Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground?

[GuyWithQuestions]

Am I understanding things right? Castle Doctrine only means that you're not required to retreat from you place of residence if you're already in danger of like force being used against yourself unlawfully, and Stand Your Ground only means that you're not required to retreat if you're in any place that you have a legal right to be? That's what I heard, but then there was that http://www.licensetomurder.com/main.php website that someone posted. It says that Stand Your Ground shouldn't be allowed because it gives people an excuse to murder at will and gives all of these accounts of people shooting people in the back as they flee from a house, or that one time when that guy shot at 17 year old girls who were sneaking in his yard because they thought it would be fun to visit a "haunted house" (which I remember that incidence was brought up in THR before and most gun rights people seemed to think that that guy was an embarrassment to what guns are really for). If I remember correctly, the only difference between “Stand Your Ground” and without having that law is the duty to retreat if you're where you have a legal right to be, or is there something else I’m that missing? I live in Utah and the use of lethal force laws say that you don't have to retreat if you're where you have a legal right to be, but says that you can only use force to stop the same being used illegally against you and you have to stop once the threat stops, so where does this shooting people in the back with Stand Your Ground come from? Don’t the Stand Your Ground laws still say that you need to “reasonably believe” that unlawful force is imminent? So wouldn’t ability, opportunity, and intent still apply, the only thing that changes is preclusion, so if someone's standing behind a good fense waving a knife saying they're going to kill you, you can't just shoot them? Also, on their list of states that have passed "License to Murder", it says that in Utah murder is still illegal. That doesn't make sense (ignoring the site's misleading use of words) because Utah specifically says in their penal code there's no duty to retreat if you have a legal right to be there http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02022.htm. Wikipedia also says

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[3]. The law specifically states that a person does not have a duty to retreat[4] from a place where a person has lawfully entered or remained.

so is there something that I'm missing with what Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws are?

 

[Johnnybgood]

Guy

First consider the source of the site with all these postings of people being shot in the back. It is an anti-gun, anti-2a, and anti-self defense left leaning to the point of toppling website. As far as the newspaper reports on the website go, remember that they are all owned by left leaning anti's. If you read many of the postings here and on other websites you will find that many of the articles are misleading or just outright fraudulant.
Yes castle doctrine just means you don't have to retreat. Same for the stand your ground law. After all while you are retreating the thug has the upper hand and can kill you. Now you are at least on equal footing. I would not want to be the one who took these laws to mean you can murder someone and get away with it. It will probably not turn out the way you think it will. Ignore those anti sights they will drive you crazy.

 

[knuckles]

That's what I heard, but then there was that [nourl]http://www.licensetomurder.com/main.php[/nourl] website that someone posted.

I really wouldn't believe anything you read on that site or any site affiliated with [nourl]http://www.freedomstatesalliance.com/[/nourl]

 

[Rumble]

In answer to the initial question, I think that you have an accurate idea of the difference between "castle doctrine" and the newer "stand your ground" laws: most states already say you don't have to retreat if attacked in your home (by attacked, I mean "issa peoples gonna die" kind of attacked, although I'm not positive the laws actually make that distinction).

Stand your ground means you don't have to retreat if you are anywhere you have a right to be. All the other restrictions still apply, though, so there needs to be reasonable belief of imminent death or bodily harm, as I understand it. I guess it's more along the lines of a castle doctrine that extends "castle" to mean "wherever you may legally be."

The License to Murder site is twisting the intent of these laws in ways that are really unwholesome and sort of dirty.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

Well I knew that licensetomurder.com was not necessarily completely correct, in fact it just seems downright like a bizarre site to me, when I compare it to what I've read from useofforce.us, various state penal codes, packing.org, wikipedia, etc. I just wanted to make sure there weren't any details that I was missing about the difference between stand your ground and non stand your ground laws. In addition to not having to retreat if you're in a place where you have a legal right to be, don't some stand your ground laws also apply some civil immunity if it was determined that you reasonably believed you needed to use deadly force to prevent yourself from being murdered? How is that determined without a jury? Does a prosecutor just say that there are better uses of time and then there's civil immunity kicks in? I was just curious, sometimes extremely weird and obviously confused websites spark your interest in subjects. It's kind of weird how that happens. And that was one weird website; almost reminds me of reading tabloids.

 

[DunedinDragon]

Generally speaking, the stand your ground laws also tend to have one other component to them which is to remove or limit the liability of someone that shoots someone in self-defense. In some cases (such as Florida) it also changes the burden of proof in a shooting scenario so that the police can't take action on the shooter unless and until there's probable cause that it was not self-defense.

 

[TX1911fan]

I have noticed that recently "Castle Doctrine" has started to include both concepts. In other words, with the passage of laws like Florida's, you now take you castle with you. I think it is almost to the point where Castle Doctrine and stand your ground mean the same thing.

 

[XDKingslayer]

That's kinda the concept TX1911, but Florida does have both "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground" laws. Florida sort of connected the two by ruling that your vehicle is the same as your home when it comes to self defence.

It's kind of cheesy they did it that way, I think your vehicle should be the same as your home in every sense of the word, but cops complained, and that is why it is what it is.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It Boils Down To One Thing:

"Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground" are just two aspects of the right to defend yourself. You have a right to defend yourself when ever you are unlawfully threatened. And, right off the top of my head, I can't think of any instance where you could be lawfully threatened.

Woody

One should only need a gun to protect one's self and family, not a squad of police and an army of lawyers!

 

[Al Norris]

And, right off the top of my head, I can't think of any instance where you could be lawfully threatened.

Right off the top of my head, a no-knock warrant, would be a lawful use where you would be threatened (and it take another thread to continue with this).

Some states have passed "Stand Your Ground" laws that have lessoned or completely removed the civil liability aspect of self defense. To my thinking, that's the way it should be. Shifting the burden of proof to the prosecution is another commonsense use of the law.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Al,

Right off the top of my head, a no-knock warrant, would be a lawful use where you would be threatened (and it take another thread to continue with this).

A no-knock warrant wouldn't be a threat. Executing a no-knock warrant is complying with the law(if such a warrant is justified). Pointing a gun at someone and saying you'll shoot or kill them if you don't comply would be a threat - an unlawful threat. When an officer of the law points a gun at you while he is trying to arrest you is not meant to threaten or intimidate you. You can stand there and say "NO" all day long and the officer cannot lawfully shoot you because you didn't comply. He can cuff you and drag you to jail, but he can't shoot you. He has his gun drawn in his defense only. If YOU make a threatening move, BANG you're dead.

Woody

One should only need a gun to protect one's self and family, not a squad of police and an army of lawyers!

 

[Al Norris]

So as not to derail the thread, let's agree that we disagree.

 

[tegemu]

Your initial understanding is correct, the rest is bull hockey.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

.

Your initial understanding is correct, the rest is bull hockey.

Who's initial understanding?

Woody

 

[Aguila Blanca]

GuyWithQuestions --

Paragraphs and carriage returns are your friends. They allow mere mortals to read what you've written without getting lost.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Some states have passed "Stand Your Ground" laws that have lessoned or completely removed the civil liability aspect of self defense. To my thinking, that's the way it should be. Shifting the burden of proof to the prosecution is another commonsense use of the law.

You are confused.

"Stand your ground" has nothing to do with relief from civil liability. All "stand your ground" does is remove the duty to (attempt to) retreat before you are authorized to employ lethal force in self defense outside your own home.

Relief from liability is a different animal. It may be addressed in the same legislation as "stand your ground," but it generally amends a different section of statute. You may be confused because Florida last year enacted both a "stand your ground" law and a relief from civil liability law. They have generally been discussed together, and often erroneously labeled as a "castle doctrine" law, when in fact Florida already had a castle doctrine law (but without relief from civil liability).

 

[tegemu]

Woodcdi, the original poster's.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

GuyWithQuestions, what state are you in? Different states deal with this issue differently.

Well I knew that licensetomurder.com was not necessarily completely correct,

Nope, it is in fact, COMPLETELY wrong on all levels.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

Don't Tread On Me,

I live in Utah. The penal code here says there's no duty to retreat if you're in a place where you have a legal right to be http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITL...m/76_02022.htm. Wikipedia also says "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[3]. The law specifically states that a person does not have a duty to retreat[4] from a place where a person has lawfully entered or remained." However, licensetomurder.com and other places that have a list of places with Stand Your Ground laws don't have Utah as a Stand Your Ground state. That's why I was wondering if there is anything else to Stand Your Ground.

 

[Delta608]

A no-knock warrant wouldn't be a threat. Executing a no-knock warrant is complying with the law(if such a warrant is justified). Pointing a gun at someone and saying you'll shoot or kill them if you don't comply would be a threat - an unlawful threat. When an officer of the law points a gun at you while he is trying to arrest you is not meant to threaten or intimidate you. You can stand there and say "NO" all day long and the officer cannot lawfully shoot you because you didn't comply. He can cuff you and drag you to jail, but he can't shoot you. He has his gun drawn in his defense only. If YOU make a threatening move, BANG you're dead.

Woody

Thats what Tasers are for !!!!!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Delta608

Thats what Tasers are for !!!!!

Absolutely! A good shot from a taser would certainly convince me to hold still while being cuffed! It might even convince me to be real polite!

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

 

[pictoblu]

This thread did a memory jog to me. Reminded me of a case from about 20 years ago in Bradley Co., TN, where an older couple had become the "midnight project" of some deadbeat teenagers.

These kids took to rolling the folk's yard over and over and over again. Can't remember all the details such as response of LE, but the way the situation progressed was that the old folks got real tired of waking up to toilet paper all over the yard and hanging in the trees.

Finally, the wife took a shotgun and took care of it. Eliminated at least one of the perps. And rightly so, IMHO.

Now, as I recall, the law said that old lady was well within her rights to take care of the situation, and did not charge her. Many in the town applauded her. Course, that was Tennessee, and Bradley Co. One of my all time favorite places that I have lived.

Anyone else remember this, and did I remember the incident correctly?

Now, that website, licensetomurder.etc, said the castle/stand your ground thing is proposed in TN, but I would have to add, many towns deal with/ have dealt with this stuff on a case by case basis.

 

[Kankujoe]

Which States have the Castle Doctrine?

Does anyone have a list of which states have laws pertaining to the "Castle Doctrine?"

 

[Kankujoe]

I found this list on Wikipedia. Anyone know of any others?

States that have "Castle Doctrine" laws on the books.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Florida (adopted March of 2005)
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Michigan (Signed By Governor Granholm July 20th 2006)
Mississippi
Nebraska
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Oklahoma (passed in House)
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas (Possibly being introduced 2007 January by Texas Senator Wentworth. The current Texas Law, note §9.42(3).)
Washington

 

[gunsmith]

heh, that would be me

website that someone posted.

...........

carriage returns

....sir I demand you stop using ancient english, I find
it very offensive that I know what you are talking about!
So I'm old!!! why rub it in?

Guy, that license to murder website is a few liars with money attempting
to propagandize using the internet....Fer instance, they fail to
mention that while NV is a duty to retreat state, Northern NV juries
would probably never convict you for standing your ground to a mugger.