States allow deadly self-defense

[PinnedAndRecessed]

A year after Florida became the first state to allow citizens to use deadly force against muggers, carjackers and other attackers, the idea is spreading. South Dakota has enacted a similar law, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels plans to sign such a measure today, and 15 other states are considering such proposals.


Dubbed "Stand Your Ground" bills by supporters such as the National Rifle Association, the measures generally grant immunity from prosecution and lawsuits to those who use deadly force to combat any unlawful entry or attack. Several states allow people to use deadly force in their homes against intruders; the new measures represent an expansion of self-defense rights to crimes committed in public.

The NRA and other supporters say the bills are needed in many states that require people under attack in public places to withdraw from the situation, rather than retaliate, unless they can show their lives are in danger. "For someone attacked by criminals to be victimized a second time by a second-guessing legal system is wrong," the NRA's Wayne LaPierre says.

Critics, including the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, say the bills encourage vigilantism and would make it more likely that confrontations would turn deadly. Zach Ragbourn of the Brady group says the proposals "are more accurately called 'Shoot First' laws. They allow a person who just feels something bad is going to happen to open fire in public."

The idea that people should use deadly force only to defend their lives is rooted in English common law, author Richard Maxwell Brown says in No Duty To Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society. Another common law principle, the "duty to retreat," requires people to avoid potentially deadly confrontations. The principles apply in most states. The duty to retreat generally doesn't apply in a person's home.

LaPierre says the NRA is targeting 29 duty-to-retreat states where people can be prosecuted, sued or both if they don't retreat from criminal attacks.

Ragbourn says the proposals aim to "fix a system that isn't broken. People aren't being thrown into jail for legitimate self-defense. There's no crisis here."

Florida's law could be facing its first test. Donald Montanez, owner of a Tampa towing company, is charged with murder in the shooting of a man whose car was impounded. Prosecutors say Montanez fired as the man drove off without paying a fee. Montanez's attorney, Roger Rigau, says the new law should protect Montanez, who feared being hit by the driver.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-20-states-self-defense_x.htm

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

Does anybody know whether or not Oklahoma approved this measure?

 

[El Tejon]

Indiana had this 140 years before Florida. We don't need this feckless piece of legislation and the Indiana Court of Appeals will play havoc with it.

Do not fix it if it is not broken!:banghead:

 

[Zen21Tao]

A year after Florida became the first state to allow citizens to use deadly force against muggers, carjackers and other attackers, the idea is spreading.

This is one of the most ridiculous thing I have every read. A person’s right to defend themselves is God given not a privileged granted by a state.

Critics, including the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, say the bills encourage vigilantism

How does not having to run “encourage vigilantism”? Do they really feel that CCW holders are going to run right out and LOOK for someone to victimize them?

and would make it more likely that confrontations would turn deadly.

Yeah… deadlier for criminals trying to victimize law abiding citizens. One has to ask just who the anti-crowd really supports. It sure as hell isn’t the innocent victim of a crime.

Zach Ragbourn of the Brady group says the proposals "are more accurately called 'Shoot First' laws. They allow a person who just feels something bad is going to happen to open fire in public."

No. It is a “right to shoot in self-defense before having to retreat” law not simply a "shoot first" law. If someone “thinks something bad is going to happen” because a minority member walks up to them and asks for a cigarette they can’t just shoot the person. But, if someone “thinks something bad is going to happen” because a guy has pulled out a knife and demanded that they take their cloths and please him in the alley way behind a dumpster then yes they can shoot him. In order for a person to be able to shoot prior to retreating there has to be an established threat present that without the now retreat law would been deem deadly force exceptible if the person was unable to reatreat. Again, the “no retreat” law doesn’t change the requirement necessary for justifying deadly force. The Brady groups use of the phrase “shoot first” to imply that the law does in fact relax the requirements that justify deadly force. They way they have to use deception to get and keep supporters is utterly pathetic.

 

[pax]

Good grief.

Florida was not the first state in the nation to have a "stand your ground" law -- not any more than it was the first state in the nation to enact a shall-issue CCW law.

I realize it makes good Floridians all warm & fuzzy and bad Floridians all panicked and stuff to think they lead the way on this type of legislation, but it just ain't so. Florida is just now getting what many states have had all along.

pax

 

[jd25q]

Consider the source, (USA Today). They assume that the liberal nation (as they perceive it) would rise up and fight any movement such as this if only they knew about it. Makes no difference to them if Florida was first, last, or otherwise. They say they were first to justify the story. Notice they also brought the NRA into it. That is also to rally the troops so to speak.

They live under the false impression that everyone agrees with their point of view.

 

[Sistema1927]

First state?

We have been standing our ground in New Mexico since before statehood in 1912.

 

[Fly320s]

Don't all states allow allow use of deadly force to protect one's self? I think that is true.

I think that Florida just clarified that a person is not required to run away when attacked, and that if necessary, a person may use force, upto and including deadly force, to defend himself.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

Don't all states allow allow use of deadly force to protect one's self? I think that is true.

IIRC, this law simply states that not only can one not be prosecuted for standing one's ground, but neither the perp nor the perp's family can sue the one (who stood their ground).

This has been explored in other threads and currently is part of Massad Ayoob's lectures. IIRC, a civil suit in many areas is probable. And one could expect to pay roughly $25,000 in legal fees. This law will eliminate that.

 

[Manedwolf]

IIRC, a civil suit in many areas is probable. And one could expect to pay roughly $25,000 in legal fees. This law will eliminate that.

THAT, to me, would be the overwhelming benefit? They talk about tort reform? How about, if you were judged to have made a justified shooting in self-defense, you CANNOT be subject to a civil suit from the lazy, money-grubbing "Oh, he was a good boy!" family that raised him badly?

That's one of the things I feel is most Not Right with the nation at present. That if you come to the aid of someone being attacked with deadly force, and kill the attacker, you are not a hero. You will have entered a world of legal hell and will lose a lot of the possessions you work hard for...so that they can be given to the shiftless family of a criminal.

 

[liberty911]

Agreed, the stand your ground legislation should be unnecessary because it merely reiterates a right found in nature, That aside, is there a break down listed somewhere of whether the states are incorporating a "subjective" or "objective" approach?

 

[c_yeager]

How many states even had a duty to retreat in the first place? Im pretty sure mine has never had any such thing. Heck, according the law around here there are situations in which you can shoot fleeing offenders in the back, although I wouldnt recomend testing that out these days.

Here is how use of force laws should be written, this is RCW 9A.16.050, the justifiable homicide law for Washington State;

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

Notice that the minimum standard is that the offender simply has to be in the process of commiting a felony, the statute does not indicate that the felony even has to be violent in nature (when it occurs in a place a lawful residence). Our law is that an honest citizen does *not* have to be a victim, period. In this state the use of deadly force as allowed by civilians is significantly more broad than the authority given to law enforcement, that is how it should be.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Oh, by the way, how's that terrible blood bath coming along in Florida since this new law was passed? Thousands dead? Hundreds of thousands, even?

 

[Desk Jockey]

I see that Colorado currently has a "Stand Your Ground" bill making it's way through the process. From what I can tell, it extends the current "Make My Day" protections against home intruders to include intruders on your vehicle or any "place of temporary lodging". It doesn't address getting mugged on the street, however.

Such laws should be unnecessary, but we live in a crazy world these days. I hope this one passes.

http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2006-billwatch.shtml

 

[Werewolf]

Does anybody know whether or not Oklahoma approved this measure?

Overwhelmingly passed the house last week. Sent to the Senate.

 

[Surefire]

My understanding is that in California, you HAVE to retreat if attacked (the exception being your own home), unless you are in danger of deadly force yourself. All except a couple counties don't have easy CCW anyway, so its kind of moot here.

No way would the people running this state accept a right to stand your ground law... California is all about helping the criminals life easier, and screwing over the law-abiding, IMO.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Zen21Tao said,

This is one of the most ridiculous thing I have every read. A person’s right to defend themselves is God given not a privileged granted by a state.

While you may feel God has given you this right, not everyone feels this way and God will not be a witness for you in court. In fact, you cannot even provide proof in court that God has given you this right. In other cases where people have claimed to be doing God's work or what God said was okay, God didn't speak for them either.

You can always cite the Bible, but then you have the problem of the Bible being inconsistently written from hearsay and inconsistently edited to reflect social values.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PinnedandRecessed, the article you cited didn't convey the point very well, especially by opening with saying it is the first state to allow lethal force self defense.

I seem to recall that it is NOT the first state to protect people from lawsuits in cases of self defense either.

Dubbed "Stand Your Ground" bills by supporters such as the National Rifle Association, the measures generally grant immunity from prosecution and lawsuits to those who use deadly force to combat any unlawful entry or attack. Several states allow people to use deadly force in their homes against intruders; the new measures represent an expansion of self-defense rights to crimes committed in public.

Obviously, countless states do not say you must retreat, either at home or in public, from a threat. Geez, the more you read of the article, the more stupid it sounds.

I am going to bet that the Stand Your Ground measures will NOT protect people from prosecution in self defense lethal force activities when there is any sort of doubt that the use of lethal force may have been for less than legal reasons or activities. This is due process. The person will be tried in court to determine whether s/he actually acted in self defense or not. If not, then the person isn't protected from prosecution. If so, the person is protected from prosecution only after enduring prosecution. The tautology is amazingly stupid for when events are not absolutely clear cut, well witnessed and documented such that the person engaged in the actual self defense activity is truly acting in self defense. For example, we get shootings in Dallas that are a result of drug deals gone bad. If caught, the person surviving claims self defense. The winners of gun fights never tell the police they just got mad at the other guy and decided he needed to die and so they did the job. If in Florida, would this keep the person from being prosecuted?

The Florida law may help in some cases and that is better than none, but it isn't an across the board protection from prosecution and litigation as being claimed.

And the article provides a classic example of just how useless this law will be.

Florida's law could be facing its first test. Donald Montanez, owner of a Tampa towing company, is charged with murder in the shooting of a man whose car was impounded. Prosecutors say Montanez fired as the man drove off without paying a fee. Montanez's attorney, Roger Rigau, says the new law should protect Montanez, who feared being hit by the driver.

Montanez is obviously claiming self defense in using his gun against the tow truck driver whom Montanez claims was trying to hit him with the vehicle.

Usually when you see a news article about something like this being so beneficial, they don't usually include an example of just how well it isn't going to work, but the Montanez case shows it. If the DA doesn't buy the self defense story such as in a case where details are sketchy or information conflicting, obviously, there will be prosecution. Charges have not been summarily dropped against Montanez simply because he claimed self defense.

Of course, after being prosecuted and found not-guilty, then the law will help Montanez in protecting him in civil court, which is good, but it won't happen until after the fun in criminal court.

 

[gunsmith]

surefire

I was under the impression that CA is a stand your ground state, only you can't get a ccw in the popluated areas

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

PinnedandRecessed, the article you cited didn't convey the point very well, especially by opening with saying it is the first state to allow lethal force self defense.

Yeah, take it up with the author. I merely posted a newspaper article for general interest.

 

[Surefire]

I was under the impression that CA is a stand your ground state, only you can't get a ccw in the popluated areas

That would truly shock me, because I recall reading about people being prosecuted and/or sued for fighting off attacks in this state. Maybe different jurisdictions do things differently... ?

 

[k_semler]

Relevent WA statutes. I can defend persons, and property by employment of lethal force if nessecary. There is no duty to retreat, and suing by the perpetrator or family thereof is not possible in cases dismissed in defense. Also, defense cases are completly paid for by the court.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.
(1986)


The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
(1975)

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.
(1995)

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:

answer yes or no
1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .
2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged? . . . . .