• 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.

CT Castle Law/Doctrine

G

GunOwnerJoe

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
45
Location
Stratford, Connecticut, USA
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: :question:because they talked about different states and what not, I will include the link Here~~>http://search.state.ct.us/query.htm...w.cga.ct.gov&qs=&qt=Castle+Law&submit1=Search

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

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

-Thanks,
Joe
 
U

uskrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
196
Location
Griswold CT, Connecticut, USA
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: :question:because they talked about different states and what not, I will include the link Here~~>http://search.state.ct.us/query.html?col=allconn&qp=url%3Ahttp://www.cga.ct.gov&qs=&qc=&ws=0&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=0&oq=&rq=0&qp=url%3Ahttp://www.cga.ct.gov&qp=url%3Ahttp://www.cga.ct.gov&qs=&qp=url%3Ahttp://www.cga.ct.gov&qs=&qt=Castle+Law&submit1=Search

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

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

-Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...

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)
 
K

Keanu

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
10
Location
Shoreline, CT
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.
 
J

JUMPMASTER

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
241
Location
Plymouth, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Please support this proposed bill:








[align=center][size=+1]General Assembly[/size][/align]


[size=+2]Proposed Bill No. 6029 [/size]




[align=center][size=-1]January Session, 2009[/size][/align]


LCO No. 422






Referred to Committee on Judiciary




Introduced by:




REP. PISCOPO, 76[suP]th[/suP] Dist.

REP. HAMZY, 78[suP]th[/suP] 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.
 
K

Kateryn

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
13
Location
, ,
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.
 
J

JUMPMASTER

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
241
Location
Plymouth, Connecticut, USA
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.
 
K

Kateryn

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
13
Location
, ,
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.
 
K

Kateryn

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
13
Location
, ,
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.
 
C

Chubs2287

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
101
Location
Hamden, CT, , USA
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top