'Stand Your Ground Law'
 

This is the present law in Florida and several states. I am posting its meaning its definition at present! ~~Eric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

The law is the law.

However, as a practical matter, if outside of your house, it is better to use discretion - if possible - instead of valor.

There is an effort to repeal it as vague and thus unconstitutional!!!

The frustrating thing is that this recent case had NOTHING to do with the "Stand Your Ground" law. It is being tried as a simple "self defense" case. This will of course, never stops the libs from trying to leverage any case to eliminate this law, since they feel it directly affects a certain group of people.

That is some very sage advice...

Jack

Some thing has to happen nationally or we will have 50 seperate opinions!

Here is Florida' law!!http://floridastandyourground.org/

We do have an excellent Castle/Stand Your Ground Law in Illinois and there is also the clause, the person standing their ground can not be sued.

In North Caroline, we have had "no duty to retreat" for quite a while.

GRNC helped put Castle Doctrine in place in 2011. This relieves you of civil liability if you comply with all the law's requirements.

Our HB.650 of 2011 brought this into law. It's worth taking a look at if your state does not have civil liability relief in place.

We're in the middle of another set of improvements right now. HB.937 of 2013. This one will allow CCH holders to keep handguns in their vehicles on school campuses, and repeal the Jim Crow era Sheriff administered pistol permit system. It's close to final passage both houses now, and in conference between them as I write this.

Marc

Az. currently, also, has a stand your ground law. This state, like many others, understands the reality of our current state of affairs. Calling 911 just won't hack it.

Well, we have a national union formed by the states. The national government has only certain rights/powers given to it by the Constitution. Please refer to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

In my opinion, there has been more done these past five years to divide any Union this country once had than anytime before and I have no idea what it will be like at the end of the next three years. One thing for sure, IMO, it will take many many years to repair the damage done. Hope and Change actually was Divide and Conquer................:grr:

If I try to retreat I do not want to be shot in the back.I will stand my ground no matter what the law is.
Thanks George:jumper:

Probably for a while, everyone needs to carry a nice 12ga shotgun in their vehicle. I sort of remember where one would have come in good use against some gangsters that drug a truck driver out of his vehicle, beat him, then threw a huge brick at his head, wounding him for life. I've always wondered what would have happened if he had had a 12ga and was able to use it. He'd probably be the one in trouble, but at least he'd be less hurt. I think in every State, a 12ga shotgun is legal and more effective than most firearms in a bad situation.

Aah, in New York State, it's legal to carry around a shotgun in one's vehicle. It must , however, be unloaded. So, one would need to do like Barney Fife and his "bullet", and carry a shotgun shell or two in the shirt pocket--just in case.

If you have to have an unloaded shotgun in your car. Buy one of those Russian magazine fed models. That's as quick as you are ever going to get a shotgun loaded.

With all that has happened and will continue to happen across our nation, the only protection a law abiding citizen has to defend himself, herself, their family and property is the....stand your ground laws the 2nd Amendment, without those, the law abiding citizen has no chance and they become sheeples............IMO.

Well, Kentucky always has had the concept of self defense. Not sure of how it is in Western Kentucky, but in Eastern Kentucky, the castle doctrine does not add anything.

For example, if you drove into my mother-in-law's yard after dark, she took her shotgun and let off at the car. Whenever we were going to be late in getting there, we always called to let her know.

If you tried to walk into the yard from the road, the dogs would always alert her. (The dogs always liked my wife. One day I was rough housing with my wife and one of the dogs started growling. I stopped.)

1st time I heard of a stand your ground law in Illinois, but I'm only 66.
I do know if you shoot somebody he just about has to be in your bed and better have an ax or a gun in his cold dead hand.
We are just now getting a CCW law which might start in actual use in about a year.

We must be aware that though there have been some firearm law successes lately, that the antis will never let up.
They will continue to come from every angle and crack they can find.
Facts and statistics mean nothing to them.

We just saw what some fool wannabee has caused and that will be ringing a long time.

I just read another thread where another idiot thought a badge for CCW would be a good idea.
2nd time I have seen that. Both got roundly pummelled.

Home Invasion for real. Years ago in the middle of the night we awoken by a masked man pointing his gun directly at us. One kicked our front door in and the other stood at the base of our bed. He had came through the bathroom window. He grabbed Debbys' handbag! We heard shooting in the living room as my son in law tackled the other! Kenny grabed the gun and returned fire as the 2 escaped with nothing dropping Debbys bag in our driveway! Lesson learned, Keep your firearms within reach of any emergency or their worthless~~~~Eric

Not much home invasion in Eastern Kentucky.

I just read another thread where another idiot thought a badge for CCW would be a good idea.
2nd time I have seen that. Both got roundly pummelled.[/QUOTE]

Actually, these are a GOOD idea, as long as they are not abused. I have one with my CCW number engraved on it.

Picture this: someone tries to carjack you at a service station. You pull on him and get him to lie on the ground. The service station manager calls police and announces there is some kind of altercation out by the pumps AND ONE OF THEM HAS A GUN!!!
Do you really want an LEO pulling up to see you with gun drawn pointing at some guy on the ground? A CCW badge being flashed as he pulls up insures a moment of hesitation and caution on the part of responding officers before they let loose on you. It gives them that moment of pause to ask you to lower your gun and step away while they draw theirs and take control of the situation. I have shown mine to a number of local LEOs and they to a man, support the idea, as long as you meticulously follow directions once they are on scene.

According to the federal court that gave the decision that Illinois 'will' have CC, upon an agreement by the states legislature, there has to be a training and application in force by 160 days later. BUT!!! we know how be ask and are granted an extension waiver. The ISP site states to check back when trained and approve instructors are available and who. BUT!!! we know how extensions happen too....yes, I will agree, 9-12 months is about right.

We've had the Castle Law for some time now and we've had also, that we could carry open on one's property only, especially if you live in a rural county. If anyone that does not come to my front door and ring or knock on my door to see or enter my home, then they are entering illegally...IMO


Each state differs in the way it incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws, what premises are covered (abode only, or other places too), what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance is required before deadly force can be used, etc.

Typical conditions that apply to some Castle Doctrine laws include:[citation needed]
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the Castle Doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties).
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force.

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home: must be there legally; must not be fugitives from the law, themselves, or, aiding/abetting other fugitives; and, must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty[citation needed].

Immunity from civil lawsuit[edit]

In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause," also have a clause which provides immunity from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them). Without this clause, an assailant could sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain & suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender; or, if the force results in the assailant's death, his/her next-of-kin or estate could launch a wrongful death suit. Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) may still have to pay high legal costs leading up to the suit's dismissal. Without criminal/civil immunity, such civil action could be used as revenge against a lawfully-acting defender (who was, originally, the assailant's victim).

Use of force in self-defense which causes damage or injuries to other, non-criminally-acting parties, may not be shielded from criminal or civil prosecution, however.

Duty-to-retreat[edit]

"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force when one is in their home or in some U.S. states just simply where one can legally be.[6]

Stand-your-ground[edit]

Main article: Stand-your-ground law

In some states in the United States, one can use deadly force in any location one is legally allowed to be without first attempting to retreat. Such laws remove the requirement that the threat must occur on one's own property.

Origins[edit]

According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Torah contains an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home-defender and must make restitution.”[7][8]

The American interpretation of this doctrine is largely derived from the English Common Law as it stood in the 18th century. In Book 4, Chapter 16[9] of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he states that the laws "leave him (the inhabitant) the natural right of killing the aggressor (the burglar)" and goes on to generalize in the following words:


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;[10] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?[11] 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 principle 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.

—William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

Not only was the doctrine considered to justify defense against neighbors and criminals, but any of the crown's agents who attempted to enter without a proper warrant as well. It should be noted that prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution share a common background with current castle doctrine laws.[citation needed]

State-by-state positions[edit]

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 JavaScript, the statute name and/or number is listed.

States with a Stand-your-ground Law[edit]

No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.

Main article: Stand-your-ground law
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California (Stand-your-ground exists in case law. Criminal jury instructions affirm no duty to retreat both in the home (CALCRIM 506) and elsewhere (CALCRIM 3470 and 505).[12] Castle Doctrine appears in California Penal Code § 198.5, which creates a presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when force is used against an unlawful intruder in one's residence.[13])
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky [14]
Louisiana
Michigan [15]
Mississippi
Montana[dead link]
Nevada
New Hampshire (A proposed law was vetoed in 2011,[16] but the veto was overridden and the new law took effect November 2011.[17])
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma Title 21§1290.1 et seq
Pennsylvania (Recent legislation extends Castle Doctrine to occupied vehicles and the work place. Stand-your-ground rights extended to any place the defender has a right to be with specified exceptions; notably, the attacker must brandish a lethal weapon.)
South Carolina
Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
Texas (Established for individual's habitation in 1995 by House Bill 94 and extended to vehicle or workplace effective September 1, 2007 by Senate Bill 378.[18] Senate Bill 378 also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."[19])
Utah
Virginia (Case law, no statute)
Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)
West Virginia

States with a Castle Law[edit]

No duty to retreat if in the home.
Colorado "...any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.[dead link]
Connecticut
Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
Idaho
Illinois (Use of deadly force justified. Specific legislation prevents filing claim against defender of dwelling. Illinois has no requirement of retreat.)
Iowa (No duty to retreat from home or place of business in defense of self or a "third party".)
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)[20]
Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the common law castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.)
Massachusetts
Minnesota No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense in one's place of abode [21]) This isn't as clear as it appears, however. There are four cases in Minnesota where duty of retreat was upheld.[22]
Missouri (Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.)
New Jersey (Retreat required if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc. EXCEPT not obliged to retreat from dwelling, unless the initial aggressor)
North Carolina§ 14‑51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2.(b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. (2011‑268, s. 1.)
Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008.[23] 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).")
Rhode Island
Wisconsin (Assembly Bill 69, signed December 7, 2011) The civil immunity became Sec. 895.62, Wis.Stats. and the criminal immunity became Sec. 939.48, Wis.Stats.
Wyoming[dead link]

States with weak or no specific Castle Law[edit]

These states uphold castle doctrine in general, but may rely on case law instead of specific legislation, may enforce a duty to retreat, and may impose specific restrictions on the use of deadly force.
District of Columbia
Nebraska - a bill was introduced in January 2012 that allowed deadly force against a person who broke into a house or occupied vehicle or who tried to kidnap someone from a house or vehicle, however the bill was revised to include only an affirmative defense from lawsuits pertaining to justifiable use of force.[24]
New Mexico
New York - Allows for the use of "reasonable force" in self-defense against Home Invasion.[citation needed]
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).
Vermont

Glad you survived your home encounter-Sure sounded like they were after something-most sneak thieves are just looking for easy pickings.

A lot of the reaction to the wannabee carrying a badge involved serious repercussions for misrepresenting or appearing to misrepresent themselvers as LEOs.

When one reads a lot of forums like I do, I actually wonder why there are not more gun incidents from the caped crusader crowd-most of them are typically more mouth than substance, but some are disturbing.

Back in the days when VN Vets were popular badguys, some studies were put forth that guys who actually had used weapons, seen, felt and heard damage done 1st hand were the least likely to to actually resort to random armed mayhem.
Similar to hunters. They see the suffering.
The folks to watch for were the basement commandoes who parade about in elaborate rigs and think up heroic scenarios.
They mostly never saw any blood, heard a bullet hit flesh or saw the reults of that happening.
All a big fantasy.
When Illinois finally opens the license I'll probably get one, but have lived a long time and done some gritty stuff unstrapped. To old for honky tonk brawling and outlived many of the ruffians I ran with.
Just my opinion.

I will also, no longer based on my initial reasons but because once Illinois has an established CC Law, my Florida and my PA will become invalid. I saw the report the other day that Illinois will only accept Missouri CC permits and no one else, which will change sooner or later. The training proposed in the Bill will require more training that any other state requires so I hope a full 49 other state reciprocal acceptance will happen with us.

My father spent part of his childhood in Harlan county - during the coal wars of the early 1930s. He had some stories to tell!

There's a lot of wisdom in this post.

Actually, these are a GOOD idea, as long as they are not abused. I have one with my CCW number engraved on it.

Picture this: someone tries to carjack you at a service station. You pull on him and get him to lie on the ground. The service station manager calls police and announces there is some kind of altercation out by the pumps AND ONE OF THEM HAS A GUN!!!
Do you really want an LEO pulling up to see you with gun drawn pointing at some guy on the ground? A CCW badge being flashed as he pulls up insures a moment of hesitation and caution on the part of responding officers before they let loose on you. It gives them that moment of pause to ask you to lower your gun and step away while they draw theirs and take control of the situation. I have shown mine to a number of local LEOs and they to a man, support the idea, as long as you meticulously follow directions once they are on scene.[/QUOTE](End of quote)

Then you have the other aspect, several years ago, a rent-a-cop with a badge (which would be similar to a CCW badge) chased me for several blocks, and finally forced me over - saying that I had run a stop sign. AS a part of his self given and assumed authority, he was going to take me out of my car. However has a Statute which states that it is legal (no law broken) to carry a loaded (cocked if desired) weapon in an 'unlocked' glove compartment.

The problem with any type of 'unofficial' badge is that it goes to people's heads and could very well get the bearer hurt.

I know what you refer to. Your father was not telling stories, but relating facts. We were from Breathitt. We moved elsewhere in Kentucky, but we would always visit. In the 70s, two of my brother-in-laws had coal trucks. They would go down to Perry County (Hazard) to pick up coal. When there I would ride with one of hm.

To get the coal, we had to cross UMW picket lines. I finally stopped doing that as my wife was ready to divorce me.

Eastern Kentucky is an unusual place. Many think the stories coming out of there are puffed up. Such is not the case.

Reread the part where I say, "as long as its not abused".

Arguing that an unoffical badge goes to people's heads is like saying a concealed weapon permit makes people pull their guns out all the time to win arguments. You are either responsible or you are not.

Rent-a-cops have no power of arrest and the one you encountered should have been charged with impersonating an officer.

You have a point - there are many who should not have a CCW permit as they have a tendency to abuse it.

As to the rent-a-cop, I would have had difficulty in holding him until the police arrived. Anyhow he filled his pants which was worse.

Yep. His father (my Grandfather) came and picked him up at school one day. He didn't go back for a "loooooong time". He remembered hearing the gunfire in the hills at nite. He would have been about 7 years old (1931). When he did finally return to school, there were bullet holes/chips on the building! My Grandfather was originally a coal miner in the area, but by this time he was a Methodist minister.

I do apologize for the diverting of the thread to Eastern Kentucky. I could go on for some time. But it would be less distracting to all of the members if I did not keep posting on this. But if you are curious, you would just google Bloody Breathitt County, KY .

For a minute there, I thought you were talking about:

The Battle of Matewan (also known as the Matewan Massacre) was a shootout in the town of Matewan, West Virginia in Mingo County on May 19, 1920 between local miners and the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency.

There was a movie made about that coal mining town and the massacre.

And too, there was the Molly Maguires but they came earlier.

If you can produce the shine, I'll listen all night!!!!!!:thumbup: