Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Self Defense Laws

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Trevorton also Wilmington DE, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    I was reading stories elsewhere and started wondering about the self defense laws in DE. Do they only cover yourself or do they also cover defense of another person. I tried looking it up in the laws, but I just couldnt find anything that covered the topic.



  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Unless you're in your house, you have a duty to retreat before applying lethal force. There is no duty to retreat if you're coming to the aid of a person in need.


    Edit: This is Title 11, Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 464.

    Delaware - Justification -- Use of force in self-protection.

    (a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.

    (b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

    (c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.

    (d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.

    (e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:

    (1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or

    (2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:

    a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and

    b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and

    c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.


    Edit: Here's the code for defense of others:

    § 465. Same - Use of force for the protection of other persons.


    (a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

    (1) The defendant would have been justified under § 464 of this title in using such force to protect the defendant against the injury the defendant believes to be threatened to the person whom the defendant seeks to protect; and

    (2) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been justified in using such protective force; and

    (3) The defendant believes that intervention is necessary for the protection of the other person.

    (b) Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person.

    (c) When the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing, the defendant is obliged to try to cause the person to do so before using force in the person's protection if the actor knows that complete safety can be secured in that way.

    (d) Neither the defendant nor the person whom the defendant seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other's dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than in their own.




  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    For your property:

    § 466. Same - Use of force for the protection of property.

    Statute text
    (a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary:

    (1) To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or

    (2) To prevent entry upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or

    (3) To prevent theft, criminal mischief or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts.

    (b) The defendant may in the circumstances named in subsection (a) of this section use such force as the defendant believes is necessary to protect the threatened property, provided that the defendant first requests the person against whom force is used to desist from interference with the property, unless the defendant believes that:

    (1) Such a request would be useless; or

    (2) It would be dangerous to the defendant or another person to make the request; or

    (3) Substantial harm would be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request could effectively be made.

    (c) The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that:

    (1) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the defendant of the defendant's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

    (2) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and either:

    a. Had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant; or

    b. Under the circumstances existing at the time, the defendant believed the use of force other than deadly force would expose the defendant, or another person in the defendant's presence, to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury.

    (d) Where a person has used force for the protection of property and has not been convicted for any crime or offense connected with that use of force, such person shall not be liable for damages or be otherwise civilly liable to the one against whom such force was used.

    Annotations and Case Law for this statute:

    Retreat unnecessary where one is in own dwelling.
    - When one is in one's own habitation or dwelling place, and is there violently attacked by one who intends to kill the person or do the person some grievous bodily harm, the person need not take any steps to get out of the attacker's way. State v. Talley, 14 Del. 417, 33 A. 181 (1886).

    When a person is assailed within one's own dwelling house, a person need not retreat, but may make a stand there, even though retreat with safety is possible. State v. Mills, 22 Del. 497, 69 A. 841 (1908).

    Entry upon land does not warrant incommensurably violent response. - A forcible entry onto a tract of land, by opening a closed gate, or pulling down fence bars, or cutting through a hedge or breaking a wall, as it does not denote of itself an intention to do any act of personal violence, does not warrant the possessor in resorting to any violence to expel the intruder incommensurate with or out of just proportion to that used or threatened. The law furnishes an adequate remedy for this offense. State v. Talley, 14 Del. 417, 33 A. 181 (1886).
    Where the trespass of the wrongdoer is not to the habitation or dwelling, but upon or to the land only, the law states that before the possessor can use any violence to the trespasser - much less resort to a deadly weapon - the possessor must, if the possessor wishes to get rid of the wrongdoer, endeavor to do so by the use of gentle means, such as persuasion or moderate application of force. Should resistance be offered, the possessor has the right to oppose that resistance and use sufficient force to overcome it, but never resort to the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon until it is absolutely necessary to defend one's person against such in the hands of the wrongdoer. State v. Talley, 14 Del. 417, 33 A. 181 (1886).

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Annotations and Case Law for SELF DEFENSE STATUTE:

    The law of self-defense supposes that the attack was unexpected by the slayer; for if, in case of combat, the slayer went into it voluntarily, expected to meet an opponent, and prepared beforehand with the means to contend with the opponent, the conflict cannot be distinguished from that of a duel, where, if one party is killed, the other is guilty of murder. State v. Talley, 14 Del. 417, 33 A. 181 (1886).

    Duress and self-defense are not cumulative defenses but, indeed, involve mutually exclusive theories. Feliciano v. State, 332 A.2d 148 (Del. 1975).
    Duress and self-defense are different species of justification defense and are designed to apply to different factual situations. Feliciano v. State, 332 A.2d 148 (Del. 1975).

    But duress and self-defense are kindred defenses in that each involves compulsion in a "choice of evils" setting. Feliciano v. State, 332 A.2d 148 (Del. 1975).

    Self-protection justifies use of force when duress or coercion is act of victim. Feliciano v. State, 332 A.2d 148 (Del. 1975).

    The "expected or intended" exclusion of an insurance policy was not triggered by insured's act of self-defense since acts of self-defense are not intentionally tortious. Deakyne v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 728 A.2d 569 (Del. Super. Ct. 1997).

    Person attacked is under duty to retreat. - If the deceased first attacked the accused, even though the attack was of such character as to create in the mind of the accused a reasonable belief of danger of death or great bodily harm, it was the accused's duty to retreat, if the accused could safely do so, or to use such other reasonable means as were within the accused's power to avoid killing the assailant. State v. Reese, 25 Del. 434, 79 A. 217 (1911); State v. Lee, 36 Del. 11, 171 A. 195 (1933).
    No one may take the life of another, even in the exercise of the right of self-defense, unless there is no other available means of escape from death or great bodily harm. State v. Creste, 27 Del. 118, 86 A. 214 (1913).
    If one is assaulted and can safely withdraw and thereby avoid danger, it is the person's duty to do so. A person has no right in self-defense to strike back unless there is no other way of avoiding danger to one's person. State v. Roe, 30 Del. 95, 103 A. 16 (1918).
    The defendant must retreat only if it is safe to do so. Quillen v. State, 49 Del. 114, 110 A.2d 445.
    The concept of a duty to retreat, if it is safe to do so, is firmly entrenched in the law of this State. Lane v. State, 222 A.2d 263 (Del. 1966).
    This section may not be used where the defendant can avoid the necessity of using deadly force. Tice v. State, 382 A.2d 231 (Del. 1977).

    But retreat is unnecessary when one is in one's own dwelling. - When one is in one's own habitation or dwelling place, and is there violently attacked by one who intends to kill the person or do the person some grievous bodily harm, the person need not take any steps to get out of the attacker's way. State v. Talley, 14 Del. 417, 33 A. 181 (1886).
    When a person is assailed within one's own dwelling house, a person need not retreat, but may make a stand there, even though retreat with safety is possible. State v. Mills, 22 Del. 497, 69 A. 841 (1908).

    Law does not recognize right to revenge. - The law recognizes the right of self-defense for the purpose of preventing, but not of revenging, an injury to the person. State v. Short, 25 Del. 491, 82 A. 239 (1911); Lane v. State, 222 A.2d 263 (Del. 1966).

    Self-defense is not available to one who deliberately provokes the difficulty that makes the killing necessary. Quillen v. State, 49 Del. 114, 110 A.2d 445.
    One who kills another, to be justified or excused on the ground of self-defense, must have been without fault in provoking the difficulty and must not have been the aggressor and must not have provoked, brought on, or encouraged the difficulty or produced the occasion which made it necessary to kill. State v. Stevenson, 38 Del. 105, 188 A. 750 (1936).
    This section may not be used where the defendant provoked the incident. Tice v. State, 382 A.2d 231 (Del. 1977).

    There is a congruence of roles in a self-defense pattern; thus, the original assailant is both coercer and victim. By the use of unlawful force against a defendant, the assailant coerces the latter to reciprocate in kind, and then the defendant responds. Feliciano v. State, 332 A.2d 148 (Del. 1975).

    Subsection (a) must be read in the light of § 307(a) of this title. Coleman v. State, 320 A.2d 740 (Del. 1974).

    The new Criminal Code has changed the standard to be applied in determining the issue of justification. Coleman v. State, 320 A.2d 740 (Del. 1974).

    Essential element is subjective belief of defendant. - In a claim for self-defense, the essential element is whether the defendant subjectively believed the use of force was necessary for protection, and not whether the victim acted in conformity with a character trait of aggressiveness. Tice v. State, 624 A.2d 399 (Del. 1993).

    The character of the victim is not an essential element of a self-defense claim pursuant to this section, and, accordingly, specific instances of past conduct cannot be used as circumstantial evidence of a victim's character for violence or aggression under D.R.E. 405(b). Tice v. State, 624 A.2d 399 (Del. 1993).

    Subjective test for justification has supplanted "reasonable person" test. - The former objective test of what a reasonable person would have believed under the circumstances, as to the necessity of using force in self-defense, has been supplanted by the subjective test of what the defendant actually believed as to such necessity. Coleman v. State, 320 A.2d 740 (Del. 1974).
    This section in substance provides for a subjective standard. Tice v. State, 382 A.2d 231 (Del. 1977).

    Subjective test as defined in section must be applied to any claim of self-defense, whether in criminal or civil litigation. Moor v. Licciardello, 463 A.2d 268 (Del. 1983).

    Reasonable belief is not required; all that is relevant to the actor's guilt is whether the actor honestly believed it necessary to use force in self-defense. Moor v. Licciardello, 463 A.2d 268 (Del. 1983).

    The "reasonable person" test is retained as a factor to be considered with all others in the determination of the issue of justification; but it is not necessarily the controlling factor. Coleman v. State, 320 A.2d 740 (Del. 1974).
    An appraisal from the reasonable person standpoint is retained only as a factor in evaluating the credibility of the defendant's belief. Moor v. Licciardello, 463 A.2d 268 (Del. 1983).

    Mere words or threats, however offensive, will never justify even a slight assault. State v. Roe, 30 Del. 95, 103 A. 16 (1918).
    No looks or gestures, however insulting, and no words, however offensive they may be, can amount in law to a provocation sufficient to justify an assault. State v. Stevenson, 38 Del. 105, 188 A. 750 (1936).

    Person in danger may strike first blow. - The law accords to everyone the right to protect one's person from assault and injury by opposing force to force, and one is not obliged to wait until struck by an impending blow; for if a weapon be raised in order to shoot or strike, or the danger of other personal violence be imminent, one in such danger may protect oneself by striking the first blow for the purpose of repelling and preventing the attempted injury. State v. McKinney, 28 Del. 128, 90 A. 1067 (1914).
    If a weapon be raised to shoot or strike, or the danger of other personal violence be imminent, the person in such danger may protect their person by striking the first blow, but only for the purpose of repelling and preventing the attempted injury. State v. Stevenson, 38 Del. 105, 188 A. 750 (1936).

    Degree of force. - In repelling or resisting an assault no more force may be used than is necessary for the purpose, and if the person assailed uses in self-defense greater force than is necessary, the person becomes the aggressor. State v. Honey, 22 Del. 148, 65 A. 764 (1906); State v. Reese, 25 Del. 434, 79 A. 217 (1911); State v. Short, 25 Del. 491, 82 A. 239 (1911); State v. Creste, 27 Del. 118, 86 A. 214 (1913); State v. McKinney, 28 Del. 128, 90 A. 1067 (1914); State v. Stevenson, 38 Del. 105, 188 A. 750 (1936).
    A slight assault will not excuse or justify the killing of the assailant with a deadly weapon. State v. Reese, 25 Del. 434, 79 A. 217 (1911).
    A slight assault will not justify a person in using more force or violence than is necessary to protect the person from bodily harm. State v. Roe, 30 Del. 95, 103 A. 16 (1918).
    Delaware's self-protection within a dwelling defense required that an occupant be placed in immediate peril, at the time of the use of deadly force, and did not apply where the intruder was totally subdued, and was pleading with defendants to stop attacking; although having no duty to retreat, under subdivision (e)(2) of this section, 11 Del.C. § 469 did not grant the occupant of a dwelling a license to kill. Warrington v. State, 818 A.2d 151 (Del. 2003).

    Killing arresting officer. - If a defendant was placed in a position in which the defendant's life was imperiled by the arresting officer and if the defendant shot the officer without knowing or having reason to know that the officer was a peace officer and the defendant had no time or opportunity for retreat, and if the shooting was apparently necessary to save the defendant's own life, then the killing of the officer was justifiable homicide in self-defense; it does not matter that the officer was legally seeking to arrest the defendant, if the defendant had no notice of such fact or no reason to know that fact. State v. Winsett, 58 Del. 111, 205 A.2d 510 (1964).

    There is no Fourth Amendment right to resist an unlawful arrest. Ellison v. State, 410 A.2d 519 (Del. Super. Ct. 1979).

    Common-law right to resist an illegal arrest is abolished by subsection (d) of this section. Ellison v. State, 410 A.2d 519 (Del. Super. Ct. 1979).

    Killing of third person. - Where the proof shows a state of affairs which would excuse the killing of an assailant under the law of self-defense, that emergency will be held to excuse the person attacked from culpability if in attempting self-defense, the person unintentionally and without negligence kills a third person. State v. Stevenson, 38 Del. 105, 188 A. 750 (1936).

    Burden of proof. - The burden of establishing self-defense to the satisfaction of the jury rests with the accused. State v. Cephus, 22 Del. 160, 67 A. 150 (1906); State v. McKinney, 28 Del. 128, 90 A. 1067 (1914); State v. Stevenson, 38 Del. 105, 188 A. 750 (1936).
    Self-defense is a valid defense to a charge of felonious homicide, but, when relied on, the defendant must bear the burden of proof. Brown v. State, 48 Del. 427, 105 A.2d 646 (1954).
    The burden of establishing self-defense is upon the defendants, but they do not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, it is sufficient if they prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is not as great or as certain proof as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To establish by a preponderance of the evidence means to prove that something is more likely so than not so. Thus, the burden of the defendants to prove self-defense is merely to prove that it is more likely so than not so. State v. Winsett, 58 Del. 111, 205 A.2d 510 (1964).
    This section requires the State to negate any reasonable doubt on the issue of justification. Tice v. State, 382 A.2d 231 (Del. 1977).

    Failure to establish elements under subsection (c).
    - Where a defendant offers no evidence to show that the victim was the initial aggressor, fails to introduce any evidence to establish the quantum of force, if any, used by the victim and presents no evidence on the question of whether the defendant believed that deadly force was necessary for protection from the victim, the defendant fails to establish by credible evidence each element of self-defense by deadly force set forth in subsection (c) of this section. Fetters v. State, 436 A.2d 796 (Del. 1981).

    Admissibility of reputation and prior acts of deceased. - The reputation of the deceased for violence, known to the accused, is admissible; there seems to be no substantial reason why the belief of the prisoner should not be evidenced by knowledge of specific acts of violence, as well as by knowledge of general reputation for violence, subject, of course, to exclusion in a proper case for remoteness. State v. Gordon, 37 Del. 219, 181 A. 361 (1935).
    In ordinary cases of criminal assault and battery, where the accused pleads self-defense or the defense of another, the general community reputation of the victim for having a violent and dangerous character is admissible in evidence, particularly when there is a factual issue as to who was the aggressor in the circumstances. State v. Rigler, 266 A.2d 887 (Del. Super. Ct. 1970).
    Evidence of specific prior violent or dangerous acts, or character evidence arising from facts which follow the crime charged, is inadmissible and irrelevant, on the issue of self-defense or defense of another. State v. Rigler, 266 A.2d 887 (Del. Super. Ct. 1970).

    Admissibility of prior bad acts of assault victim. - A defendant, charged with assault, may introduce character evidence of the victim's prior bad acts, not as an essential element of a self-defense claim under D.R.E. 405(b), but for noncharacter purposes, under D.R.E. 404(b), to establish a defendant's subjective state of mind at the time the defendant purported to act in self-defense. Tice v. State, 624 A.2d 399 (Del. 1993).

    Jury instruction. - A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense only if there is evidence sufficient to establish each element of that defense. Fetters v. State, 436 A.2d 796 (Del. 1981).
    Where court charged jury on the elements of self-defense and defined "unlawful force" according to § 471 of this title and instructed jury to consider § 469 of this title in determining whether victim used unlawful force against defendant who was a burglar, harmless error was found. Baynard v. State, 518 A.2d 682 (Del. 1986).
    Where defendant presented a plausible version of events, wherein defendant alleged that a corrections officer stabbed defendant with a pen which led to defendant having punched the officer, the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for a jury instruction on self-defense pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 464(a); defendant had met the credible evidence standard for showing that the officer threatened to use "unlawful force" and accordingly, the instruction should have been provided pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 303(a), leaving the issue of credibility for the jury. Gutierrez v. State, 842 A.2d 650 (Del. 2003).
    The trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on justification as defendant had requested and, instead, instructing the jury on accomplice liability and giving the negative self defense instruction, based on defendant's conduct in allegedly hitting the victim's hand as protection from the victim's gun; defendant was a knowing and willing participant in the robbery, who pointed the gun at the victim's head in a threatening manner, and, as the State did not premise defendant's accomplice liability on defendant grabbing the victim's arm, the defendant was not entitled to a justification instruction. Smith v. State, - A.2d - (Del. Apr. 27, 2006).
    Defendant was not entitled to a justification instruction as under defendant's theory of the case, in which defendant hit the victim's arm as the victim turned, as protection, fearing for life and safety, the defense of justification had no place at all; under this version of the facts, defendant had committed no crime, nor intended to promote or facilitate the robbery or murder. Smith v. State, - A.2d - (Del. Apr. 27, 2006).

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Hope that covers your question.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Great post!

  7. #7
    Regular Member dave_in_delaware's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newark, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    You got some great stuff there, Wynder.

    Are these annotations available online somewhere? I know the Code is, but I want the other goodies, too! LOL.
    Dave
    Co-Founder & Global Moderator
    Delaware Open Carry

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Trevorton also Wilmington DE, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    Figured you would be the one to answer my question Wynder. Yeah that pretty much covers everything that I wanted to know. Thanx

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    dave_in_delaware wrote:
    You got some great stuff there, Wynder.

    Are these annotations available online somewhere? I know the Code is, but I want the other goodies, too! LOL.
    Afraid, not...

    The annotations are in the actual Criminal Code book and the LexisNexis CD that comes with it.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    You can buy it fairly cheap (<$50) http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/product/6736.html

  11. #11
    Regular Member dave_in_delaware's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newark, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    Afraid, not...

    The annotations are in the actual Criminal Code book and the LexisNexis CD that comes with it.
    Well, then it's time for you to make some copies!
    Dave
    Co-Founder & Global Moderator
    Delaware Open Carry

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    You can buy it fairly cheap (<$50) http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/product/6736.html
    I wonder which, supply or demand, drives the Wisconsin specific titles?

    Thanks for the link.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hockessin, , USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    I've always been confused by this. Am I the only one?

    "Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person. "

    Is that saying that I have a duty to not only retreat, but to comply with the demands of my attacker (including giving up my property) before I can use deadly force? So for example, if someone tried to carjack me I would be required to comply with the demand of the criminal and give up my car before I could legally use deadly force?

    Yet I have no such obligation when defending someone else. Why is the threshold for using force higher when employing it in my own defense?

    "complete safety" seems like an unnecessarily vague term as well.

    Who knows? maybe I'm just interpreting this the wrong way?



  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    If you feel you can retreat safely during a carjacking, then, by law, yes, you must retreat or give the assailant your property. I guess there's no requirement in helping another because your not completely injected into the situation outside of being able to determine whether or not you might be able to 'save' someone.

  15. #15
    Regular Member dave_in_delaware's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newark, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    gotarheels03 wrote:
    I've always been confused by this. Am I the only one?

    "Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person. "

    Is that saying that I have a duty to not only retreat, but to comply with the demands of my attacker (including giving up my property) before I can use deadly force? So for example, if someone tried to carjack me I would be required to comply with the demand of the criminal and give up my car before I could legally use deadly force?

    Yet I have no such obligation when defending someone else. Why is the threshold for using force higher when employing it in my own defense?

    "complete safety" seems like an unnecessarily vague term as well.

    Who knows? maybe I'm just interpreting this the wrong way?


    You're confused? Welcome to the Club. It makes no sense to me, either.

    Apparently in Delaware, you aren't allowed to "stand your ground" to protect yourself or your property and the State would rather you retreat and possible get hurt/killed, but you can be a "loose cannon" and aggressive when it comes to protecting atotal stranger.

    Duh, go figure.Stupid Delaware.

    Dave
    Co-Founder & Global Moderator
    Delaware Open Carry

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kent county, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    322

    Post imported post

    gotarheels03 wrote:
    I've always been confused by this. Am I the only one?

    "Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person. "

    Is that saying that I have a duty to not only retreat, but to comply with the demands of my attacker (including giving up my property) before I can use deadly force? So for example, if someone tried to carjack me I would be required to comply with the demand of the criminal and give up my car before I could legally use deadly force?

    Yet I have no such obligation when defending someone else. Why is the threshold for using force higher when employing it in my own defense?

    "complete safety" seems like an unnecessarily vague term as well.

    Who knows? maybe I'm just interpreting this the wrong way?

    § 464. Justification -- Use of force in self-protection.

    (e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:

    (2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:

    a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and

    b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and

    the wording here says that you know you can avoid with complete safety. even if they say "if you give me your car I wont kill you" are you going to believe a criminal?

    I read the person asserting a claim of right thereto as someone asserting a claim of ownership of the property. ie "you have my wallet, give it back or I'll kill you" IMO the common langauge used would be something in the order of " give me your wallet!" or "Get out of the car"! neither statement makes a claim of right thereto.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lewes (At The Beach), Delaware, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Wynder

    I'm I reading this right there are only 3 listed

    Sections 464,465,466

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Protection of self, protection in the home and coming to the defense of others.

    Those are all of the ones that I found.

Posting Permissions

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