(AK) Laws regarding the use of deadly force expanded

spacemanspiff

New member
http://www.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/7685535p-7597121c.html

Deadly force bill passes in House
'CASTLE LAW': Self-defense law would be widened through proposal.
By ANNE SUTTON
The Associated Press
Published: May 2, 2006
Last Modified: May 2, 2006 at 01:50 AM

JUNEAU -- The Alaska House on Monday broadened the state's self-defense laws, allowing for the use of deadly force in certain situations outside the home.

The bill, modeled on Florida's "castle law," is one of several passed by the House on Monday.

Current law allows people to use whatever force is necessary to protect their homes. Senate Bill 200 would allow the use of deadly force outside the home in the case of a carjacking or in a situation where a child is in danger of being kidnapped, sexually assaulted, injured or killed.

The bill also expands the list of locations where a person may stand his or her ground, such as a hotel room, an office or a home where one is staying as a guest.

The measure also offers protection from civil lawsuits when people rightfully protect themselves and others.

The bill passed 33-0. Rep. Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, served notice of reconsideration, so it could come up for another vote.

The House also passed a measure setting up an account that will be used for an annual appropriation from the state treasury to pay down the state's liability in its public employee and teacher retirement accounts. No money has been appropriated to the account authorized by House Bill 375 .

The measure was recommended by the Alaska Retirement Management Board in dealing with the state's projected $6.9 billion shortfall in its pension plans. The measure passed 39-0 and now goes to the Senate.
 
mighty cold up there in alaska , I spent almost 3 years up there at Ft.Richardson ohhhhhhh, the summers tho are worth staying the winters.
 
i think the part of this law that may have the most impact or change is the protection from civil lawsuits.
so far as i know, the duty to retreat has always been given a broad spectrum, relying on a few criteria, such as, the one using deadly force felt in grave danger of self or someone else, and there was no other option. grand jury's tend to recognize that turning your back on a threat to flee isn't a viable option. the district attorney will usually throw every self defense shooting at the grand jury. at local law enforcement levels, they tend to be consistant as well, letting the DA do his thing.

however, if its simply brandishing or displaying of the gun as a means of defense, police are also consistant. blotters reveal that few weapons violations are ever charged, even when they for all intents and purposes should be. people flash guns in road rage, and police seem to have the mindset that 'if i didnt see it happen who's to say both sides aren't telling the truth?'
 
In Texas we can supposedly use deadly force if property is being vandalized at night. I don't even think it has to be your property. Open season on taggers, although no one has tested it yet.
 
Back
Top