Examining Oklahoma's Revised SDA

D

DeltaB

New member
I know it has been a couple of years since interest in the case of Jerome Ersland has been spoken about, and with the trial in full swing, I'd like to talk about the knee-jerk reactions by the Oklahoma Legislature in enacting what some have called the "Jerome Ersland Act" which extends "the right to absolute safety" to public places. In Oklahoma's original SDA, provisions for handgun owners extended to "anyplace a person has lawful right to be" just as many other states utilize in their wording of Castle Doctrine laws.

However, it concerns me greatly in moving the law to extend "absolute right to safety" to places outside your home. For centuries it has been well recognized in common law, that your residence, from issues concerning the Constitution in regards to 4th and 8th amendment rights, and extending this "sanctity" to public areas. I see it to only erode the special place which your own home has held for centuries.

I doubt if tested that SCOTUS would find it constitutional, just as other parts of Oklahoma law is in light of other rulings by SCOTUS, as on the books stand in direct violation of the High Court's ruling.

Colorado, a few years past, attempted to include this same concept and wording in their SDA, but found it would seen as unconstitutional and scrapped it.

What do you think?
 
A business owner should be able to defend himself and his employees in his place of business just as a home owners should be able to defend himself from an attack using deadly force.

I should be also be justified in defending myself from an attack in a public place against an attack using deadly force.
 
So...your point is that your right to defend yourself and the lives of others should be freely and without limitation restricted when you are out and about and not at your residence? I don't see any logic whatsoever in the OP. The right to protect onesself and one's family is not the ONLY particular which makes your residence legally "special", and laws acknowledging your right to self defense outside the home don't limit or abridge the recognition of the sanctity (if it can be called such) of one's abode.

I'm struggling mightily to understand the purpose of the initial post.
 
Eghad & csmsss, maybe you misunderstood what is being said, or better said asked. I certainly don't have any issues, in fact strongly advocate the rights of anyone to defend themselves against attack, whether in the home, car, business or any other place a person has a legal right to be. It hasn't been that long ago here in Oklahoma when you had to legally retreat, rather than our current "stand your ground" SDA laws.


The current SDA states; O.S. § 21.53, 1289.25
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This section provided above, which is the CURRENT law, gives people rights to use lethal force in public, as long as you have a right to be there. This includes businesses.


The new law, draws NO distinction to those areas where a "right to expect absolute safety" by the inclusion of public places, (which businesses are) which can, and I do fear, will remove some on the distinct rights a homeowner now has in light of case laws. It redefines the ENTIRE playing field, and while in short sightedness, it may seem good, as we have seen in other case law, in the long run, can be very bad to centuries old deliniations marked in the sand. I find the revised law as short sighted and as stupid as Ersland's defense of "self-defense."

The current law protects homeowners with the PRESUMPTION that anyone who enters, is entering with the intent to harm or kill. They don't have to be armed. The NEW revised law simply adds public places to that section, giving public places that same PRESUMPTION reserved to private homes. There can be no "right (afforded by the Constitution or anywhere else in case law that I know) to EXPECT absolute safety" in public. There never has been. That's why they call it "public" not "private." This redefines the ENTIRE structure.

It's why Colorado, who tried to include that type of language in their laws, scrapped it.
 
Last edited:
What the heck does "SDA" mean? Perhaps if you'd write your questions in English people could understand your point and respond more appropriately.
 
Self Defense Act. For us that have been around the boards for some time, sometimes forget that not everyone is knowledged to acronyms.
 
It's really hard to intelligently reply without the language of the statue. However, it appears to me all the new law is doing is explicitly including public places as areas where there's no duty to retreat and the right to use self-defense, just to make it clear. That has always been my take on these statutes. Maybe the courts read it differently in Oklahoma and the legislature had to step in.

If that's the case, I'm all for it. I don't see how this weakens any rights you have inside your home.
 
KyJim,

The statute cited is the CURRENT section dealing with use of lethal force OUTSIDE the home, and which many states share, and I think quite appropriate for dealing with rights using deadly force. AOJP is still the criteria of defending yourself in court, and a valid test outside the home.

In Oklahoma law though, INSIDE the home, AOJP is PRESUMED, and by law removed by the presumption that anyone who enters your private home, armed or not, is there to inflict serious bodily harm or death. The NEW revised SDA, simply adds public places to that portion of the statute.

It is tantamount to "legalized vigilantism," and the removal of AOJP as the criteria in the legal examination of the defense of "self-defense," no matter the location, public or private. That's the dangerous and destructive part. Under test, I can assure you it will not stand the test of any higher court, and may have the unwanted effect, if found unconstitutional, which it would, remove that "right" from the law for BOTH public and private.
 
Last edited:
DeltaB, please provide a link to the actual bill, so that we can provide some meaningful analysis and discussion.
 
Al, I don't have it in front of me, but has been signed into law, and in effect Nov...I'll look to see what I can find...
 
AOJP
Click to expand...

???

As I mentioned previously, English would be greatly appreciated. How do you expect people to respond to your points if you don't tell us what you're talking about?

I've been on innumerable Internet forums, and computer bulletin boards before Al Gore invented the Internet, and I have never before encountered aither SDA or AOJP. You may think those are common acronyms, but if I haven't seen them in better than twenty years of on-line activity I suspect they aren't as common as you seem to think.
 
The new law, draws NO distinction to those areas where a "right to expect absolute safety" by the inclusion of public places, (which businesses are) which can, and I do fear, will remove some on the distinct rights a homeowner now has in light of case laws.
Click to expand...

How? I understand your stated fear, I do not understand by what process you consider this a realistic risk.
 
DeltaB said:
The doctrine of AOJP is the legal cornerstone of all self-defense, and can be found at;
Click to expand...
If you read the statutes of the various states, I don't think you'll find your AOJP mentioned in any of them. I have not read all fifty, but I do hold multiple carry licenses from several states and I have read the laws of a number of states as to when the use of lethal (or "deadly," depending on the state) force is justified or allowed.

The key issue is that the use of force and deadly force is typically an exception to the basic law that one may NOT use deadly force. The exception that allows it is (again, typically) when the actor "reasonably" fears death or serious bodily harm at the hands of an assailant.

Your AOJP criteria only enter the discussion if a case is prosecuted and the state tries to convince a jury that the victim's fear of death or serious bodily harm was NOT reasonable. Depending on the facts of a particular case, either the state will be arguing that all four of AOJP were not present and thus it was not "reasonable" for the victim to have feared death or serious bodily harm ... or the defense will argue that all four of AOJP were present and therefore it WAS reasonable for the defendant to fear death or serious bodily harm.

But those terms may never enter the discussion. The basis of the law is the "reasonable man" test. The law (in most, if not all, states) says we can use deadly force in self defense if we fear death or serious bodily harm. If a particular shooting is questioned, the question before the jury will be simply (a) did the defendant really fear death or serious bodily harm? and (b) if so, was this fear reasonable. The test for reasonable is the "reasonable man test." That is: if a hypothetical reasonable man were placed in the same situation, would be have reacted in a similar way?
 
I read about the case. The business man defended himself when two guys came in and committed an armed robbery. He had every right to defend the premises of his business when someone used deadly force.

The sticky point to this case was the guy came back in and shot the wounded assailant 5 more times when he was unconscious on the floor. This is a separate issue under the law when it comes to use of force and should be considered separate from the right to defend one's self.

In my opinion I have the right to protect myself in a public place when I am in fear of my life or serious injury or another is in the same situation. The basic right to defend ones self from the use of deadly force should be given the same consideration no matter what location I am at.

The degree to which I am entitled to defend myself depends upon the level of force the other person uses against me or another person. If a guy takes a swing at me I should be entitled to restrain that person to prevent further harm to him or me.

As an armed citizen I should educate myself on the continuum of use of force so that I remain within the law and maintain the rights off all individuals.

I believe that every citizen has the right to defend themselves no matter what location they are at. This is just a basic right. However you still need to remain in compliance with law when it comes to use of force.
 
If you read the statutes of the various states, I don't think you'll find your AOJP mentioned in any of them. I have not read all fifty, but I do hold multiple carry licenses from several states and I have read the laws of a number of states as to when the use of lethal (or "deadly," depending on the state) force is justified or allowed.
Click to expand...

This thread is Law and Civil Rights. The courts in evaluating the use of deadly force has used the doctrine of AOJP for centuries.

The key issue is that the use of force and deadly force is typically an exception to the basic law that one may NOT use deadly force. The exception that allows it is (again, typically) when the actor "reasonably" fears death or serious bodily harm at the hands of an assailant.
Click to expand...

Recent court rulings in the higher courts have stated in the case of shooting an unarmed suspect in his store, which he attempted to state he feared for his life, the court ruled, "it is not enough for the defendant to have had fear, rational or irrational, the suspect in that moment when the shots are fired must be posing a clear and imminent threat."

Your AOJP criteria only enter the discussion if a case is prosecuted and the state tries to convince a jury that the victim's fear of death or serious bodily harm was NOT reasonable. Depending on the facts of a particular case, either the state will be arguing that all four of AOJP were not present and thus it was not "reasonable" for the victim to have feared death or serious bodily harm ... or the defense will argue that all four of AOJP were present and therefore it WAS reasonable for the defendant to fear death or serious bodily harm.
Click to expand...

Why else would he/she be in court under charges?

But those terms may never enter the discussion. The basis of the law is the "reasonable man" test. The law (in most, if not all, states) says we can use deadly force in self defense if we fear death or serious bodily harm. If a particular shooting is questioned, the question before the jury will be simply (a) did the defendant really fear death or serious bodily harm? and (b) if so, was this fear reasonable. The test for reasonable is the "reasonable man test." That is: if a hypothetical reasonable man were placed in the same situation, would be have reacted in a similar way?
Click to expand...

When you remove the examination of AOJP as the criteria of defense, and move under the PRESUMPTION rule, the suspect doesn't have to be armed, it is PRESUMED by law that he is already a threat. Great at home. Not so much in public places.

Again, with so many of the responses being as they are, I should probably take my thread to another board.
 
Well, you've stated a fear that appears to be irrational. It appears to be irrational because you haven't provided any plausible scenario for how the change in the law is going to result in your fear becoming a reality.

How exactly do you envision this happening? How does adding a business to the list of places protected by a presumption that deadly force is a reasonable response to forceful and unlawful entry ultimately end up in less protection for homeowners?

At this point, you've got an underpants gnome premise going.
 
It is a good question.

The suspects in the store had a gun..which is deadly force.

The question about what level of force you are allowed to use is a separate law in states.

I do not see where having the right to defend yourself in a public place dilutes your right to defend yourself at home. Your home has been given that status in the Bill of Rights as long as your behavior is lawful.

could you please provide cites of the court cases you are talking about

"Recent court rulings in the higher courts have stated in the case of shooting an unarmed suspect in his store, which he attempted to state he feared for his life, the court ruled, "it is not enough for the defendant to have had fear, rational or irrational, the suspect in that moment when the shots are fired must be posing a clear and imminent threat."
Click to expand...

Once again the level of force you may use depends upon the situation and the degree of force that the other person uses. You would even have to consider the situation or condition of the person

What is an 80 year old handicapped person in a wheelchair supposed to do when he is approached by a very large person who could do great harm to the elderly guy in the wheelchair?
 
Last edited:
Well, you've stated a fear that appears to be irrational. It appears to be irrational because you haven't provided any plausible scenario for how the change in the law is going to result in your fear becoming a reality.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution, or in SCOTUS rulings, does it extend the "civil right" to have the reasonable expectation to the "right to expect absolute saftey" in public areas? Common law for centuries has recognized it for the privacy of one's home. Remember we are talking a license to a "right", just as the Second Amendment gives us the license to the "right" to bear arms. If you cannot find one, then more than likely it will be challenged, especially in light of the numerous cases already in Oklahoma Courts and and before the Oklahoma Supreme Court over this very section of law.

Any expansion of law that treads into territory that hasn't been breached before, has no case law as precedence. I don't think it's irrational to discuss this issue, but you are free to your opinon. Again, it's been a couple years since being here on this board, and I knew it has a Law and Civil Rights section, but I can already see it's not really the place to discuss this issue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top