GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-13-2013, 22:50   #26
Bashful
Senior Member
 
Bashful's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baytown, Texas
Posts: 143
This specific case may very well fall under "Protection of Property"... and not "Defense of a Person" If the media report is to be believed, the victim was robbed at gunpoint, and gave up personal property (wallet, phone, bracelet).

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:


(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
__________________
M&P Shield
Sig P-238
... And others
Bashful is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 00:47   #27
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
In my state, you may use deadly force if at the time of its use, you held a good faith belief based on objective facts, that you were in imminent fear [danger] of serious bodily harm [or worse]. The threat does not have to be real, only that you believed it to be so.

There are a few exceptions like those mentioned above. For example, you must have a legal right to be where you are. If you are party to the confrontation/escalation, you must retreat until you can no long do so safely while telling your assailant that you do not wish to fight.. to leave you alone. When you can no longer retreat safely, you regain the veil of innocence and may use deadly force if necessary.
I wanted to add this involving my state law(s):
Quote:

39-11-621. Use of deadly force by private citizen.

A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, 39-11-611 and 39-11-612.


TCA 39-11-611 - Self Defense (applicable part of it)

Quote:
(b) (1) Notwithstanding 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

Quote:
39-11-612. Defense of third person.
Quote:

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another to protect a third person, if:

(1) Under the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be, the person would be justified under 39-11-611 in threatening or using force to protect against the use or attempted use of unlawful force reasonably believed to be threatening the third person sought to be protected; and

(2) The person reasonably believes that the intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Now I only mention those above statutes because I believe an argument can be made that if the citizens were effecting an arrest they can use the degree of force necessary to effect an arrest, up to and including deadly force. Obviously this hardly ever happens becaue of the huge amount of liability involved if said citizen who did the shooting was wrong. Given the limited facts by the OP, I think the argument could be made that they were chasing the guy to effect an arrest and obviously if he had a firearm a reasonble person could assume that while effecting the arrest it's likely deadly force might be warranted.

What's the difference in his scenario versus LEOs who chase an armed felon (aside from the fact we get paid to catch him)? It's pretty likely that when the LEOs catch up to the armed individual and he refuses to drop the weapon deadly force is likely justifiable.

Last edited by SgtScott31; 01-14-2013 at 00:50..
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 04:44   #28
Glockrunner
HOOYA DEEPSEA
 
Glockrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SC
Posts: 4,779
Send a message via Yahoo to Glockrunner
After the robber fled he was shot at by the good Samartians. Sounds like the writer wanted to make the Felon out to be a victum at that point in the story.

Not being there I could assume the robber pointed the gun at them as they chased him, thus causing them to protect themselves.

The robber was captured by LE so I can assume they the LEO's that arrived know who the good guys are.

One point for the good guys for coming to the aid of a citizen in distress!
__________________
"As an OK State Trooper once told me, "Why shouldn't a "good" citizen be allowed to carry a gun, all the "bad" guys already do.""
Certified Glock Armorer
Glockrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 04:56   #29
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by Car 2217 View Post
I said I wasn't going to keep responding but since this post was directed to me personally, I have to make an exception.

I live in a very conservative state with probably the most permissive deadly force laws in the nation. I am slightly to the right of Attila the Hun politically. I do not believe in the victim philosophy nor do I believe in coddling criminals. I am a retired LEO. I've been shot at and I've discharged my weapon in the line of duty so this is not an intellectual exercise for me.

If you employ deadly force, even when justified, you may have to defend yourself in court depending on the circumstances and the district attorney's mindset (even if you are a LEO). If you are a private citizen, the odds go up that you will need an attorney. If you are pursuing a bad guy as a private citizen and you kill him, you are almost certainly going to need an attorney and that costs money. And one more thing: until you get an attorney, STFU.

Don't let some gang banger harm you or yours but don't go looking for trouble. Be a good witness and allow the LEOs to do their job.

That was what I was trying to get across when I told the story of the guys in Texas as a set up for citing how the core deadly force statues tend to read in virtually all the states.

I see now that I should have left off the story and just cited the core statutes and ask for comments but I didn't do that. My bad.

Now, unless someone directs something to me personally again that requires a reply, I really am going to stop responding.
Here is my opinion:

  1. Don't start threads lacking in facts, with a shallow understanding of the law as it applies to deadly force for where the issue has taken place, soliciting a discussion and then turn tail to say you are done playing when your REAL education begins.
  2. All of #1 above was meant in a respectful tone as if you were sitting across a desk from me.


- G
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 04:58   #30
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by Car 2217 View Post
Nope wrong again. The two citizens fired first, the robber returned fire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
You might have said so. What else have you left out?

Nothing important....

Quote:
"As soon as they pass me, they see the guy has a gun to me," he said.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 11:27   #31
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 15,860
Vermont is pretty lenient. Just about anyone can CCW. Those convicted of felonies or certain misdemeanors cannot own firearms.
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions

Last edited by SCmasterblaster; 01-17-2013 at 10:36..
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 16:11   #32
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 968
Chasing is more a bad idea than good. But there are several things that TX allows for that I didn't see covered in any of these posts. First, from what I read, this occurred at night. That alone allows for the use of deadly force in TX during a robbery. Further, we also have something called "fresh pursuit". If you are robbed, you have the right to pursue the individual(s)/bad guy(s) (however bad an idea it might be) and what is called the defense of a third person. During this fresh pursuit, if the need arises to use deadly force, then it is authorized. All of this came from one of the Bexar County district attorneys who taught part of one of my classes.

So the breakdown is this. you have two good samaritans who, in defense of a third party, engaged in the fresh pursuit of a BG who had just committed an aggravated felony at night against a victim. that's all legal and what they call " a defense to prosecution".

Now they did shoot first and the BG returned fire, but a further defense to prosecution would be that if they saw him brandish their weapon and were of the belief that he was about to fire and cause them great bodily harm or even death, and so preemptively fired upon him.

Once again, while pursuing may not be the best idea, under TX law they did not break any law. Lucky for them, it turned out for the best.. for them. Bad guy shoulda stayed home that night. Shot and attacked by a dog... damn. Kind of lacking in the brains department too since he had a freaking gun! He could have shot the dog too!

in either case, as I read it, bad guy was the only law breaker in this situation.
__________________
Lord
G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15

Last edited by Lord; 01-14-2013 at 16:13..
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 21:34   #33
Bashful
Senior Member
 
Bashful's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baytown, Texas
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord View Post
Chasing is more a bad idea than good. But there are several things that TX allows for that I didn't see covered in any of these posts. First, from what I read, this occurred at night. That alone allows for the use of deadly force in TX during a robbery. Further, we also have something called "fresh pursuit". If you are robbed, you have the right to pursue the individual(s)/bad guy(s) (however bad an idea it might be) and what is called the defense of a third person. During this fresh pursuit, if the need arises to use deadly force, then it is authorized. All of this came from one of the Bexar County district attorneys who taught part of one of my classes.

So the breakdown is this. you have two good samaritans who, in defense of a third party, engaged in the fresh pursuit of a BG who had just committed an aggravated felony at night against a victim. that's all legal and what they call " a defense to prosecution".

Now they did shoot first and the BG returned fire, but a further defense to prosecution would be that if they saw him brandish their weapon and were of the belief that he was about to fire and cause them great bodily harm or even death, and so preemptively fired upon him.

Once again, while pursuing may not be the best idea, under TX law they did not break any law. Lucky for them, it turned out for the best.. for them. Bad guy shoulda stayed home that night. Shot and attacked by a dog... damn. Kind of lacking in the brains department too since he had a freaking gun! He could have shot the dog too!

in either case, as I read it, bad guy was the only law breaker in this situation.
Look at the way the law is written.... the only limitations to night time is

"imminent commission....theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime"; or

"to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing... theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property"

Everything else listed is not limited by day vs night.
__________________
M&P Shield
Sig P-238
... And others
Bashful is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 07:52   #34
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashful View Post
Look at the way the law is written.... the only limitations to night time is

"imminent commission....theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime"; or

"to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing... theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property"

Everything else listed is not limited by day vs night.
I see your point, but they did commit during night time, so I'll ask the Asst DA his take on it.
__________________
Lord
G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 10:33   #35
Car 2217
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10
Duplicate - Deleted

Last edited by Car 2217; 01-17-2013 at 11:15..
Car 2217 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 10:35   #36
Car 2217
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10
Quote From a Sam Spade Response above:

.....your quote above shows that you really don't understand how things work, and for some reason are adopting an attitude that is distinctly un-American.

(Snip of quote - see full post above)

Quotes from Gallium Responses above:

Here is my opinion:

Don't start threads lacking in facts, with a shallow understanding of the law as it applies to deadly force for where the issue has taken place, soliciting a discussion and then turn tail to say you are done playing when your REAL education begins.
All of #1 above was meant in a respectful tone as if you were sitting across a desk from me.


And...

Statement by Sam Spade and Response by Gallium from posts above:

Spade:

You might have said so. What else have you left out?

Gallium:

Nothing important....

(Snips of quotes - see full posts above for clarity)

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

As you will see if you read the entire thread, I said there may be other things in the Texas law other than just the Deadly Force statute I cited that do allow for pursuit.

Both of these members focused on the Texas incident in their responses when I said numerous times that the point of the post was to generate a discussion of when you can use Deadly Force, not to discuss the Texas Incident.

I contributed to the misunderstanding by quoting Texas Penal Code on Deadly Force and pursuit of a fleeing felon, (but I also said there may be other points of local law that allowed pursuit.)

Later, after previously trying to disconnect the Texas incident from the reason for the post, I said that I regretted having ever used the Texas case as a lead-in for the discussion and said to have done so was my bad.

None of this seems to have made any difference to these two members.

So, since this thread has degenerated into an uncivil, personalized discussion, here is my response.

Sam Spade and Gallium are Lifetime Member and Charter Lifetime Member of this board respectively.

I am a newbie. But being a newbie means I have read the rules of this board recently and all members are supposed to treat one another with respect.

You can't disparage someone, intentionally phrasing a response in a way that does not disguise your contempt for them, and then say you "mean it in the nicest possible way" (Sam Spade) or you "mean it as respectfully as if you were sitting across the desk from me" (Gallium).

Both of them crossed the line and disregarded the spirit and rules of the board.

Refute errors so all of us can learn. But do it without sarcasm and personal attack.
Car 2217 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 10:39   #37
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 15,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireForged View Post
I am not going to pursue or capture anyone, period. I am not going to "exchage gunfire" with someone trying to flee from me. I will use deadly force when my failure to use it will likely get me killed or grieviously maimed
You got that right, brother.
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 11:44   #38
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Car2217,

Without any condescending attitude, what I said before still holds true, and I would have said it exactly the same way, and possibly even more forceful, if you had been sitting across from me. It is those forum rules that you cite which got you the muted, toned down response you did.
Until and unless a moderator tells me my conduct is out of line, I'll keep whistling and riding.

If you feel you are being treated below that threshold required by the owners and mods for the site, you are always free, and encouraged to report posts that offend you.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 11:52   #39
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


...For starters, the article says the two observed the victim being held at gunpoint. There is already enough justification for deadly force in ANY state of the union. But you said they chased the dude, then exchanged gunfire with the dude. You also said the robber did not physically harm the victim. Guess what? The law does not mandate someone 1st inflict physical harm before you can use deadly force - that gun pointed at the victim was enough justification to immediately shoot the robber if the situation called for it.

We don't know if the robber pointed the gun at the other two, but it does not matter.

I am not sure what (else) you would like to discuss...

and hey, I am out of this thread.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 13:21   #40
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 15,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 View Post
Car 2217
So where do you live? Sounds like it must be a very liberal state! NY, Conn, NJ, CA, Mass ? Those states have revoked the everydays citizens right to selfdefense and good citizenship laws! They stress you must be a victim. They've trained you to be a victim. Every American has the right to defend themselves and others from harm and criminal acts. Time to wake up and stop being a victim! Are you a slave or a free man?
He may even live in VT(!)
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 13:36   #41
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car 2217 View Post

exchanged gunfire

“….in the event that an individual, or a person under protection of the individual, is in immediate danger of loss of life or immediate danger of grave bodily injury, it shall be an affirmative defense that the use of deadly force by the individual is justified.”
There you go.

Quote:
To that (in some states) is added that the individual must attempt to flee (disengage) unless that action would place the individual or the person under protection of the individual in even greater danger.
Not in Texas (or Kentucky, or Florida, etc.).

Quote:
And somewhere in the statutes it will say something like “…once the threat has ended, the affirmative defense has also ended”.

Note that the statute speaks of 'Affirmative Defense', not the 'Right' to use Deadly Force. There is a world of difference.

Anyway, in the case of the two good guys who popped the crook, what they did was illegal because they were in no danger of immediate loss of life or grave bodily injury and, since the crook fled the scene without harming the victim, the victim wasn’t either. (Still, I hope that if a LEO discovers their identity he has the good sense to ‘misplace the paperwork’.)
Without going into a Texas law research project - many states allow deadly force to prevent any felony involving the use of force - here, for example, you can kill a purse snatcher who is unarmed. Same goes for a person who punches a school volunteer or bus driver. All felonies involving the use of force. In addition, our courts say that "robbery" includes the escape with the goods, so that deadly force could still be used to stop the robbery even where the robber was fleeing.

Next, the justification is usually decided at the point force is used. For example, in many places you can use non-deadly force to take back your property or someone else's (as here in KY). If you try to lawfully take back your property and the thief or robber then threatens you with deadly force ("exchanged gunfire") you can use deadly force in self-defense.

Then, of course, texas is the one state that allows you to kill a thief, under some conditions, while he is fleeing.

I think there is a pretty good chance these guys would be justified.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.

Last edited by Bren; 01-17-2013 at 13:37..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 22:40   #42
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 338
Quote:
Without going into a Texas law research project - many states allow deadly force to prevent any felony involving the use of force - here, for example, you can kill a purse snatcher who is unarmed.
I don't necessarily agree with this. While I don't research every use of force statute from every state, I find it hard to believe that many states allow you to use deadly force involving a felony where force is used by the suspect. A purse snatcher is normally not going to subject someone to serious bodily injury or death. So how can you justify using deadly force against him?

If I'm pursuing a purse snatching suspect and fire on him I'd be looking for a new job and possibly a lien on my home. And I have greater protection as a LEO.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 02:40   #43
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I don't necessarily agree with this. While I don't research every use of force statute from every state, I find it hard to believe that many states allow you to use deadly force involving a felony where force is used by the suspect. ...

In most states, statutes/laws allow for use of deadly force to terminate/thwart a kidnapping, rape or sodomy of a minor.

In many states deadly force is permissible to thwart a robbery subsequent to a break in of a domicile.

In some states, the disparity of force is a consideration, and in some other states, so long as the VICTIM can conclusively ("reasonableness standard") express that he or she was in grave fear of his/her life, deadly force is permissible.

What is so hard to believe about those things I've outlined?

I find it hard to believe that you're approaching the subject in such a narrow, focused way.

- G

Now I'm done.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 12:52   #44
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 338
Quote:
In many states deadly force is permissible to thwart a robbery subsequent to a break in of a domicile
I'm aware of the "castle" doctrines. With regards to these statutes, there's normally an automatic presumption of serious bodily injury or death when the person is in your home. That doctrine has been extended to your car & business in my state (TN).

Quote:
In some states, the disparity of force is a consideration, and in some other states, so long as the VICTIM can conclusively ("reasonableness standard") express that he or she was in grave fear of his/her life, deadly force is permissible.

What is so hard to believe about those things I've outlined?
Exactly what I mentioned. There normally needs to be a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury or death.

To me a purse snatcher doesn't meet the criteria unless he displays or emphasizes he has a weapon during the strong armed robbery attempt.

We're talking about a purse snatcher and you introduced several other examples where the use of deadly force would more likely be justified. Such examples as forcible rape or kidnapping of a minor, home invasion, and any time a person is in fear of serious bodily injury or death are fine with me when it comes to the use of deadly force.

Like I mentioned in my first post, I don't see the same with a purse snatcher. Although it's a robbery by definition in most states, if I was to shoot a purse snatcher as a LEO with no threat of a weapon or serious bodily harm I'd likely lose my job and a wrongful death action. Many courts follow the TN v. Garner standard when it comes to felonies & deadly force.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 15:26   #45
SouthernBoyVA
Senior Member
 
SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Western Prince William County, VA
Posts: 2,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car 2217 View Post
So, since this thread has degenerated into an uncivil, personalized discussion, here is my response...
Trust me, these forums have a lot of this going on. All you need do is follow a thread a few pages and you're bound to run into a health measure of incivility. Many times, it's the same crew doing this.

I just ignore it for the most part. Think of it this way...

Except for those whom you choose to care about, what others think and say about you means absolutely nothing.
__________________
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
SouthernBoyVA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 05:21   #46
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I don't necessarily agree with this. While I don't research every use of force statute from every state, I find it hard to believe that many states allow you to use deadly force involving a felony where force is used by the suspect. A purse snatcher is normally not going to subject someone to serious bodily injury or death. So how can you justify using deadly force against him?

If I'm pursuing a purse snatching suspect and fire on him I'd be looking for a new job and possibly a lien on my home. And I have greater protection as a LEO.
Well, I do research use of force laws of others states. I reviewed this bill for the executive branch before the governor signed it. We borrowed it from Florida's castle doctrine elgislation, as did several others states. In Kentucky, it is KRS 503.050 and 503.070:

Quote:
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055.
Quote:
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055; and
(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
In Kentucky, purse snatching is Robbery 2nd - a felony involvibng the use of force. So is slapping a school bus driver or a teacher (Assault 3rd).

In Florida it is Fl. St. 776.012 

Quote:
Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
In New Hampshire it is 627:4, but is limited to being on your own property:
Quote:
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.
Those are some examples from the top of a quick google search. When I teach the class to law enforcement, I point out that a private citizen can use deadly force in KY in situations that would be a criminal civil rights violation if the police did it.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.

Last edited by Bren; 01-23-2013 at 05:22..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 05:32   #47
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I'm aware of the "castle" doctrines. With regards to these statutes, there's normally an automatic presumption of serious bodily injury or death when the person is in your home. That doctrine has been extended to your car & business in my state (TN).
Kentucky requires no danger to justify deadly force against a burglar or arsonist. One example I use in class is, if you invite your buddy over to a superbowl party and you get in an argument and tell him to leave your house and he says, "I'm not leaving because I'm going to smash your TV" he is then committing a burglary and deadly force is perfectly legal to stop it. The supreme court has mentioned that Kentucky law allows deadly force against anyone who enters or remains unlawfully in your home for5 the purpose of committing ANY crime (felony or misdemeanor). KRS 503.080.

In Colorado
Quote:
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
So Colorado's law is, in some ways, less strict than Kentucky. In Kentucky, it has to be your own home to use deadly force against a person who comes in uninvited to steal a loaf of bread, but in Colorado, anybody in the house can do it.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.

Last edited by Bren; 01-23-2013 at 05:33..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 13:31   #48
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 338
I have no issues with broader legislation involving use of force as you guys have pointed out in KY. I would just not want to be the attorney for a defendant if the plaintiff was the family member of the decedent (the D shot) who wouldn't leave his buddy's house during a superbowl game or the purse snatching suspect who was shot multiple times and had no weapon or failed to display/advise of a weapon during the snatching. It appears the CO statute only outlines deadly force when the person made any unlawful entry to the house or remains in the house after an unlawful entry. That seems to be on point with the castle doctrine.

We all know that every case is very fact-specific when a court/jury comes to the conclusion that it does. I just would not want those specific scenarios in a wrongful death action. It appears in those limited circumstances that citizens have more latitude when it comes to deadly force than LEOs do.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 15:34   #49
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I have no issues with broader legislation involving use of force as you guys have pointed out in KY. I would just not want to be the attorney for a defendant if the plaintiff was the family member of the decedent (the D shot) who wouldn't leave his buddy's house during a superbowl game or the purse snatching suspect who was shot multiple times and had no weapon or failed to display/advise of a weapon during the snatching. It appears the CO statute only outlines deadly force when the person made any unlawful entry to the house or remains in the house after an unlawful entry. That seems to be on point with the castle doctrine.

We all know that every case is very fact-specific when a court/jury comes to the conclusion that it does. I just would not want those specific scenarios in a wrongful death action. It appears in those limited circumstances that citizens have more latitude when it comes to deadly force than LEOs do.
Could be tricky, but we also have immunity from suit for shooting burglars in KY and the plaintiff has to pay for our attorney and all costs, lost pay, etc., if they sue and the court rules that the shooting was justified.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 20:03   #50
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Could be tricky, but we also have immunity from suit for shooting burglars in KY and the plaintiff has to pay for our attorney and all costs, lost pay, etc., if they sue and the court rules that the shooting was justified.
I think we have a similar standard in TN for the same thing.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
attorney for deadly force, ccw, deadly force
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:56.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 850
220 Members
630 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42