Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Self defense laws: The CT legislature's new attack front

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Self defense laws: The CT legislature's new attack front

    A terribly written article completely lying about how 'Stand Your Ground' laws work. Expect this to be the next big push and attack.

    http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politic...s#.Ue2aGo3VDL8
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    A terribly written article completely lying about how 'Stand Your Ground' laws work. Expect this to be the next big push and attack.

    http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politic...s#.Ue2aGo3VDL8
    Sent Sharkey a nice email .... see if he responds

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    A terribly written article completely lying about how 'Stand Your Ground' laws work. Expect this to be the next big push and attack.

    http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politic...s#.Ue2aGo3VDL8
    Yes it is poorly written and probably the next attack. We need to get the facts straight for this push. Interesting is the CT jury instructions on "duty to retreat" http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.8-3.htm. Particularly interesting is that the burden of proof is on the state:

    It is important to remember that the defendant has no burden whatsoever to prove that (he/she) could not have retreated with complete safety or that (he/she) didn't know that a safe retreat was possible before (he/she) used physical force against <insert name of other person>. To the contrary, you may only reject (his/her) defense on the basis of this statutory disqualification if you find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) did know that (he/she) could retreat with complete safety.

    Also interesting is the commentary:

    Duty to retreat
    "Connecticut is among a minority of jurisdictions . . . that has followed the position advanced by the Model Penal Code that, before using deadly force in self-defense, an individual must retreat." State v. Anderson, 227 Conn. 518, 530 (1993). The statutory provision requiring retreat in lieu of deadly force replaces common-law rules. See State v. Byrd, 233 Conn. 517 (1995). The trial court need not instruct the jury on the duty to retreat if the state does not claim that the defendant should have retreated. State v. Lemoine, 256 Conn. 193, 200 (2001).


    I particularly like the comment about common law rules on the subject as highlighted.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    We need to get the facts straight for this push.
    We already have the facts straight. We teach the facts all the time.

    http://ctcarry.com/Seminar/RRM

    It is a matter of publicly shaming those who do not from further public comment.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •