Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Deadly Force Law in NC

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    What is the deadly force laws in NC for:

    1- Homeowners

    2-In public places

    3-In hotels

    4-In a vehicle



    I'm familiar with SC very well, but over the years the laws kinda blend together.

  2. #2
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post




    North Carolina Passes Innovative Shoot First Law




    By Douglas Salguod

    Aug 9, 2006, 06:48






    Daniel G. Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg)
    RALEIGH, N.C. - The North Carolina state legislature passed the nation's first actual "Shoot First" law yesterday. In the last year, fifteen other states have enacted laws expanding the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations in which the use of such force might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder. Supporters call them "stand your ground" laws. Opponents call them "shoot first" laws.

    North Carolina appears to have come up with an innovative legal solution to this divide that may, almost incredibly, satisfy both anti-constitutional gun-control loonies and gun-toting law-and-order nuts. The legislation, which is called "The Shoot First; No, Please,You Shoot First Law," forbids the prosecution of anyone involved in the use of deadly force as long as he or she gives the other person the unhindered opportunity to shoot him or her first.

    http://www.pugbus.net/artman/publish...ootfirst.shtml


    Check this site out as well: http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    Hahahahaha!!!:celebrate

    "Honestly Officer, I told him to shoot first, but he insisted it was my privilege..."

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I wonder what might be the elements of 'please, you shoot first'? They seem inherent in a Good Guy citizen going about his business with his piece holstered/concealed, the BG has every first opportunity - of instigation.

    The elements of common law self-defense are four; 1) Be innocent of instigation. 2) Be in reasonable fear of harm. 3) Attempt to withdraw. 4) Use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Sounds like a sly move on the part of the 2A guys.

    The defender can't shoot until there is jeopardy/intent--meaning the other guy is taking his clear, underhindered chance to shoot first.

    Whaddaya do if he's coming at you with a knife?

    Of course, the simple thing is to expose the media's shallow understanding/lies of what these laws do--make it harder for unlawful prosecution. They in no way authorize shooting first any more than the common law already does...not.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    I did not see anything that defined exactly how long that unhindered opportunity to be. Honestly officer, I told him to go ahead and shoot first. I waited a whole pico second (10 to the -12th) and then let him have it. Do ya want to go get a cola?

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    Okay, can someone break this new law down to me again? I'm confused here.

  8. #8
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Basically, it means that you have to prove that the other person was given the opportunity to cause bodily harm to you before you caused it to him. IOW: Get a good attorney!

  9. #9
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    My question is how in the hellis someonegoing to prove that a perp is taking his clear, "underhindered" chance to shoot you first if he dies, or, says otherwise if he lives?!? I agree with .40 Cal.......get a good lawyer!!

    2nd Amendment........Use it........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    If you look closely at the website linked in the post above, you will see that it is a parody website along the lines of "The Onion".

    I don't think it is really representative of what the N.C. "Stand Your Ground" Law actually states.

  11. #11
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Although it is a parody of the law, it represents the idea behind self defense shooting in NC. You are not allowed to shoot a person who is fleeing (makes sense), you are not allowed to shoot a person who is not equally armed or in a position to cause lethal bodily harm (you aren't allowed to be proactive), you can't shoot a person in yourhomeunless he attacks you (just havinghim in proximity to your family wouldn't justify lethal force, however if he is pounding on your door you may shoot through the door... makes sense?), and you may use deadly force if you witness an assault that a reasonable person would consider would lead to a homicide or rape (even in rape prevention lethal force is questionable).

  12. #12
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    Although it is a parody of the law, it represents the idea behind self defense shooting in NC. You are not allowed to shoot a person who is fleeing (makes sense), you are not allowed to shoot a person who is not equally armed or in a position to cause lethal bodily harm (you aren't allowed to be proactive), you can't shoot a person in yourhomeunless he attacks you (just havinghim in proximity to your family wouldn't justify lethal force, however if he is pounding on your door you may shoot through the door... makes sense?), and you may use deadly force if you witness an assault that a reasonable person would consider would lead to a homicide or rape (even in rape prevention lethal force is questionable).
    Anyone have a link to the actual text of the law? I tried to find it, but didn't have any luck.

  13. #13
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...invol=031192-1

    Hope this helps:

    NO. COA03-1192



    NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS



    Filed: 4 May 2004




    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    v.Robeson County
    No. 00 CRS 007976
    KENDRICK SHANTE MCLEAN





    Appeal by defendant from judgment dated 30 April 2003 by Judge Jack A. Thompson in Superior Court, Robeson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 April 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Sandra Wallace-Smith, for the State.

    Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katherine Jane Allen, for defendant-appellant.


    McGEE, Judge.


    Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court imposed a presumptive sentence of fifty-seven to seventy- eight months of imprisonment.
    Defendant was charged with first-degree murder for the shooting death of Richard Stubbs on Malpass Avenue in Red Springs, North Carolina on 11 April 2000. An autopsy revealed that Stubbs was shot once or twice in the back of his legs and once fatally in the right side of his back. Police found eight shell casings at the scene, all of which were fired from defendant's nine millimeter handgun. Although defendant testified that he fired in self- defense only after Stubbs jumped in front of his car and threatenedhim with a gun, no weapon was found on or near Stubbs' body.
    The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge at the conclusion of the evidence. The court instructed the jury on first degree and second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, perfect and imperfect self-defense, and heat of passion.
    Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, absent substantial evidence that he was not entitled to use deadly force against Stubbs in self-defense. In order for a homicide to be justified as self-defense, the evidence must establish the following:
    (1) it appeared to defendant and he believed it to be necessary to kill the deceased in order to save himself from death or great bodily harm; and

    (2) defendant's belief was reasonable in that the circumstances as they appeared to him at that time were sufficient to create such a belief in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness; and

    (3) defendant was not the aggressor in bringing on the affray, i.e., he did not aggressively and willingly enter into the fight without legal excuse or provocation; and

    (4) defendant did not use excessive force, i.e., did not use more force than was necessary or reasonably appeared to him to be necessary under the circumstances to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.
    State v. McAvoy, 331 N.C. 583, 595, 417 S.E.2d 489, 497 (1992) (quoting State v. Norris, 303 N.C. 526, 530, 279 S.E.2d 570, 572-73 (1981)). Defendant argues the State's evidence failed to disprove any of these four factors.Having reviewed the trial transcript, we find "[t]he evidence presented does not unequivocally establish that the killing was in self-defense." State v. Gray, 337 N.C. 772, 778, 448 S.E.2d 794, 798 (1994). The State's witnesses, Cecil Monroe and Charles Galbreath, both testified that defendant, without provocation, instigated the fatal encounter with Stubbs. These eyewitnesses stated they were with Stubbs in the front yard of Galbreath's house on the afternoon of the shooting. They saw defendant circle the block in his car three times. When Stubbs began walking toward his mother's house, defendant attempted to run him over with his car. Defendant got out of his car and fired at Stubbs several times as he attempted to flee. Although defendant challenges the motives and reliability of the State's witnesses, such issues are not before a court when ruling upon a motion to dismiss. Unless the testimony of a witness is contrary to physical laws or involves assertions of fact beyond his or her capacity to observe, the jury is the sole and final arbiter of credibility. See State v. Sneed, 327 N.C. 266, 272-73, 393 S.E.2d 531, 534 (1990) (citing State v. Miller, 270 N.C. 726, 154 S.E.2d 902 (1967)). In this case, defendant neither asserts nor shows that the challenged testimony was inherently incredible in this way. Accordingly, the question of self-defense was properly left to the jury. State v. Turner, 305 N.C. 356, 363, 289 S.E.2d 368, 372 (1982) (quoting Miller, 270 N.C. at 732, 154 S.E.2d at 906).
    No error.
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge BRYANT concur.Report per Rule 30(e).

  14. #14
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    ps: Sounds like this guy was looking for trouble. Don't do this and think you'll get off.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Northeast NC
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    How i see it is in all states you should be allowed to shoot someone if you or someone elses life is in danger.

    I also believe that is the main law. Of course it doesn't break it down but it should give you an idea. If someone's life is indanger and you can prevent them or you from being killed do it.

    Thats how i see it.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    This is case law. Statute law doesn't address the question?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Smurfologist wrote:
    My question is how in the hellis someonegoing to prove that a perp is taking his clear, "underhindered" chance to shoot you first if he dies, or, says otherwise if he lives?!?
    Well, I suppose you could take Andrew Jackson's approach. In his duel with Charles Dickinson, Jackson let Dickinson put a .70 ball into his ribs, then shot and killed him.

    "Your honor, my proof that I let him shoot first is that he shot me!"

  18. #18
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    Smurfologist wrote:
    My question is how in the hellis someonegoing to prove that a perp is taking his clear, "underhindered" chance to shoot you first if he dies, or, says otherwise if he lives?!?
    Well, I suppose you could take Andrew Jackson's approach. In his duel with Charles Dickinson, Jackson let Dickinson put a .70 ball into his ribs, then shot and killed him.

    "Your honor, my proof that I let him shoot first is that he shot me!"
    I hear you, swillden. I think that NC's law (the way that it is written) is not practical in real life situations (just my opinion, for what it's worth).

    2nd Amendment..........Use it...........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post



    retiredcop wrote on 12/13/2008 12:36:40 PM:
    Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.

    Malcolm X... &... This 68 year old retired Cop

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislat...S_14-51.1.html


    http://www.askthelawguy.info/ask2/2007.10.01_arch.html

    [color=#000000 ?]N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 14-51.1[/color], covers the use of deadly force to protect a home.

    Self-defense is a defense to prosecution for unlawfully killing or injuring another, it is not a bar to being prosecuted. The accused bears the burden of persuading the jury that the use of force was justified.



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greensboro, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    While the elements of self-defense are outlined in the case laws cited above, the law regarding self defense in the home is cited below:


    § 14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

    (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

    (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

    (c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    This may help....CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS
    AND THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

    http://www.ncsheriffs.org/images/Con...ly%20Force.pdf

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    215

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    Although it is a parody of the law, it represents the idea behind self defense shooting in NC. You are not allowed to shoot a person who is fleeing (makes sense), you are not allowed to shoot a person who is not equally armed or in a position to cause lethal bodily harm (you aren't allowed to be proactive), you can't shoot a person in yourhomeunless he attacks you (just havinghim in proximity to your family wouldn't justify lethal force, however if he is pounding on your door you may shoot through the door... makes sense?), and you may use deadly force if you witness an assault that a reasonable person would consider would lead to a homicide or rape (even in rape prevention lethal force is questionable).
    I have bolded the part that irks me the most about NC law.......My wife and I are gone 8 - 10 hours a day 5 days a week. If you are stupid enough to break in while we are there, then it is my duty to make sure it is the last stop on your criminal train.

    If someone breaks into an occupied dwelling, you should be allowed to use deadly force (even if they aren't armed). It is disgusting that the homeowner must prove that the perp is armed and intent on killing you.

    This part of the law gives the rights to criminals that break into homes and legally disarms citizens when it comes to shootings in their homes.

    IMHO: when put in this situation do not speak to the police when they arrive (anything you say will be misquoted and used against you) and have a home defense firearm that will ensure there is only one story when the police arrive.

    My 2 cents...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    ocgso wrote:
    .40 Cal wrote:
    Although it is a parody of the law, it represents the idea behind self defense shooting in NC. You are not allowed to shoot a person who is fleeing (makes sense), you are not allowed to shoot a person who is not equally armed or in a position to cause lethal bodily harm (you aren't allowed to be proactive), you can't shoot a person in yourhomeunless he attacks you (just havinghim in proximity to your family wouldn't justify lethal force, however if he is pounding on your door you may shoot through the door... makes sense?), and you may use deadly force if you witness an assault that a reasonable person would consider would lead to a homicide or rape (even in rape prevention lethal force is questionable).
    I have bolded the part that irks me the most about NC law.......My wife and I are gone 8 - 10 hours a day 5 days a week. If you are stupid enough to break in while we are there, then it is my duty to make sure it is the last stop on your criminal train.

    If someone breaks into an occupied dwelling, you should be allowed to use deadly force (even if they aren't armed). It is disgusting that the homeowner must prove that the perp is armed and intent on killing you.

    This part of the law gives the rights to criminals that break into homes and legally disarms citizens when it comes to shootings in their homes.

    IMHO: when put in this situation do not speak to the police when they arrive (anything you say will be misquoted and used against you) and have a home defense firearm that will ensure there is only one story when the police arrive.

    My 2 cents...
    The way I look at it, If a person or persons force their way into my home while My family is there....if they make it past the threshold, they are intending to do me bodily harm. I am not some sort Rambo, in fact as a Christian I dread the thought of having to use lethal force. However, I will do what I can to prevent my family from being assaulted.

    I think this law is worded this way to keep people from shooting someone they just did not like or an unexpected acquaintance who happened to enter their home...Either way, If you fear that they are trying to kill you or any of your family, if you suspect they intend to cause you great bodily harm, or some sort of sexual assault then lethal force is justified.

    Traumatic events take place very quickly, with no time to question your understanding of the legal use of lethal force...That's why I am taking my Concealed handgun class this Saturday.


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    211

    Post imported post

    I have to agree with .40 cal
    As a kid growing up in the back woods of NC the thing that bugged me was hearing my uncle and grandpa talking about how a man could walk in the front door and out the back and we couldn't do a darn thing about it.
    Well you can but you would be outside the law...
    Atleast thats what the LEO's told my grandpa.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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