How Stand Your Ground Laws Protect the Innocent

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see some merit in the argument that a person facong with imminent risk of death or grave injury may hesitate and lose their life shoud they have to think about if there is some available means of retreat, but what if the law only required one to use obvious avenues of retreat that didn't subject that person to further risk? I agree with the reasoning of the Santa Ana. CA court of appeal that one shouldn't have to retreat if by doing so they risk death or injury.
Click to expand...

The problem that arises with duty to retreat laws is that a prosecutor and a jury get to spend hours deliberating a decision you had to make in seconds. We've seen in several of the videos how fast these situations develop, in many cases, the few seconds that a victim takes to realize they are in a life and death situation are all the time they ever get.

Many of these scenarios start and finish in less time than it would take you to say aloud "Is this a Stand Your Ground situation?" It is nice to know as a generally law-abiding citizen that you won't have to face the rest of your life in jail for shooting your potential murderer and not realizing there was a door behind you that the jury thinks you could have used.

The Klaw Man said:
In such a situation why should anyone not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force?
Click to expand...

A better question is why should someone sitting in their own home not doing anything to anybody have to be concerned about going to prison for trying to defend their home? How is law and order upheld by making this person go through extraordinary measures to preserve the life of the criminals that assaulted him?
 
TheKlawMan said:
In such a situation why should anyone not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force?
Click to expand...

Here in CO we not only have no duty to retreat; but we can shoot an intruder regardless of their armed status under our "Make my day" law. It doesn't matter if the guy is fully nude, we can put him down if he breaks into our home and we feel he is a threat to our lives or the lives of the other occupants of the home.
 
Bartholomew Roberts

I never meant to even hint that a good citizen should have to make a difficult decision under extreme pressure, but asked why they shouldn't be responsible in a situation where they simply choose to ignore a safe and obvious means of retreat.

One problem I ahve with some SYG laws is that everyone assumes the homeowner shot a bad guy; some criminal who's live wasn't worth much.

What about the youg kid that breaks in to steal lose change. I know of antother case where a homeless man only took socks to warm his cold feet. Those were intentional breakins. What of the accidental breaking and entering where the only force is what it took to open an unlocked door and push it open. Say someone living in your complex is confused having undkowinlgly just suffered a few TIAs and he mistakes your condo for his. Does he deserve death for accidentally entering the home of another?
 
Does he deserve death for accidentally entering the home of another?
Click to expand...
Possibly not, but does the home owner deserve injury or death because he's expected to wait until the intruder has presented an articulable threat?
 
Here in CO we not only have no duty to retreat; but we can shoot an intruder regardless of their armed status under our "Make my day" law. It doesn't matter if the guy is fully nude, we can put him down if he breaks into our home and we feel he is a threat to our lives or the lives of the other occupants of the home.
Click to expand...

Jim Peel, This is the part of your law that I believe you are focused on.

18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder ("Make My Day Law")

2. 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,
Click to expand...

Breaking that down we see that

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 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 i
--- s 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

Your statment appears correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't it say that you need not fear for your life or the lives of others but only that physical force, no matter how slight, and a crime against property only will jsutify the taking of a life.
 
Klawman - I am afraid your living in CA has you somewhat befuddled on this.... ;)

If someone breaks in, I have NO duty to retreat from MY home so they can commit a crime, nor do I have to give up my car during a car-jacking or anything similar. I have the right to use deadly force, because in any of those events, I have to assume the interloper is about to do me harm if I do not comply
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Servos replied to whether an intruder deserve death for accidentally entering the home of another without any unlawful intent.

Possibly not, but does the home owner deserve injury or death because he's expected to wait until the intruder has presented an articulable threat?
Click to expand...

I noted that the retreating home owner never risks death or injury.

Assume that you are perfectly safe if you retreat to your safe room and it is perfectly obvious that during your retreat will not expose(d) . . . to any risk.
Click to expand...

If you think about it, the home owner who opts to use force increases the risk of death or great bodily harm to himself and others if they don't opt to retreat where the means of retreat guarantees their safety.

Change the hypo a bit. The accidental intruder in fact is legally carrying. Through his work with wounded warriors he has befriended many service people and is a crack shot. The home owner opting for force over retreats takes a shot and misses. The innocent intruder doesn't miss and scors a perfect dougle tap on home owner. Forget about what crime innocent intruder may have committed. I am not sure that he had the legal intent to commit a crime but that is not the issue.
 
Oneounce, I think if you read a bit closer you will notice that I am not talking about what the law grants one the right to do, but what a just law should permit.


My concern isn't responsible persons such as yourself and the few on this thread, but the likes of many mall ninjas who would seem to welcome the chance to blow someone away. While if that ever happens, I think they are mainly decent kids who will regret doing so, even if they had no choice but to shoot, (the eager beavers) don't need to be encouraged to bag their first human.
 
Last edited:
oneounceload said:
Klawman - I am afraid your living in CA has you somewhat befuddled on this....

If someone breaks in, I have NO duty to retreat from MY home so they can commit a crime, nor do I have to give up my car during a car-jacking or anything similar. I have the right to use deadly force, because in any of those events, I have to assume the interloper is about to do me harm if I do not comply...
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that you're the one who is befuddled. There is no duty to retreat in California, and you will be presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household if someone has forcefully and unlawfully entered your home.
 
Frank, I am sure that oneounceload called me befuddled in good natrured jest, even if we have dirrerent views on things, and I beileve he is correct about the law of his jurisdiction. (And I am oftener than not befuddled.) When he says he has to assume I think he means he logically has to assume. I think you once corrected me that Florida law only gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of imminent peril as does California.

I am still undecided as to what I think abot FL SYG law. dpon't even get me started on Colorado law. I am grappling with how relatively easy it may be for someone to take a life and set up immuntiy form prosecution. On the other hand, I don't know that a homeowner should have to bear the stress and cost of a full blown trial to establish that they acted within the law.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is in jest - Kalw and I are the good guys in the shotgun forum - but having lived next door to CA and having to listen to the escapees and their rants......well, you get the idea... ;)

Klaw - it is simple - why should any law-abiding homeowner who feels threatened and uses force to repel the invaders have to pay and defend himself from prosecution for doing a lawful thing in protecting his home and his family?

Personally, I think you should be able to shoot them in the back if they are running away with your stuff, but that is JMO.

I remember a story from a while back - it happened in the East - where a homeowner shot an intruder breaking into his home. The intruder fell from the second story window and was permanently injured. He sued the homeowner for lost wages because he was now unable to pursue his career as a criminal - AND HE WON the judgement!
As long as those types of judgements are allowed, then SYG and Castle Doctrine laws are absolutely necessary as are the provisions preventing civil suits afterwards.

Klaw - I know you have your shotgun for HD, so "one to the head, two to the chest" might be considered extreme - in your case, just remember one shot to COM................;)
 
Yeah oneounce, We are the good guys, should be sung to the tune of we are the ones. That is disagree with you doesn't mean you don't have the right to feel as you do. (Actually you don't but I have yet to have my coronation). Also, when it comes to what is moral and what is legal, I don't know that I am convinced it would be moral not to shoot someone in the back that was fleeing and was almost certain to visit death or mayhem on further victims. Nor do I believe that you are so trigger happy that you would give it readily to some kid unless you felt you had to do it. Of course if anyone messes with your clays guns you have no option.

As for hitting anything with the shotgun, it looks like I am finally averaging a 20 but still not straight 25. If I had to I think I could hit center mass at 15 feet.
 
I remember a story from a while back - it happened in the East - where a homeowner shot an intruder breaking into his home. The intruder fell from the second story window and was permanently injured. He sued the homeowner for lost wages because he was now unable to pursue his career as a criminal - AND HE WON the judgement!

I heard about a similar trial where a cat burgaler(how is it spelled?:o) tried to gain access to a home via skylight, he fell in and landed on some knives and was wounded, somehow managed to win, based on the fact that the knives shoud not have been there.

As far as I am concerned, the fact most states(if not all) make shooting a running intruder in the back illegal, doesn't that pretty much rule out any element of suprise in a HD situation?

Does anyone know if new mexico has "stand your ground laws". just curious, don't plan to shoot anyone anytime soon.
 
As for hitting anything with the shotgun, it looks like I am finally averaging a 20 but still not straight 25. If I had to I think I could hit center mass at 15 feet.
Click to expand...

There ya go - just shot my State's Sporting Clays Championship - won some money and enough punches to move up to another class. I am 4/5 when it comes to registered shoots and winning my class, so you damn right someone comes near my clay guns, that would be like coming near one of my kids!:D

The best defense is a good offense - harden the home, prevent the break in from the first place, get a good dog, thorny bushes, etc., but if they still want to break in and possibly cause harm, take no prisoners - never shoot to wound - THAT will get you jail and sued faster than killing them
 
The best defense is a good offense - harden the home, prevent the break in from the first place, get a good dog, thorny bushes, etc., but if they still want to break in and possibly cause harm, take no prisoners - never shoot to wound - THAT will get you jail and sued faster than killing them
Click to expand...

The way I see it, I am getting to be better than a poor shot, but am far from being a great shot and if I ever have to shoot I shoot to stop the threat. Given the likelihood that shooting under extreme pressure, so far those orange clays haven't fired back although I have been wounded by some clay splinters, that means COM.

As for hardening the home, last week I installed additonal exterior lighting and the beagle is good for one thing, howling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top