YAGT: Stand your ground law...

[CLite]

North Carolina.

But in December '11 we switched to SYG laws.

Mine's not, or wasn't, the only state with strict retreat laws.

Many have dumped them because they were problematic.

Fern

Nope

North Carolina General Statutes § 14-51.1 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder

Legal Research Home > North Carolina Lawyer

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)

Now that I ruled out NC, please provide a link to a single state that required you to retreat from your home. It's always been a strawman to promote SYG.

*edit* link to firearm board where a guy says in a 2009 post that CCW instructor stated you are allowed to shoot intruders in your home. http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f17/castle-doctrine-nc-19069/#post174146

 

[Ninjahedge]

Bottom line is simple.

SYG is too liberally worded and limits the power of law enforcement. When you have terms like "feel your life is in danger" it is up to a lot of interpretation.

When that law not only ties the cops hands, but eliminates and civil recourse (such as, I think, Wrongful Death?). It is just too vague and too easily abused.

If they want it, they need to constrain it or, legally, just about any serious fight is justified in ending in death.

 

[Fern]

What? You said:



I am saying I don't know of a single State that when someone breaks into your house you are required to go out the back door, through a window.

Please provide a single link to a state that requires that?

Here.

Read the introduction. This is a paper by a law professor citing a responsibility to retreat from your home etc.

http://scholarship.law.marquette.ed...e north carolina duty retreat from your home"

MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW
I. INTRODUCTION
Her husband was dead on the floor of their home. She had shot him
after a violent argument, and now the jury was asked to determine
whether it was murder or self-defense.' During closing argument, the prosecutor emphasized what the state believed was the critical legal point: Under the law, the jury could not consider the killing justifiable "unless [the defendant] had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, including fleeing from [her] home."2 The prosecutor continuedid she do that? No. Did she use the phone that was two feet away? No. Did she go out the door where her baby was sitting next to? [sic] No. Did she get in the car that she had driven all over town drinking and boozing it up all day? No.3 The prosecution obtained a second degree murder conviction against Kathleen Weiand in the killing of her husband Todd, bolstered in part by a traditional duty to retreat jury instruction that stated: "The fact that that
the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify her use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating she could have avoided the need to use that force."4

Fern

 

[blankslate]

Read the introduction. This is a paper by a law professor citing a responsibility to retreat from your home etc. http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu...your%20home%22

The complicating factor here is that she shot her spouse not a complete stranger who broke into her home.

There's all sorts of complications that come into play because of that. If he was physical then his behavior was inexcusable. He should've been the first one to walk away during an argument. The fact that he lived there too is an obvious difference between that shooting and a shooting that occurs when some stranger breaks into your house.

 

[Fern]

The complicating factor here is that she shot her spouse not a complete stranger who broke into her home.
-snip-

No.

Read more of it.

The legal paper is a comparison of Duty to Retreat Laws versus Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine is what eliminates the duty to retreat from your home under the general retreat laws.

Because of problems etc like those discussed in the paper many retreat states modified their laws to add the Castle Doctrine. Prior to such modification you had a duty to retreat from even your home. Many states (about 24 or so) have gone to switch to SYG.

Point being, the Duty to Retreat even in your home is an actual law. I know my state changed. But I'm not going to look through the other 49 (+ Washington DC) to see who, if any, still have the Retreat Law (unmodified by the Castle Doctrine)

Fern

 

[blankslate]

Self-defense is usually an affirmative defense. This, OTOH, legalizes murder. I walk up to you and shoot you in the head. "He came at me." = Immune from prosecution. As long as there are no living witnesses (just shoot them all and claim they came at you), you get off scott free.

Even if there is a surveillance tape and you have chased down the person a block or so you can get away scott-free.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html

Judge Beth Bloom threw out the murder charge against a man who chased a car burglar for more than a block and then stabbed him, killing him.

Greyston Garcia was charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Pedro Roteta, 26, whom he chased for more than a block before stabbing the man.

​

The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio.
Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.
The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.
After initially denying involvement in the man’s death, Garcia admitted to homicide detectives that he attacked Roteta even though “he actually never saw a weapon.”


Garcia claimed Roteta made a move that he interpreted as a move to stab him — so he struck first.

Here is another article on the same event that has even further details about what Garcia did after the stabbing.


http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

Bloom acknowledged in her order that Garcia did not call police or 911, but went home and fell asleep. He later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife. Those actions, however, did not sway the judge in ruling in favor of his self-defense claim.

Now, the car burglar isn't an innocent party and I'd say he deserved an ass whupping but when you just kill someone with a knife then don't call the police afterwards and make a profit on the other stolen property then you've just become another guilty party.

The law has too much latitude.

Agreed. The above case is the most recent outrageous case that happened that is not in the public eye.


There was another one a few years ago in which Florida Power and Light workers went to a residence and climbed a fence (which they are legally allowed to do on the job) to either turn off the power or get the payment from the home owner.


When they knocked on the door they were confronted by an armed man who pointed his firearm at them and scared them off. The home owner could've been charged with one or two relatively minor felonies because the people he pointed a weapon at weren't breaking the law. However, the judge dismissed them on SYG.


While it might be desirable to extent castle laws out into public spaces in Florida the law is too vague in some areas is cases like the one I mentioned happen.


At least in Florida the SYG law needs to be tightened up.

 

[blankslate]

No. Read more of it. The legal paper is a comparison of Duty to Retreat Laws versus Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine is what eliminates the duty to retreat from your home under the general retreat laws.

The paper does bring up the problem of cohabitation

Debate over the Castle Doctrine's
applicability to cohabitants and invited guests, it appears, is generated
by three competing and intersecting policies. First, there remains the overriding desire to protect the sanctity of life whenever possible.
Second, and in seeming conflict, is the principled belief that the sanctity
of one's home must be recognized, even in the face of loss of life.
Third, and possibly the most problematic, is the degree of importance
that should be attached to the shared property rights of the parties
involved in the deadly encounter.

further down it address it more when the other person involved is not a stranger but another person living there.

Therefore, as against a deadly cohabitant with equal possessory rights,
courts that support the duty to retreat hold that the protection of
sanctity of life outweighs the slight risk of peril that such flight may
bring. In creating a cohabitant exception to the Castle Doctrine, these
courts found that the reasonableness of retreat significantly outweighs
the Castle Doctrine's applicability in the home.

 

[CLite]

Here.

Read the introduction. This is a paper by a law professor citing a responsibility to retreat from your home etc.

http://scholarship.law.marquette.ed...e north carolina duty retreat from your home"



Fern

Oh come on, it's a domestic dispute case in which both people are homeowners. I quoted actual NC law that stated you don't have to retreat from your home from an intruder and you link this case?

This case was actually Florida in 1999 which had castle doctrine. Domestic cases are always going to be weird with regards to intrusion/justification/etc. Having tried to read up a little more on that specific case it appears the argument was a protracted one and that Weiand didn't use the gun in the heat of the moment but rather post-argument.

Now I'm not going to assert that Weiand's husband didn't perhaps get what he deserved, but you are citing an area of the code that has traditionally been very fuzzy and trying to say it applies to all home intruder situations which is categorically false.

 

[CLite]

No.

Read more of it.

The legal paper is a comparison of Duty to Retreat Laws versus Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine is what eliminates the duty to retreat from your home under the general retreat laws.

Because of problems etc like those discussed in the paper many retreat states modified their laws to add the Castle Doctrine. Prior to such modification you had a duty to retreat from even your home. Many states (about 24 or so) have gone to switch to SYG.

No, the entire issue is the co-habitation and whether the defendant was in imminent danger. By having an intruder you are justified to fear for your life and feel that you are in imminent danger, not a single state requires you to run from a burglar.

The state of Florida did not feel Weiand should have feared for her life in imminent danger based on the evidence at the scene of the crime. She may have been married to an abusive asshole, but that doesn't mean she should have legal right to shoot him instead of just leaving him and filing charges with the appropriate authorities.

 

[Fern]

The paper does bring up the problem of cohabitation
-snip-

Yes, I understand that.

I also understand that, in general, cohabitation can be a complication. In fact, it's a complicating factor in SYG laws.

This paper discusses the theory behind retreat laws, including that of retreating from your home.

My point is, that at times Retreat Laws, sans the Castle Doctrine element, were in vogue and they required retreat even in your home.

IMO, if no state currently requires retreat while in your home I'll be happy. When I took the CC permit class dealing with the law, I was not happy about the duty to retreat from my home. I didn't have that big of a problem from retreating in public, but my home? In any case we've changed.

IIRC, in North Carolina the Democrats have held of (state) Congress for something like 100 years until the election of 2010 when the Repubs won big and took control. I've little doubt this is the only reason we've switched to SYG. I imagine we'll eventually switch back to Dem control and I wouldn't be surprised to see SYG laws replaced with Retreat + Castle.

Fern

 

[CLite]

This paper discusses the theory behind retreat laws, including that of retreating from your home.

Did you even read the paper? The entire paper focuses on the issue of the complicating factor of co-habitation. Honestly please just read the paper you linked, every time it talks about "imposition of mandatory duty to retreat" it's in a paragraph regarding co-habitation.

I. Introduction

page 659-

"the nineteenth Century when the Castle Doctrine's privilege of non-retreat was established".

"This Article will argue that jurisdictions that have adopted the cohabitant exception have improperly rejected the Castle Doctrine where a cohabitant is the initial deadly aggressor. Case language suggests that the duty to retreat is compelled by the desire to preserve the lives of parties who share the same household. However, the rulings are, in reality, occasioned by the courts' reliance on formal and abstract principles of property rights to the exclusion of competing property interest that value the individual's personal safety and security in the sanctuary. And whether by design or coincidence, the effect of these rulings is to rob intimates who are faced with violence of their basic and fundamental right of self-defense.

Part II of this Article will describe the competing policies at play in the Castle Doctrine's application to cohabitants.........

Part II of this Article will advance the position that the cohabitant exception is a formalistic and flawed effort.....................

You have to understand common law dating back to the 1800's lets you defend yourself in a home from an intruder. This entire paper is analyzing the complication of co-habitation.

The idea that you have to run from burglars is a strawman pushed by the NRA. Please find a single case of a state requiring someone to run from a burglar *in their home*, a single one.

 

[Lithium381]

Heh, I mistyped the bolded section you quoted. I did not meant to type 'might shoot you', not sure why I did. I simply meant if someone gets aggressive/argumentative and you shoot him, that's not necessarily warranted. Now certainly it could be, but if everyone got shot for getting slightly aggressive with someone, we'd have a whole hell of a lot of dead people.

i enjoy arguments so long as they're civil and non-violent.

Let me make this point another way. Have you NEVER got in a fight? EVER? Just think about it. If you've ever been in a fight in your life, under your way of thinking, you'd be dead.

Like i said i avoid confrontation whenever possible, last fight i was in was 12 years ago when i was in highschool, i made eye contact with a thuglet and he thought it was a challenge. that's it.

And... I might add... The CA resident can still be sued in civil court for wounding the perp or for wrongful death by the perp's family... even if ruled in self defense.... and that is after the costs of the attorney for the self defense guidance.

Right now if I shoot and or kill someone in self defense... In NC I can look at Thousands in legal fees until it is ruled self defense... and that is what is wrong with the system.

i don't understand, what is a "wrongful death" if someone attacked you and you used force to defend yourself. is the argument that you "could have avoided killing them" by some means?

North Carolina.

But in December '11 we switched to SYG laws.

Mine's not, or wasn't, the only state with strict retreat laws.

Many have dumped them because they were problematic.

Fern

strict retreat (which i found out i DON'T have!!! ) would be very problematic for me, since i'm not on the first floor and i have a small child so i can't exactly jump out the window with her.

 

[Lithium381]

IMO, if no state currently requires retreat while in your home I'll be happy. When I took the CC permit class dealing with the law, I was not happy about the duty to retreat from my home. I didn't have that big of a problem from retreating in public, but my home? In any case we've changed.

IIRC, in North Carolina the Democrats have held of (state) Congress for something like 100 years until the election of 2010 when the Repubs won big and took control. I've little doubt this is the only reason we've switched to SYG. I imagine we'll eventually switch back to Dem control and I wouldn't be surprised to see SYG laws replaced with Retreat + Castle.

Fern

I hear you, giving the criminal more rights in your home is just ridiculous. it's where the stories come from that if someone breaks into your home you're required to help them carry your stuff to their van to avoid lawsuits . . . glad your state came to its senses

 

[CLite]

I hear you, giving the criminal more rights in your home is just ridiculous. it's where the stories come from that if someone breaks into your home you're required to help them carry your stuff to their van to avoid lawsuits . . . glad your state came to its senses

Common law dating back to the 1800's gives you more rights in your home than an intruding criminal. Please stop repeating strawman lies.

 

[Lithium381]

Common law dating back to the 1800's gives you more rights in your home than an intruding criminal. Please stop repeating strawman lies.

why would i have to run away? the criminal has more rights to be there than i do, as HE has no duty to retreat.

even if he is tresspassing and gets injured while breaking into my home, I'm responsible for his injuries?

if he breaks into my house and steals a gun and shoots someone, *I'M* responsible for the death, even though he broke about 6 laws to make it come to that point? Tresspassing, breaking and entering, theft, larceny, shooting someone, death, not to mention brandishing a firearm and such . . . .

if i attempt to remove him from my home i could be sued in civil court for his injuries ?

makes it sound like i'm a criminal

 

[CLite]

why would i have to run away? the criminal has more rights to be there than i do, as HE has no duty to retreat.

even if he is tresspassing and gets injured while breaking into my home, I'm responsible for his injuries?

if he breaks into my house and steals a gun and shoots someone, *I'M* responsible for the death, even though he broke about 6 laws to make it come to that point? Tresspassing, breaking and entering, theft, larceny, shooting someone, death, not to mention brandishing a firearm and such . . . .

if i attempt to remove him from my home i could be sued in civil court for his injuries ?

makes it sound like i'm a criminal

You have no duty to retreat from your home from a burglar, this dates back to common law established in the 1800's. Stop with the fucking lies.

The only issue of duty to retreat in your own home has to do with co-habitation when both parties have sanctuary in the home. You will not be able to find a single case of someone being convicted for not retreating from a burglar.

Stop repeating lies.........

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Originally Posted by NC law - 1993
North Carolina General Statutes § 14-51.1 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder

Legal Research Home > North Carolina Lawyer

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)

If the above is old NC law, can you please tell me how to find it.

I cant find anything other than states' current laws, and that's difficult

Fern

 

[CLite]

If the above is old NC law, can you please tell me how to find it.

I cant find anything other than states' current laws, and that's difficult

Fern

You have to look for the statue number ( NC 14-51.1) , so you have to know of it in advance. I found an off-reference to it and was able to track it down.

Honestly Fern if you just read the Marquette paper it says succinctly that common law since the nineteenth century (1800's) has let you defend your home from an intruder. It then goes on to debate the co-habitation exemption, which is a fair enough debate, but secondary to the idea that you have to run from an burglar.

I have tracked about 4 cases down that pro-gun sites link, and they are all co-habitation or one was a bizarre case where two brothers threatened to kill each-other, both went to get guns and they both met-up and started shooting each-other, one died and other was charged for not avoiding the confrontation.

I really don't think you are going to find a single case of someone criminally charged for not running from a burglar, or at least I haven't seen a single reference to one.

 

[Fern]

Yeah, I see more clearly now that paper is devoted primarily to cohabitation laws.

As regards that old state law - never mind. I found the site you used by googling your reference.

Fern

 

[Cuda1447]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

It's dated but the statistics are still valid. I get plenty of value out of them, even if you don't.

As for the rest of your diatribe, it sounds like you are basing your entire opinion on what you read on this forum. Your "interaction" with CCW holders is blindly based on nothing as a matter of fact. Reading and typing words on an internet forum to base your opinion of CCW holders in general is laughable. Almost as laughable as shooting down statistics and then in the very next breath making up some of your own and putting them on a pedestal as somehow valid.

WackyDan said it best,

I don't know why you 'quote' my interaction, as if it hasn't existed. As I mentioned, I'm fairly certain I have more experience with this subject than most in this thread. My opinion is not based on reading things on the internet, but interacting with literally hundreds, if not thousands of CCW holders.

 

[Cuda1447]

how many CCW holder do you know IRL? yea, that's what I thought, and basing your opinion on an entire group of people based on internet forums is such a bright idea, I think I should go base my opinion on all white peoples based on what I see on stormfront too!

Man, it's hard not to troll a post as ignorantly written as yours cuda

I'm not sure why post is considered trolling. You were right to ask how many people I know IRL that are CCW holders, but then went completely dick-face when you assumed you knew teh answer before I responded.


To answer your question. How many people do I know really really well that are CCW holders? I'd say probably 30ish. How many people have I dealt with regarding this specific subject? Hundreds, maybe even thousands. You see, I used to work for one of the largest CCW training schools in the country. I know the type of person I am talking about because I interacted with them on a daily basis. One of my good friends is a national training counselor for the NRA and I have a lot of other friends who are certified instructors. I have taken the CCW class myself and have observed many others.


Hopefully I've proved my credentials to you. My opinion is not based just on reading arguments on forums or watching Fox news. It's based on real, meaningful, direct interaction with CCW students, instructors and many other related people in the industry, on a daily basis.

What is your experience based on?

 

[irishScott]

..

 

[irishScott]

I'm not sure why post is considered trolling. You were right to ask how many people I know IRL that are CCW holders, but then went completely dick-face when you assumed you knew teh answer before I responded.


To answer your question. How many people do I know really really well that are CCW holders? I'd say probably 30ish. How many people have I dealt with regarding this specific subject? Hundreds, maybe even thousands. You see, I used to work for one of the largest CCW training schools in the country. I know the type of person I am talking about because I interacted with them on a daily basis. One of my good friends is a national training counselor for the NRA and I have a lot of other friends who are certified instructors. I have taken the CCW class myself and have observed many others.


Hopefully I've proved my credentials to you. My opinion is not based just on reading arguments on forums or watching Fox news. It's based on real, meaningful, direct interaction with CCW students, instructors and many other related people in the industry, on a daily basis.

What is your experience based on?

Your argument is essentially the gun-grabber's argument of "wild west gunfights in the streets" phrased more eloquently. When you produce some proof that concealed carry permit holders are, en masse, provoking fights and otherwise producing needless killings on a large scale, then you'd have a point.

Unfortunately the current statistics available show that concealed carry permit holders convicted of any serious crime are extremely low (<1% of respective crime in most cases). I reference the statistics of the government of Texas.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

 

[Cuda1447]

Your argument is essentially the gun-grabber's argument of "wild west gunfights in the streets" phrased more eloquently. When you produce some proof that concealed carry permit holders are, en masse, provoking fights and otherwise producing needless killings on a large scale, then you'd have a point.

Unfortunately the current statistics available show that concealed carry permit holders convicted of any serious crime are extremely low. I reference the statistics of the government of Texas.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

I appreciate the statistics, and I acknowledge that guns in general are not a bad thing. I think there is a very fine line though. I don't think that we are going to have a wild west situation. I never said we would. What I am saying is that, as we make CCW holders more comfortable with using their gun in public and making them more comfortable with exercising this power, we are going to have more and more mistakes. I think that a lot of people don't take carrying a weapon seriously enough and WAAAY to quick to use that power. This thread is perfect evidence of that, by people stating they would draw and shoot someone who is simply verbally abusive to them. I asked a question to someone about whether or not they had ever been in a fight. I think the vast majority of us have been in fights at school. We probably wouldn't ever be at risk of being shot at the age of 12 for a school yard scrap. But I'm sure a good portion of us have gotten into a physical altercation, if even minor, after the age of 18.

I'm a very peaceful person, but when I was younger at work one day a co-worker got on my nerves pretty badly. He was a very big guy and he put his hands on me. I instinctively reacted and shoved his ass really hard, knocking him into a shelf. I probably overreacted, but my point is that stuff like that can happen to ANYONE. Luckily it didn't get out of hand and we went our other ways, but for a few moments it was very tense and could have escalated to a full on shoving/wrestling match and possibly even exchanged punches. Had that occurred it would have sucked, especially since we are at work. But neither of us deserved to die for that. People in this thread are stating that, given ANY physical confrontation, they should have a right to shoot and kill someone else.

I think that is 100%, completely fucking messed up. Shit happens. People get in fights. People get in arguments. People get in shoving matches. Emotions run high and people make bad decisions. That doesn't mean that all of these people should be shot and killed and NO ONE will ever convince me of this fact.


*edit* Let me make one other point clear:

My concern does not lie with those who are violent criminals. If shit happens and you should/kill someone who is robbing/raping/murdering/drug dealing etc... and one of those situations puts in in fear for your life, then fine, shoot to kill.

My concern lies with those everyday people. Me and you. People who have a traffic ticket, or shoplifted a candy bar when they were 16. The people that make up 90% of our population. Because anyone of us could find ourselves in a situation where we do something out of the ordinary, or we get in a fight/heated argument.

 

[Cuda1447]

Unfortunately the current statistics available show that concealed carry permit holders convicted of any serious crime are extremely low (<1% of respective crime in most cases). I reference the statistics of the government of Texas.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

I just took a look at the statistics you linked to. Again, I am not saying that all CCW holders are going around committing crimes.... but, your statistics don't really prove anything.

So those reports show that out of all the crimes committed only .5 percent (or whatever, depending on the category) were committed by a CCW holder. Seems like a low number, but not when you consider the fact that only 1.8% of Texas has CCW's. So of ALL the citizens, only 1.8% can even fall within this category. Of course the number is going to be low. You don't have that many people, relatively speaking, that could even commit a crime and fall within that report.