imported post
scarletwahoo wrote:
Just to be nitpicking for a moment - Castle Doctrine is not the same as immunity from civil liability.
Castle doctrine, generally stated, is the absence of a need to retreat before taking action to defend yourself. As it now is used, it means you do not need to retreat before defending yourself if you were in a place you were legally entitled to be (home, street, shopping mall, etc.) and were not engaged in any illegal activity at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
Civil immunity, on the other hand, protects you from being sued by the person or the heirs/estate of the person if they were engaged in illegal activity causing you to defend yourself. (See the wiki section.)
The issue is that the natural right of defense of self and others changes in an instant as events unfold. What may have been justified or excusable can become criminal in less than the blink of an eye. On the other hand, Force Science Institute http://www.forcescience.org/has done some excellent work showing, for instance, that a person was shot in the back because the shooter could not pull the trigger fast enough to get the shot off when the person was in fact facing them. http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2005/12/how-force-science-saved-2-gun-cops-from-trial-for-murder/
stay safe.
skidmark
scarletwahoo wrote:
Just to be nitpicking for a moment - Castle Doctrine is not the same as immunity from civil liability.
Castle doctrine, generally stated, is the absence of a need to retreat before taking action to defend yourself. As it now is used, it means you do not need to retreat before defending yourself if you were in a place you were legally entitled to be (home, street, shopping mall, etc.) and were not engaged in any illegal activity at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
Civil immunity, on the other hand, protects you from being sued by the person or the heirs/estate of the person if they were engaged in illegal activity causing you to defend yourself. (See the wiki section.)
The issue is that the natural right of defense of self and others changes in an instant as events unfold. What may have been justified or excusable can become criminal in less than the blink of an eye. On the other hand, Force Science Institute http://www.forcescience.org/has done some excellent work showing, for instance, that a person was shot in the back because the shooter could not pull the trigger fast enough to get the shot off when the person was in fact facing them. http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2005/12/how-force-science-saved-2-gun-cops-from-trial-for-murder/
stay safe.
skidmark
