Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Home Invaision and Self Protection

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Woodbury, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Can we open up a discussion on what to do if someone enters your home uninvited? My first intent would be to defend myself and get out my house if at all possible. But, what if I can't get out and what if the person who broke into my home wants to attack me or hurt me in some manner?

    This is a hot topic today in Connecticut and across the USA.

    Thanks,



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Woodbury, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Someone breaks into my house. What I should I do? My first desire is to get out of the house. What if I am sleeping and I am awakened suddenly with someone in my bedroom and my hand gun is close to me? What should I do?




  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Your home is the safest place you have. It is your place of retreat, so leaving your home means going into the unfamiliar, where there is an even greater chance of danger.

    Unless you can take your entire family with you at once, leaving your home means leaving your family either unprotected outside (facing unknown danger), or unprotected inside (with a known danger).

    Retreating within your home is good, so long as you can stay between the threat and your family.

    Now, my answers aren't based on CT law, about which I know almost nothing. I'm only speaking of the tactical and socio-/moral concerns about using deadly force without doing everything possible to avoid pulling the trigger.

    And of course, I'm only responding to what you asked: someone in your home, unwelcome and uninvited. The moment they pose more of a threat than that, all bets are off.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    140

    Post imported post

    CT hasA Castle Doctrine, take a look at it, my thoughts are that if you are threatened or your family from someone that might want to take your life, full defense is the only resort in my eye, I would not be happy about it but I can't imagine what that Dr. in Meriden will be feeling for the rest of his life, with that question "what if"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Britain, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    My two cents worth:

    If anyone who enters my home without an invitation or permission, I will assume that they intend to do me and my wife harm. I will shoot their sorry ass dead with whatever pistol or rifle is closest at hand.

    Pretty simple, actually.



    mg

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Middletown, CT, ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    I don't get out of MY house. I stay inside and defend myself and family, on my home ground. I also don't go outside looking for trouble, or pursuing an intruder, that's for the police. I just make them go away or render them harmless to me and mine. Whatever actionI take to protect my loved ones I do based on my understanding of the Castle Doctrine, and my responsibility and right to properly defend us.

    You pose a good question for every armed person to resolve for themselves BEFORE the fact.



  7. #7
    mdgary
    Guest

    Post imported post






    January 17, 2007



    2007-R-0052



    CASTLE DOCTRINE AND SELF-DEFENSE







    By: Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney


    You asked about the “castle doctrine,” how it acquired its name, how many states have adopted bills on it, and any information about its effect in states that have adopted it.

    SUMMARY

    Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”

    In recent years, a number of states have adopted or considered bills referred to as “castle doctrine” bills. These bills expand the circumstances where a person can use self-defense without retreating and contain other provisions, such as immunity for someone who legally uses force in self-defense. A Washington Post article states that the Florida bill was given the name the “castle doctrine” by Florida lobbyist Marion P. Hammer, a former National Rifle Association president (“Florida Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense,” Washington Post, April 26, 2005). These bills have also been called “stand your ground” bills.

    We found 15 states that adopted a “castle doctrine” bill in the last two years. These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota. A number of other states considered bills on this topic. In New Hampshire, the legislature passed a “castle doctrine” bill but the governor vetoed it.

    These “castle doctrine” bills contain a number of different provisions and the states vary in which provisions they adopted. Some of these expanded the circumstances where force could be used in self-defense without a duty to retreat, some adopted provisions on criminal or civil immunity for legally using force in self-defense, and some contained all of these provisions.

    We could not find any studies on the impact of these laws. A June 11, 2006 Orlando Sentinel article stated that it was too early to see the impact of Florida's new law, which took effect October 1, 2005, and there were no statewide statistics on the number of self-defense claims before or after that date. The newspaper found 13 people who used self-defense in central Florida over five months (resulting in six deaths and four people wounded). In the investigation of the 13 people who used self-defense, three were charged with a crime, five cleared, and the others were still under review. The newspaper stated that police and prosecutors handled investigations of these cases in a range of ways. A copy of this article is attached (“Cases Involving the New Deadly Force Law are Handled in a Broad Range of Ways,” Orlando Sentinel, June 11, 2006).

    The sections below describe provisions in the “castle doctrine” bills and Connecticut's laws on self-defense.

    “CASTLE DOCTRINE” BILLS

    We found 15 states that adopted a “castle doctrine” bill in the last two years. Some of these expanded the circumstances where force could be used in self-defense without a duty to retreat, some adopted provisions on criminal or civil immunity for legally using force in self-defense, and some contained all of these provisions. In general, the bills contained at least one of the following provisions.

    1. They remove the duty to retreat from an aggressor using force or deadly force under certain circumstances. The states vary in how broadly this applies. For example, Alaska expands the types of premises where a person does not have a duty to retreat when using force in defense of self to include any place the person resides, a place where he is a guest, and his workplace. The Alaska law also applies to protecting a child or member of the person's household, regardless of location.

    2. Kansas removes the duty to retreat from its use of force statutes and adds a general statement that a person not engaged in illegal activity who is attacked in a place where he has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force.

    3. Some states add a legal presumption about when a person is justified in using force against intruders. For example, Florida added a presumption that a person using force had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to himself or another if (a) the person against whom he used force was illegally and forcefully entering a dwelling or occupied vehicle, was in the process of doing so, or removed or was attempting to remove a person against his will and (b) the person using force knew or had reason to believe this was occurring. These presumptions, which vary by state, have exceptions and do not apply under specified circumstances, such as when (a) the person force is used against had a right to be in the dwelling or was a lawful resident, (b) the person using force was engaged in illegal activity, or (c) the person force is used against is a law enforcement officer performing his duties who identified himself or the person using force knew or should have known the person was an officer.

    4. Some states, such as Florida, include a presumption that a person who illegally or forcefully enters or attempts to enter a dwelling or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with intent to commit an illegal act involving force or violence.

    5. Many of the bills provide immunity from criminal prosecution for a person who legally uses force or deadly force. This can apply to arrest, detention in custody, charging, and prosecuting. Some also specify that law enforcement is authorized to use standard procedures to investigate but cannot arrest the person unless there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful.

    6. Many also provide immunity from civil actions for a person who is justified in using force or deadly physical force. They require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees, costs, compensation for lost income, and expenses if the court finds that the person acted lawfully and is immune from prosecution.

    CONNECTICUT LAW

    Under Connecticut law, a person may use physical force (self defense): to protect himself or a third person, his home or office, or his property; to make an arrest or prevent an escape; or to perform certain duties (for example, a corrections officer may use force to maintain order and discipline, a teacher to protect a minor, and a parent to discipline a child). A person cannot use physical force to resist arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, whether the arrest is legal or not (CGS § 53a-23).

    Self defense or justification is a defense in any prosecution (CGS § 53a-16). The person claiming justification has the initial burden of producing sufficient evidence to assert self-defense. When raised as a defense at a trial, the state has the burden of disproving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt (CGS § 53a-12).

    Physical Force in Defense of Person

    A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

    Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:


    1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he a peace officer, special policeman, or a private individual assisting a peace officer or special policeman at the officer's directions regarding an arrest or preventing an escape;

    2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or

    3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.

    Lastly, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the person to use physical force, (2) use of such force was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law, or (3) he is the initial aggressor (unless he withdraws from the encounter, effectively communicates this intent to the other person, and the other person continues to or threatens to use physical force) (CGS § 53a-19).

    Physical Force in Defense of Premises

    A person who possesses or controls property or has a license or privilege to be in or on it is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it to be necessary to stop another from trespassing or attempting to trespass in or upon it. The owner can use deadly physical force only (1) to defend a person as described above, (2) when he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the trespasser from attempting to commit arson or any violent crime, or (3) to the extent he reasonably believes it is necessary to stop someone from forcibly entering his home or workplace (and for the sole purpose of stopping the intruder) (CGS § 53a-20).

    Physical Force in Defense of Property

    A person is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it necessary to (1) prevent attempted larceny or criminal mischief involving property or (2) regain property that he reasonably believes was stolen shortly before.

    When defending property, deadly force may be used only when it is necessary to defend a person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or infliction or imminent infliction of great bodily harm as described above (CGS § 53a-21).

    Supreme Court Decision on Self Defense

    In 1984, the Connecticut Supreme Court articulated the test for determining the degree of force warranted in a given case. Whether or not a person was justified in using force to protect his person or property is a question of fact that focuses on what the person asserting the defense reasonably believed under the circumstances (State v. DeJesus, 194 Conn. 376, 389 (1984)). The test for the degree of force in self-defense is a subjective-objective one. The jury must view the situation from the defendant's perspective; this is the subjective component. The jury must then decide whether the defendant's belief was reasonable (DeJesus at 389 n. 13).

    CR: dw

  8. #8
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370

    Post imported post

    As shown aboveCT does NOT have a castle law...homeowners are fully at risk if they use deadly force without the threat fo deadly force or great bodily harm against them....a castle doctrine would allow you to assume that anyone entering your home is there to do just that but in CT as it states you have the burden of proof...just ask the guy in Southbury who got arrested not to long ago for shooting the guy in his basement...
    Member:, NRA Patron Life, NSSF, CCDL, CT Carry, MRPC and Bell City
    NRA Certified Instructor, Chief Range Safety Officer - Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety, Metallic Cartridge/Shotgun Shell Reloading - www.ctpistolpermit.com

  9. #9
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Damn glad I don't live in CT! Your 'laws' are written by F#@&!*pansies.

  10. #10
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    brk913 wrote:
    As shown aboveCT does NOT have a castle law...homeowners are fully at risk if they use deadly force without the threat fo deadly force or great bodily harm against them....a castle doctrine would allow you to assume that anyone entering your home is there to do just that but in CT as it states you have the burden of proof...just ask the guy in Southbury who got arrested not to long ago for shooting the guy in his basement...
    In the event you encounter somebody who has broken into your home, you do what you need to do to protect you and yours.

    After the police have been called and arrive, SHUT THE F%$# UP!!! Don't talk to any responding officers or detectives. Point them in the direction of the badguy in whatever condition he is in, and don't say anything to anybody until you get and retain a lawyer. Your Lawyer will handle the debreif to the police on what happened inside your home.

    Remember. . .it isn't "Anything you say MIGHT and COULD be used against you in a court of law." It is "Anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you".

    CAN and WILL! Why would you talk to anybody who is telling you up front they're going to use each and every word of yours to lock you up, potentialy for the rest of your life????


    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when youre serious and when youre being sarcastic. Abraham Lincoln

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southington CT, ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    ChinChin wrote:
    After the police have been called and arrive, SHUT THE F%$# UP!!! Don't talk to any responding officers or detectives. Point them in the direction of the badguy in whatever condition he is in, and don't say anything to anybody until you get and retain a lawyer. Your Lawyer will handle the debreif to the police on what happened inside your home.

    Remember. . .it isn't "Anything you say MIGHT and COULD be used against you in a court of law." It is "Anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you".

    CAN and WILL! Why would you talk to anybody who is telling you up front they're going to use each and every word of yours to lock you up, potentialy for the rest of your life????
    Best advice ever. DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE. The only thing you should say is that you want to speak to a lawyer. Let police do their job of collecting evidence and building a case.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Damn glad I don't live in CT! Your 'laws' are written by F#@&!*pansies.
    Sigh... and we are surrounded by 'em also. These are the same pansies that would call the cops for a MWAG if they got the smallest sight of it.

    If I didn't have family here I would move out west.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    edit: Deleted, I don't know what I'm talking about.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    East Granby, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    If you end up shooting/killing someone breaking into your home, make sure when the police arrive, you are seen trying to revive the person. When it goes to court, it will show you have compassion.

    2 in the chest, 1 in the head.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    NEVER flee my own home.

    Always identify my target.

    After threat is neutralized and family is secure, render aid to the scum who intruded until police arrive.

    Never talk to the police before talking to my lawyer.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Plymouth, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    241

    Post imported post

    NEVER post on a public forum what you might do if you had to do it. Prosecutors can read this too.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    JUMPMASTER wrote:
    NEVER post on a public forum what you might do if you had to do it. Prosecutors can read this too.
    I agree to an extent. I don't see a problem with simply declaring your intent to defend your home. If you start talking about how you would empty your gun into BG's head after he went down (just to be safe), then you could run into a problem...

  18. #18
    mdgary
    Guest

    Post imported post

    ScottyT wrote:
    JUMPMASTER wrote:
    NEVER post on a public forum what you might do if you had to do it. Prosecutors can read this too.
    I agree to an extent. I don't see a problem with simply declaring your intent to defend your home. If you start talking about how you would empty your gun into BG's head after he went down (just to be safe), then you could run into a problem...
    I agree with ScottyT ,You must be prepaired, Even swat teams plan thier attack before they carry it out. It's always betterto havea plan and notneed it ,thannot to have a plan and need it...



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    in my permit class they said that a judge had ruled if you dont lock yourself in your bedroom you are the aggressor. havent checked out the actual case law but i would not be surprised if thats true. of course you could make a habity of toting your gun around your house and if you hear something go bump in the night and wonder if the coffee maker is malfunctioning and happen to have your gun as usual maybe you could get away with shooting an intruder.

Posting Permissions

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