Stand Your Ground Laws ARE NOT AUTOMATIC LEGAL PROTECTION

[Jeff White]

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article158334209.html

Colorado jury acquits Army Green Beret who killed intruder

2015 case. Two years spent with a prison term hanging over his head. It's anyone's guess as to how much money it cost to stay out of prison.

I know nothing about the circumstances of the shooting. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that despite the stand your ground law, this man was prosecuted when the forensic evidence made it look like it wasn't a legal use of lethal force.

 

[fastbolt]

Good reminder.

Probably an unfortunately significant number of average folks who might mistake such laws to somehow automatically confer "legality" on any use of deadly force. A general standard of "no duty to retreat", created by stand your ground laws, isn't going to somehow make an otherwise unlawful use of deadly force lawful.

A presumption of innocence means only that, and it certainly doesn't mean a prosecutor can't believe there's sufficient reason to justify bringing a criminal charge against someone, and attempting to prove (to a jury) guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Then, in many states there's the separate exposure to civil consequences in a wrongful death claim (which again can prove quite costly, just to successfully defend against it, even if the plaintiff/plaintiff's estate doesn't win their case with the lower standard of a preponderance of evidence).

Using deadly force is a deadly serious matter, in more than one respect.

 

[.455_Hunter]

It is important to note that Colorado's "Make My Day" law is NOT the same as most "Stand Your Ground" laws. The Colorado law, dating from the 1980's, covers citizens in their homes, and is not directly applicable to other locations. The fact that this occurred in a DETACHED garage, not a direct part of the house, plus other evidence (rightly or wrongly), is why this case went to trial.

 

[Kleanbore]

A general standard of "no duty to retreat", created by stand your ground laws, isn't going to somehow make an otherwise unlawful use of deadly force lawful.

That bears repeating.

The Colorado law, dating from the 1980's, covers citizens in their homes, and is not directly applicable to other locations. The fact that this occurred in a DETACHED garage, not a direct part of the house, plus other evidence (rightly or wrongly), is why this case went to trial.

Yhat is most probably true/

 

[RPZ]

All basically "stand your ground" means is that you are not obliged to retreat. The shooting must still be the justifiable use of deadly force according to your state law.

 

[Deaf Smith]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...-acquits-army-green-beret-who-killed-intruder

"Prosecutors say Galvin confronted Carrigan at night inside the garage. The defense argued that Carrigan lunged for Galvin's pistol before the shooting, and that Galvin was protecting his family."

"Galvin was charged after an autopsy showed that Carrigan was shot three times in the back."

Still, they acquitted him.

But the SYG law is not the same as the Castle Doctrine. And for the SYG to be in effect IN TEXAS... not Colorado:

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

That is, one can 'stand their ground' and not have to retreat.

But see the Castle Doctrine is a bit different:

Under the Castle doctrine certain circumstances, Texas law presumes you acted reasonably and justifiably if you use force or deadly force to defend yourself against an intruder who enters your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment. What are the circumstances that will give you this important legal presumption? The first is where an individual unlawfully and with force, enters or attempts to enter your occupied habitation, vehicle or place of business or employment. The second situation is if an individual unlawfully and with force, removes or attempts to remove you from your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment. If you are ever confronted with either of these situations, Texas law will presume that you acted reasonably and were justified in using force or deadly force. Therefore, in order for you to be convicted of any crime, a prosecutor would have to overcome this presumption in order to prove that you did not act reasonably. Overcoming this presumption is nearly an impossible task in a court of law.

Plus you cannot be sued! Why?

CPRC §83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable.


Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

IN TEXAS... not Colorado:

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force

The case at hand did not involve the question of retreat. As fastbolt correctly stated, "A general standard of "no duty to retreat", created by stand your ground laws, isn't going to somehow make an otherwise unlawful use of deadly force lawful."

Texas law presumes you acted reasonably and justifiably if you use force or deadly force to defend yourself against an intruder who enters your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment. What are the circumstances that will give you this important legal presumption? The first is where an individual unlawfully and with force, enters or attempts to enter your occupied habitation, vehicle or place of business or employment. The second situation is if an individual unlawfully and with force, removes or attempts to remove you from your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment.

Well this was not in Texas, and the detached garage was not an occupied habitation.

Vehicles don't count in Colorado.

Overcoming this presumption is nearly an impossible task in a court of law.

Do you have a supportable basis for that assertion?

Plus you cannot be sued! Why?

CPRC §83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Do not be so naive as to believe that immunity from divil liability for actions that were justified under the law means in any way that one cannot be sued.

For more on that subject read this: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...y-civil-immunity-and-the-use-of-force.722692/

 

[Jeff White]

First off the presumption that someone acted lawfully is not impossible to disprove. If you don't believe me, lure someone you don't like into a "protected place by Texas law" and then shoot him did and we'll see just how easy it is to overcome the presumption that the use of deadly force was lawful.

Even in Texas it's not like a gun fight in the saloon in a western movie where a couple cowboys tell the sheriff "I saw it all sheriff the stranger didn't have any choice the other guy drew first." And the sheriff says: "Ok boys if that's the way it happened, that's good enough for me" as he steps over the body to get to the bar for a drink.

My friends who are currently Texas peace officers tell me that they still do an investigation into all aspects of the use of deadly force and if it doesn't meet the standard it goes to the prosecutor who may take it to a grand jury for charges.

Secondly, you can in fact be sued. Nothing in the law you quoted forbids the court clerk from accepting a suit and placing it on the docket. Then, after you are served with the action YOU have to hire an attorney who will file a motion that the suit be dismissed under the law that says you can't be found liable.

And if your actions were exceptionally egregious the plaintiff's attorney can file a counter motion listing reasons that your case isn't covered by the law and if the judge agrees then the suit goes forward.

I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE HAVE SUCH A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THAT. THE LAWS THAT SAY YOU CANNOT BE FOUND LIABLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT MEAN THAT YOU CANNOT BE SUED!

And just like everything else in our legal system, they are not absolute. All a plaintiff has to do is convince the judge that for one reason or another that provision shouldn't apply in your case.

Does it happen often? No, in most cases it's not worth the trouble. But it can happen.

 

[9MMare]

When possible, set the ego aside and retreat/avoid/disengage. Period, just IMO.

An imminent danger inside my home? Not much to decide there tho.

 

[RPZ]

When possible, set the ego aside and retreat/avoid/disengage. Period, just IMO.

An imminent danger inside my home? Not much to decide there tho.

ALWAYS suppress the ego. It is probably the most likely thing to get you into trouble. That goes for most all situations in life as well.

It will get you into trouble in critical situations. And it can turn noncritical situations into critical situations often as well.

 

[shafter]

And that's why you shoot only when you absolutely have to because your going to die right now if you don't, and not just because the legal criteria is met.

 

[Kleanbore]

....you shoot only when you absolutely have to because your going to die right now if you don't, and not just because the legal criteria is met.

Words to live by.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE HAVE SUCH A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THAT. THE LAWS THAT SAY YOU CANNOT BE FOUND LIABLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT MEAN THAT YOU CANNOT BE SUED!

.

If the lawyer files a suit for some plaintiff when the law says you cannot be held libel then you can counter sue for them filing a frivolous lawsuit. One should hope they do.

Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

If the lawyer files a suit for some plaintiff when the law says you cannot be held libel then you can counter sue for them filing a frivolous lawsuit. One should hope they do.

First, a court must rule that the act was justified. That's a lot different from not having the act ruled unjustified in the criminal justice system.

And you may well be found liable for civil damages.

 

[Jeff White]

If the lawyer files a suit for some plaintiff when the law says you cannot be held libel then you can counter sue for them filing a frivolous lawsuit. One should hope they do.

I don't know what personal experience with the legal system you have, but there are actions filed all over this country every day that a reasonable man would consider frivolous. That doesn't stop them from being filed and they are seldom dismissed because they are "frivolous".

The law also says that government officials can't be held personably liable for legal actions they take in the course of their employment. But that doesn't stop plaintiffs from filing a motion to strip them of their immunity if they think they can prove the disputed action is particularly egregious. Every now and then those motions are granted.

I was sued twice in the course of my employment in LE. Both times the insurance company's attorney had me dropped from the action. In the first one, I wasn't even working when the event in question happened, the plaintiff just started naming officers he thought were there. In the second action, I couldn't be named in the suit because of a federal rule that said supervisors at a certain level couldn't be named in an action unless they had some direct involvement.

Had I been a private citizen it potentially could have cost a few thousand dollars in attorney's fees out of my pocket to get the same outcome.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let me go further into Post 14.

For the civil liability protection provision to go into effect, a court must rule in a pretrial hearing that the defendant had been justified in his use of force. It is doubtful that that would happen unless a suit had been filed against the defendant. .

 

[Kendahl]

Those who haven't read Andrew Branca's book, The Law of Self Defense, should get a copy and read it through. Branca distills the requirements for a valid claim of self defense into five criteria:

• Innocence -- Don't pick fights.
• Imminence -- The threat must be right here, right now rather than a potential one somewhere else or in the future.
• Proportionality -- Defense using deadly force is reserved for credible, imminent threats of deadly force.
• Reasonableness -- Would a reasonable investigating officer / prosecutor / juror agree that your fear was justified?
• Avoidance -- If you have a safe alternative to fighting, use it.

The only thing Stand Your Ground does is eliminate Avoidance and that only if you have the right to be there and are not doing anything illegal. In practice it doesn't make that much difference. Castle Doctrine is Stand Your Ground inside your home. Avoidance is not required if none of the alternatives to fighting are completely safe. For example, it might be safer to run away from an armed robber but, since he could shoot you in the back or chase you down and stab you, it doesn't constitute a safe alternative.

 

[old lady new shooter]

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article158334209.html

Colorado jury acquits Army Green Beret who killed intruder

2015 case. Two years spent with a prison term hanging over his head. It's anyone's guess as to how much money it cost to stay out of prison.

I know nothing about the circumstances of the shooting. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that despite the stand your ground law, this man was prosecuted when the forensic evidence made it look like it wasn't a legal use of lethal force.

3 shots in the back.

 

[Jeff White]

Three shots in the back don't necessarily make it a bad shoot.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Three shots in the back don't necessarily make it a bad shoot.

No, but it makes it look like it might not really be self defense, i.e. raises the question of how much of a threat there is from a person facing away from you. As you said in your original post, "the forensic evidence made it look like it wasn't a legal use of lethal force."

 

[alsaqr]

The intruder was killed in the detached garage. Therefore the prosecutor claimed the law did not apply.


http://kdvr.com/2017/06/27/jury-finds-army-green-beret-who-killed-intruder-not-guilty/