Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: CT Castle Law/Doctrine

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    I am trying to find out what our castle doctrine is, I have looked all over google and the CGA but I only found a really crappy(IMO) explanation and it confused me:what: because they talked about different states and what not, I will include the link Here~~>http://search.state.ct.us/query.html...submit1=Search

    Now if someone could please dumb this down for me because I am trying to understand this.

    Are we a stand your ground kinda state or are we the you gotta run and hide type of state?

    -Thanks,
    Joe

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Griswold CT, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    GunOwnerJoe wrote:
    I am trying to find out what our castle doctrine is, I have looked all over google and the CGA but I only found a really crappy(IMO) explanation and it confused me:what: because they talked about different states and what not, I will include the link Here~~>http://search.state.ct.us/query.html...submit1=Search

    Now if someone could please dumb this down for me because I am trying to understand this.

    Are we a stand your ground kinda state or are we the you gotta run and hide type of state?

    -Thanks,
    Joe
    I'm no lawyer....and I'm often uncurrent when it comes to local news.... but I believe we have no official "Castle Doctrine". I think we are required to retreat as much as possible .....until we face no other alternative.

    then finally,blast away to safety... (that's my take...please correct me if I'm wrong)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    I might be wrong but I believe that you have a duty to retreat everywhere except your home or buisness. But don't quote me on that.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Shoreline, CT
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Here is a link I found that speaks to that question:

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

    Not sure if it is the same as the previously posted link (could not connect to that).

    It appears as if we are a "run and hide" state and "deadly physical force" can only
    be used if you or another person are in imminent danger/being directly attacked.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    Yea that's the same link basically. But thanks for trying

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Plymouth, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    241

    Post imported post

    Please support this proposed bill:








    General Assembly



    Proposed Bill No. 6029




    January Session, 2009



    LCO No. 422






    Referred to Committee on Judiciary




    Introduced by:




    REP. PISCOPO, 76th Dist.

    REP. HAMZY, 78th Dist.



    AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

    That section 53a-19 of the general statutes be amended to delete the requirement that a person retreat prior to using deadly physical force in certain circumstances to defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or the infliction or imminent infliction of great bodily harm.

    Statement of Purpose:

    To adopt a "Stand Your Ground" law by deleting the requirement that a person retreat before using deadly physical force in certain circumstances to defend himself or herself or a third person.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    The castle doctrine in CT states that as long as you are in your house or vehicle, you can defend yourself with deadly force, outside of those areas, you need to retreat unless it is in defense of someone else. If the person is demanding something with the intent to leave once they have received it, you are required to turn the item over to them so they will leave. You CANNOT shoot someone outside of your domicile, even if it is your yard reasonably because it is considered that you could retreat within your home.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Plymouth, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    241

    Post imported post

    Not exactly accurate. You do not have to turn over your property to someone else. You can use deadly force outside if you are fearful for your life and are unable to retreat.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    If you are unable to retreat, true, but if you chase them outside of your home and shoot them, even if not in the back, you are not protected. If you are outside your home and they say give me your wallet and you won't be hurt... and you choose not to turn over your wallet and shoot them instead. The police can and probably will decide that you could of avoided a deadly situation by handing over your wallet. That deadly force was not the only answer.

    Even with the castle doctrine, if you shoot someone and you either kill them or only injure them, SOMEONE will try to sue you and most likely win unfortunately. You can be innocent criminally but guilty civilly. The sad fact of our screwed up society.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Plymouth, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    241

    Post imported post

    The police are not the ones that decide if a shooting was justified or not.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    The courts do, but the police decide whether to arrest you based on the evidence before them. And for myself, I would prefer to avoid that if at all possible.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Hamden, CT, , USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    Is there any update on this old proposed bill?

    If it died what could we do it try to revive it?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Hamden, CT, , USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    One more thing I read:

    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.



    So, the police policy not to give into demands made by terrorist, and we are stuck being required to give into demand???


    To me that doesn't seem fair...



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Naugatuck Valley , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Guys, Check out this web site

    http://armedcitizensnetwork.org A lot of great info on this subject there. Good luck



Posting Permissions

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