Here in the northeast, the communists, oops, I mean the liberals really cracked down on what you're allowed to defend your home with. In a few years I wouldn't be surprised if they narrow it down to a slingshot and rock throwing.
Broke, Living In A Basement, With "Negative Savings": This Is What Millennials Spend Their Money On
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
I believe there are 1 or 2 states where you are required by law to run from a threat.
How about that? YOU ARE THE POTENTIAL VICTIM AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO TRY TO RETREAT FROM THE CONFLICT? What? The gun/knife toting perp has rights which supersede yours to defend yourself?
There are four states (Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Vermont) plus the District of Columbia where you are required to retreat in your own home and have no Castle Law protections.
California, probably. There was a story I remember (Scat, check your blood pressure meds) about a thief that was on the roof of a house, and fell through the sky light. He sued for injuries...and won. Only in California.
Nebraska does not require you to retreat in your own home. That's false.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Nebraska-Gun-Laws.htm
I don't know about the other states you mention, but I have doubts that you are required to retreat in your own home.
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/07/22/5-things-to-know-about-stand-your-ground-in-california
Think the George Zimmerman verdict couldn’t have happened under California law? Not necessarily. Florida may have a so-called “stand-your-ground” policy written into its laws, but it is possible that a California jury under very similar circumstances could have also handed down an acquittal.
KQED’s Joshua Johnson discussed California’s stand-your-ground defense with Professor Rory Little of the UC Hastings College of the Law. From that conversation, here are five things to know about how California handles stand-your-ground defenses:
1) Neither California’s constitution nor its statutes contains a stand-your-ground law. They have what’s known as a “castle doctrine” (California Penal Code Section 198.5), granting a justification for deadly force inside one’s residence. If someone forces his or her way into your home, and you have a “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury,” then you would be justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.
2) Even though it’s not in the law, the California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) do allow a jury to acquit someone based on a stand-your-ground defense. The instruction appears in CALCRIM #505and #506, both of which deal with justifiable homicide:
“A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”
So in California, not only could you stay and fight, you can even chase your attacker if it will neutralize the threat to your life.
3) California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. Aggressors are not eligible for this — you must be defending, not striking first. You, as a reasonable person, would have to believe the danger is imminent and not a threat at some time in the future. Also, you had to have believed that deadly force was necessary, and you had to have used just enough force to defend yourself. However, a defendant does not have to be correct about having actually been in danger. A jury can acquit if they think the defendant reasonably believed that mortal danger was truly there.
4) The legal precedents that established this jury instruction are very old: cases like People v. Hecker in 1895 and People v. Newcomer in 1897. Hecker says you may stand your ground if it’s safer than retreating, but Newcomer changed that by removing the need to retreat (or “fly,” as the ruling said). These precedents have been cited over and over, but the state has never actually settled the question of whether stand your ground is legal in the modern era.
“Over a hundred years ago, the California Supreme Court said, ‘no duty to retreat if you’re in your home,'” says UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little. “‘We’re going to leave open whether there’s such a duty if you’re outside of the home.’ That little leaving-open has never been firmly answered by the California Supreme Court. They simply repeat the same broad language over and over again.”
5) To those assessing stand-your-ground laws based on the Zimmerman trial, some have complained that Zimmerman never actually invoked the law, even though it seems to have helped his acquittal. In California, as in Florida, a defense team does not have to actually invoke it: the judge is responsible for giving the jury this instruction on his or her own if the facts of the case warrant it.
Think the George Zimmerman verdict couldn’t have happened under California law? Not necessarily. Florida may have a so-called “stand-your-ground” policy written into its laws, but it is possible that a California jury under very similar circumstances could have also handed down an acquittal.
KQED’s Joshua Johnson discussed California’s stand-your-ground defense with Professor Rory Little of the UC Hastings College of the Law. From that conversation, here are five things to know about how California handles stand-your-ground defenses:
1) Neither California’s constitution nor its statutes contains a stand-your-ground law. They have what’s known as a “castle doctrine” (California Penal Code Section 198.5), granting a justification for deadly force inside one’s residence. If someone forces his or her way into your home, and you have a “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury,” then you would be justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.
2) Even though it’s not in the law, the California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) do allow a jury to acquit someone based on a stand-your-ground defense. The instruction appears in CALCRIM #505and #506, both of which deal with justifiable homicide:
“A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”
So in California, not only could you stay and fight, you can even chase your attacker if it will neutralize the threat to your life.
3) California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. Aggressors are not eligible for this — you must be defending, not striking first. You, as a reasonable person, would have to believe the danger is imminent and not a threat at some time in the future. Also, you had to have believed that deadly force was necessary, and you had to have used just enough force to defend yourself. However, a defendant does not have to be correct about having actually been in danger. A jury can acquit if they think the defendant reasonably believed that mortal danger was truly there.
4) The legal precedents that established this jury instruction are very old: cases like People v. Hecker in 1895 and People v. Newcomer in 1897. Hecker says you may stand your ground if it’s safer than retreating, but Newcomer changed that by removing the need to retreat (or “fly,” as the ruling said). These precedents have been cited over and over, but the state has never actually settled the question of whether stand your ground is legal in the modern era.
“Over a hundred years ago, the California Supreme Court said, ‘no duty to retreat if you’re in your home,'” says UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little. “‘We’re going to leave open whether there’s such a duty if you’re outside of the home.’ That little leaving-open has never been firmly answered by the California Supreme Court. They simply repeat the same broad language over and over again.”
5) To those assessing stand-your-ground laws based on the Zimmerman trial, some have complained that Zimmerman never actually invoked the law, even though it seems to have helped his acquittal. In California, as in Florida, a defense team does not have to actually invoke it: the judge is responsible for giving the jury this instruction on his or her own if the facts of the case warrant it.
I once lived in a 9000 sq ft single level home full of art work, had two mercedes and belonged to several social clubs--- and I was broke at the time. Does this apply to me? surf
That's Libtards for you.
If push comes to shove, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
5 years ago I never gave a thought to having to defend myself/home with a weapon. Now, I've got guns scattered around the house and am teaching wifey how to handle a gun and put shots on target. How should this have ever become necessary??
What the Hell happened to our country??
"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."
"Castle Doctrine
Nebraska does not have a castle doctrine law. With the exception of inside one’s own home, state law requires a duty to retreat before citizens can protect themselves against violence. Reasonable retreat is not required inside the home."
"Efforts to pass a castle law in Nebraska have met with opposition and failed to clear the state legislature. The proposed castle law would remove the duty to retreat anytime a person falls victim to a violent crime in any place that person has a right to be. It would also provide civil immunity for persons who use deadly force in such circumstances. The bill has the backing of the National Rifle Association."
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Nebraska-Gun-Laws.htm
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Nebraska-Gun-Laws.htm
Yes, before the passage of the 2012 law, if you shot someone in your home you were automatically indicted in Nebraska. Since the 2012 law, it is up to law enforcement if you are indicted - which occurs above 75% of the time. Bottom line - while the 2012 law improved the situation in Nebraska, the state still does not have a functioning Castle Law. If you shoot a criminal in your home your are likely to be indicted, and you have not protection from civil suits for defending yourself in your home.