desert dude
Well-Known Member
Castle Doctrine regards people who had a clear alternative to do otherwise and still shot out of confusion of chaos. It is not a permit to shot people, like your implying. Prove the majority of state use that doctrineLiterally, prove it.
You have an opinion Red. FYI, we are not discussing ordinary cases man.
Besides, you are supposed to be explaining to me how I and some other are liars that are pushing a agenda. I really need you to fill me in on this agenda deal to make sure I got my cards right.
The Federal Government is THE JURISDICTION. I don't know what you don't get about the fact that ALL FEDERAL LAWS TRUMP STATE LAWS, INCLUDING LAWS OF FEKIN JURISDICTION.
This is the last time I respond to you red...your fekin killin my brain man!
Sorry, buddy, but your brain seems to have died a while ago.Castle Doctrine regards people who had a clear alternative to do otherwise and still shot out of confusion of chaos. It is not a permit to shot people, like your implying. Prove the majority of state use that doctrine
You have an opinion Red. FYI, we are not discussing ordinary cases man.
Besides, you are supposed to be explaining to me how I and some other are liars that are pushing a agenda. I really need you to fill me in on this agenda deal to make sure I got my cards right.
The Federal Government is THE JURISDICTION. I don't know what you don't get about the fact that ALL FEDERAL LAWS TRUMP STATE LAWS, INCLUDING LAWS OF FEKIN JURISDICTION.
This is the last time I respond to you red...your fekin killin my brain man!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
"States with a Castle Law No duty to retreat if in the home.
- Alaska - Alaska Statute 11.81.335(b) provides that an individual has no duty to retreat before using deadly force if they are in their home, their workplace, protecting a child or protecting a family member. The 27th Alaska Legislature is currently considering H.B. 80 "An Act relating to self defense in any place where a person has a right to be." which would essentially eliminate the duty to retreat for any place a person is legally, making Alaska a "stand your ground" state. However, an identical measure, H.B. 381, failed to pass the 26th Alaska Legislature.
- California California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."[SUP][18][/SUP] This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197.[SUP][19][/SUP] CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'” The court held that because the defendant had constructed a gun-firing trap, the doctrine did not apply because mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion.[SUP][20][/SUP]
- Colorado "...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." 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
- Connecticut
- Florida
- Georgia (a person who is attacked has no duty to retreat; [...] has a right to meet force with force, including deadly force
- Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
- Illinois (Use of deadly force justified. Specific legislation prevents filing claim against defender of dwelling. Illinois has no requirement of retreat.)
- Indiana
- Iowa (No duty to retreat from home or place of business in defense of self or a "third party".)
- Kansas (§ 21-5223. A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.)
- Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed)[SUP][21][/SUP]
- Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the common law castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.)
- Massachusetts
- Minnesota No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense in one's place of abode [SUP][22][/SUP]) This isn't as clear as it appears, however. There are four cases in Minnesota where duty of retreat was upheld.[SUP][23][/SUP]
- Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat")
- Missouri (Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.)
- Nevada
- New Jersey (Retreat required if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc. EXCEPT not obliged to retreat from dwelling, unless the initial aggressor)
- North Carolina (Includes dwelling, motor vehicle and workplace)
- North Dakota
- Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008.[SUP][24][/SUP] Section 2901.09)
- Oregon. (ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).")
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- Utah
- West Virginia (Senate bill 145 signed March 12, 2008. WV code §55-7-22)
- Wisconsin (Assembly Bill 69, signed December 7, 2011)
- Wyoming"
"States with a Stand-your-ground Law No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.
Main article: Stand-your-ground law
| This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. (August 2007) |
- Alabama
- Arizona
- Florida
- Georgia
- Indiana
- Kentucky [SUP][12][/SUP]
- Louisiana
- Michigan [SUP][13][/SUP]
- Montana
- New Hampshire (A proposed law was vetoed in 2011[SUP][14][/SUP], but the veto was overridden and the new law took effect November 2011.[SUP][15][/SUP])
- Oklahoma Title 21§1290.1 et seq
- Pennsylvania (Recent legislation extends Castle Doctrine to occupied vehicles and the work place, and stand-your-ground rights extended to any place the defender has a right to be with specified exceptions.)
- South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
- Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
- Texas (Established for individual's habitation in 1995 by House Bill 94 and extended to vehicle or workplace effective September 1, 2007 by Senate Bill 378.[SUP][16][/SUP] Senate Bill 378 also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."[SUP][17][/SUP])
- Utah
- Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)
