Self defense

[tbburg]

The topic comes up regularly in one form or another; best gun to own, tactics, whatnot.

So,.. , I read an article this morning, and the two lines that stick in my mind:

was in her kitchen, with her daughter upstairs, when she spotted people peering into her window just after midnight on Friday.

She grabbed a knife and banged the windows before they ran away.

Hertfordshire Police officers warned Klass she should not have used a knife to scare off the teens because carrying an "offensive weapon" - even in her own home - was illegal,...(bold print mine)

and then, at the end of the article, this:

...,In December, Munir Hussain was jailed for attacking a man who tied up his family in their home. He and his brother used a cricket bat to beat one of the intruders.

The two incidents are unrelated. The article writer seems to have thrown this random tidbit in to show how badly things turn out when people defend themselves or something I guess. It had nothing to do with the article, other then someone defending themselves in their home.
Quoted article
Anyway, I don't even know what the point of this post is, maybe "no mater how f***ed up our government is, there's a lot worse out there."

Discuss:
(or argue,..)

 

[RichP]

That had to be in England, nobody it more fawked up than Great Brit is.

 

[RTicUL8]

:thumbup:

Screw a tazer... go with this:

 

[GrimmJeeper]

i prefer a set of these

can't bust you for carrying your own fists

 

[AIbandit]

can't bust you for carrying your own fists

No but you can be shot.
Simple cure, if yours and your family's lives are important to you live in a state with the "Castle law".

 

[Audiophile]

One of my wife's co-workers was stabbed through his hand and into his chest by a teenager trying to break into his garage, they only got away with the fishing knife he was stabbed with.

 

[5-90]

OP - Cite locations of incidents, please.

 

[ECKSJAY]

OP - Cite locations of incidents, please.

The article is in his post, Jon... :wave:

 

[CherBear]

No but you can be shot.
Simple cure, if yours and your family's lives are important to you live in a state with the "Castle law".

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes
- Wiki

 

[5-90]

The article is in his post, Jon... :wave:

Yeah - but I click on enough links as it is. If you want an informed opinion, try to present as much information as possible without our having to go look for it, y'know?

England? Yeah - their self-defence and weapons laws are getting more and more stupid. And I think California has been using them as a model...

 

[MT Mike]

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes
- Wiki

You left Montana off that list. http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/castle_doctrine_law_already_altering_justice_proceedings/13152/
Montana's law expands on the typical Castle doctrine quite a bit.

 

[AIbandit]

Washington does too

RCW 9A.16.050

 

[tbburg]

Yeah - but I click on enough links as it is. If you want an informed opinion, try to present as much information as possible without our having to go look for it, y'know?

I probably should hav included at least country and location information. My mistake.

England? Yeah - their self-defense and weapons laws are getting more and more stupid. And I think California has been using them as a model...

Yeah, it was England.

Does anybody know off the top of your head if Massachusetts still has their "duty to retreat" crap on the books?

 

[alex22]

Connecticut is also a castle state.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

 

[AIbandit]

Does anybody know off the top of your head if Massachusetts still has their "duty to retreat" crap on the books?

CHAPTER 278. TRIALS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGMENT

Chapter 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

 

[WB9YZU]

Wisconsin has a "Right to defense" Clause. It is a set of statutes that, at the best, are convoluted. The break down as follows.

* You have the right to defend yourself or another person from "interference". You do not have to retreat.

* You may not protect property with lethal force.

* In defense of said interference you may only use no greater force than the attacker. To justify lethal force, you must have no where to retreat to, be afraid for your life or person, or feel that no lesser force will stop the assalt.

* If the attacker retreats, or indicates his withdrawl from the altercation, the fight is over- period. If the person attacks again, the fight becomes a new one and the chain of proof starts again.

In practice: An incident that happened in Madison this last summer. Home alone was the adult son of the home owner, his vehicle was in the garage. An intruder with a history of home intrusions entered the home forcebly durring the daylight hours. The intruder climbed the stairs where the Son was, and was met by a blast from the Son's shotgun. No words were exchanged that the Son could recall afterwards, the intruder was DOA and was unavailable for comment. The incident was treated as a case of justifiable homicide. The reason: Self Defense. This caused a lot of inquiries about the statutes and many wondered why no charges were filed against the owners Son. The DA concluded that there was no way the Son could have known the type of force that the intruder was prepaired to use, and that his mere presence and intrusion on the Son's space ( The intruder climbed the stairs and there was no where to for the Son to retreat to) justified his used of deadly force against the intruder. Since there were no witnesses to give a different accounting of the attack, there was no where to go with it.

There is a lesson here that is bundled in between the lines of the statutes: If you are faced with a case of Home Intrusion, and the act meets one of the definitions for the use of lethal force, and you discharge your weapon...make sure the offender is dead. Otherwise you will face a lawsuit - by the intruder.

Ron

 

[kastein]

CHAPTER 278. TRIALS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGMENT

Chapter 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

This seems almost too logical for Massachusetts, are you sure?

 

[Ironmen77]

We also have Sec. D here. Do other states have this?​

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.​

B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she 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.

 

[MG2000XJ]

Maryland has something but Im no law buff. Am I correct in saying that MD has something similar to the Castle Doctrine? The bill passed can be seen here:

http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/hb/hb0332t.pdf

 

[Capt. Nemo]

We also have Sec. D here. Do other states have this?​

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.​

B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she 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.

Arizona's is similar. I won't rehash it here, but if the curious want to check it out, it is ARS 13-4 "Justification": (Click on "Next Document" to continue reading the section)

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00401.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

Castle State indeed