• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

S

Skinnedknuckles

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
108
Location
Connecticut
Rich B said:
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/politics/speaker-wants-to-review-conn-self-defense-laws#.Ue2aGo3VDL8
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top