It is a defense that:
(1) the prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other means likely to cause the person to engage in the conduct; and
(2) the person was not predisposed to commit the offense.
(b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit the offense does not constitute entrapment.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.14.
<A name=IC35-41-3-10>IC 35-41-3-10 Abandonment
Sec. 10. With respect to a charge under IC 35-41-2-4, IC 35-41-5-1, or IC 35-41-5-2, it is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct voluntarily abandoned his effort to commit the underlying crime and voluntarily prevented its commission.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.15.
<A name=IC35-41-3-11>IC 35-41-3-11
Mental disease or defect; use of justifiable reasonable force
Sec. 11. (a) As used in this section, "defendant" refers to an individual charged with any crime involving the use of force against a person.
(b) This section applies under the following circumstances when the defendant in a prosecution raises the issue that the defendant was at the time of the alleged crime suffering from the effects of battery as a result of the past course of conduct of the individual who is the victim of the alleged crime:
(1) The defendant raises the issue that the defendant was not responsible as a result of mental disease or defect under section 6 of this chapter, rendering the defendant unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the crime.
(2) The defendant claims to have used justifiable reasonable force under section 2 of this chapter. The defendant has the burden of going forward to produce evidence from which a trier of fact could find support for the reasonableness of the defendant's belief in the imminence of the use of unlawful force or, when deadly force is employed, the imminence of serious bodily injury to the defendant or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.
(c) If a defendant proposes to claim the use of justifiable reasonable force under subsection (b)(2), the defendant must file a written motion of that intent with the trial court not later than:
(1) twenty (20) days if the defendant is charged with a felony; or
(2) ten (10) days if the defendant is charged only with one (1) or more misdemeanors;
before the omnibus date. However, in the interest of justice and upon a showing of good cause, the court may permit the filing to be made at any time before the commencement of the trial.
(d) The introduction of any expert testimony under this section shall be in accordance with the Indiana Rules of Evidence.
As added by P.L.210-1997, SEC.5.
Originally Posted by jrh72582
Originally Posted by jrh72582
By ViRedd in forum Politics
Last Post: 10-31-2007, 12:45 PM
By ViRedd in forum Politics
Last Post: 11-14-2006, 02:00 PM
Tags for this Thread