Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Help Needed For New Set of Maps

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Help Needed For New Set of Maps

    I want to put together a new set of maps for the site that shows which states have Castle Doctrine (statutory or case law) and which states have Stand Your Ground (no duty to retreat anywhere - not just the home - also statutory or case law).

    If you know what the status is in your state, please post here. I need:

    State
    ------

    Castle Doctrine Y/N And Statute or Case establishing it
    --------------------------------------------------------------

    Stand Your Ground EVERYWHERE (not just in the home) Y/N And Statute or Case establishing it
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any help will be greatly appreciated!!!

    Thanks!


    John

  2. #2
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Washington State

    Based upon information from the great Dave Workman, I see that Washington State has SYG based upon case law.

    State v. Redmond
    150 Wash.2d 489, 78 P.3d 1001
    Wash.,2003.

  3. #3
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Oregon

    Oregon has SYG based upon case law as well.

    State v. Sandoval
    342 Or. 506, 156 P.3d 60
    Or.,2007.

  4. #4
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    California

    Amazingly, California also does not require a duty to retreat:


    People v. Rhodes, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 226 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2005)

    See California Jury Instruction Criminal 5.50 (CALJIC 5.50)

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Both Castle and "Stand Your Ground" are mention in this article, by state, and with statutes cited (except for one or two).
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    West Virginia

    As a general rule, West Virginia is a "stand your ground" state and a partial Castle Doctrine state. A completely innocent victim has no "duty to retreat."

    When one without fault himself is attacked by another in such a manner or under such circumstances as to furnish reasonable grounds for apprehending a design to take away his life, or to do him some great bodily harm, and there is reasonable grounds for believing the danger imminent, that such design will be accomplished, and the person assaulted has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, such danger is imminent, he may act upon such appearances and without retreating, kill his assailant, if he has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that such killing is necessary in order to avoid the apparent danger; and the killing under such circumstances is excusable, although it may afterwards turn out, that the appearances were false, and that there was in fact neither design to do him some serious injury nor danger, that it would be done. But of all this the jury must judge from all the evidence and circumstances of the case.
    Syllabus Point 7, State v. Cain, 20 W.Va. 679 (1882) (this is the bedrock rule of deadly force in self-defense that our Supreme Court of Appeals generally cites in every case to this day).

    One without fault, assaulted by another in a public road, where he has the right to be, is not bound to retreat, but may lawfully stand upon his rights and repel the assault and if necessary to protect his own life or save himself from great bodily harm, may even take the life of his assailant.
    Syllabus Point 4, State v. Donahue, 79 W.Va. 260, 90 S.E. 834 (1916).

    One who has been attacked, or is threatened with a murderous attack, which he has reason to believe will be made, may arm himself for defense, and in such case no inference of malice can be drawn therefrom; and in a prosecution for homicide, where self-defense is relied upon, and there is evidence showing, or tending to show, that the defendant had been attacked by the deceased just prior to the homicide, and that threats of violence had also been made against him just prior thereto, an instruction telling the jury that no inference of malice should be drawn from the fact that the defendant was armed upon the occasion of the homicide, in case they find he had reasonable ground to believe that a murderous attack would likely be made upon him, should be given.
    Syllabus Point 3, State v. Hardin, 91 W.Va. 149, 112 S.E. 401 (1922).

    In defending himself, his family or his property from the assault of an intruder, one is not limited to his immediate home or castle; his right to stand his ground in defense thereof without retreating extends to his place of business also and where it is necessary he may take the life of his assailant or intruder.
    Syllabus Point 7, State v. Laura, 93 W.Va. 250, 116 S.E. 251 (1923).

    Self-defense as a justification for homicide is not necessarily based upon actual necessity; if the circumstances were such as to cause a reasonably prudent person to believe, and if the accused did believe, that the killing was necessary then, the other elements thereof being present, the defense is valid.
    Syllabus Point 3, State v. Preece, 116 W.Va. 176, 179 S.E. 524 (1935).

    A man attacked in his own home by an intruder may invoke the law of self-defense without retreating.
    Syllabus Point 4, State v. Preece, 116 W.Va. 176, 179 S.E. 524 (1935).

    Where, in a trial for murder, there is competent evidence tending to show that the accused believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, that he was in danger of losing his life or suffering great bodily harm at the hands of several assailants acting together, he may defend against any or all of said assailants, and it is reversible error for the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury to that effect.
    Syllabus Point 4, State v. Foley, 128 W.Va. 166, 35 S.E.2d 854 (1945).

    The occupant of a dwelling is not limited in using deadly force against an unlawful intruder to the situation where the occupant is threatened with serious bodily injury or death, but he may use deadly force if the unlawful intruder threatens imminent physical violence or the commission of a felony and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary.
    Syllabus Point 2, State v. W. J. B., 166 W.Va. 602, 276 S.E.2d 550 (1981) (West Virginia's "Castle Doctrine" case, although it did not go all the way and did not have to given the facts of the case).

    The reasonableness of the occupant's belief and actions in using deadly force must be judged in the light of the circumstances in which he acted at the time and is not measured by subsequently developed facts.
    Syllabus Point 3, State v. W. J. B., 166 W.Va. 602, 276 S.E.2d 550 (1981).

    The amount of force that can be used in self-defense is that normally one can return deadly force only if he reasonably believes that the assailant is about to inflict death or serious bodily harm; otherwise, where he is threatened only with non-deadly force, he may use only non-deadly force in return.
    Syllabus Point 1, State v. Baker, 177 W.Va. 769, 356 S.E.2d 862 (1987) (case involved nonlethal threat).

    Once there is sufficient evidence to create a reasonable doubt that the killing resulted from the defendant acting in self-defense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
    Syllabus Point 2, State v. Kirtley, 162 W.Va. 249, 252 S.E.2d 374 (1978).

    Once the defendant meets his initial burden of producing some evidence of self-defense, the State is required to disprove the defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Syllabus Point 6, State v. McKinney, 178 W.Va. 200, 358 S.E.2d 596 (1987).

    To establish the doctrine of defense of another in a homicide prosecution, a defendant must show by sufficient evidence that he or she used reasonable force in a situation where the defendant had a reasonable belief of the lawfulness of his or her intervention on behalf of another person who was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which such person could save himself/herself only by using force, including deadly force, against his or her assailant, but was unable to do so.
    Syllabus Point 3, State v. Cook, 204 W.Va. 591, 515 S.E.2d 127 (1999) (defense of others).

    The burden of proof placed upon a defendant asserting the doctrine of defense of another is not a high standard. To properly assert the defense of another doctrine, a defendant must introduce “sufficient” evidence of the defense in order to shift the burden to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in defense of another.
    Syllabus Point 4, State v. Cook, 204 W.Va. 591, 515 S.E.2d 127 (1999).

    It is erroneous in a first degree murder case to instruct the jury that if the defendant killed the deceased with the use of a deadly weapon, then intent, malice, willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation may be inferred from that fact, where there is evidence that the defendant's actions were based on some legal excuse, justification, or provocation. To the extent that the instruction in State v. Louk, 171 W.Va. 639, 643, 301 S.E.2d 596, 600 (1983), is contrary to these principles, it is disapproved.
    Syllabus Point 6, State v. Jenkins, 191 W.Va. 87, 443 S.E.2d 244 (1994).

    Where a defendant has asserted a plea of self-defense, evidence showing that the decedent had previously abused or threatened the life of the defendant is relevant evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time deadly force was used. In determining whether the circumstances formed a reasonable basis for the defendant to believe that he or she was at imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death at the hands of the decedent, the inquiry is two-fold. First, the defendant's belief must be subjectively reasonable, which is to say that the defendant actually believed, based upon all the circumstances perceived by him or her at the time deadly force was used, that such force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. Second, the defendant's belief must be objectively reasonable when considering all of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's use of deadly force, which is to say that another person, similarly situated, could have reasonably formed the same belief. Our holding in Syllabus Point 6 of State v. McMillion, 104 W.Va. 1, 138 S.E. 732 (1927), is expressly overruled.
    Syllabus Point 3, State v. Harden, 223 W.Va. 796, 679 S.E.2d 628 (2009).

    Where it is determined that the defendant's actions were not reasonably made in self-defense, evidence that the decedent had abused or threatened the life of the defendant is nonetheless relevant and may negate or tend to negate a necessary element of the offense(s) charged, such as malice or intent.
    Syllabus Point 4, State v. Harden, 223 W.Va. 796, 679 S.E.2d 628 (2009).

    An occupant who is, without provocation, attacked in his or her home, dwelling or place of temporary abode, by a co-occupant who also has a lawful right to be upon the premises, may invoke the law of self-defense and in such circumstances use deadly force, without retreating, where the occupant reasonably believes, and does believe, that he or she is at imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury. In determining whether the circumstances formed a reasonable basis for the occupant to believe that he or she was at imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury at the hands of the co-occupant, the inquiry is two-fold. First, the occupant's belief must be subjectively reasonable, which is to say that the occupant actually believed, based upon all the circumstances perceived by him or her at the time deadly force was used, that such force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. Second, the occupant's belief must be objectively reasonable when considering all of the circumstances surrounding the occupant's use of deadly force, which is to say that another person, similarly situated, could have reasonably formed the same belief. Our decision in Syllabus Point 2, State v. Crawford, 66 W.Va. 114, 66 S.E. 110 (1909), is expressly overruled.
    Syllabus Point 5, State v. Harden, 223 W.Va. 796, 679 S.E.2d 628 (2009).

    However, self-defense has a few basic limits:

    Person in no imminent danger from minatory foe may not purposely confront him and then invoke self-defense for immediate homicide.
    Syllabus Point 1, State v. Curry, 112 W.Va. 549, 165 S.E. 810 (1932).

    One in no imminent danger from a minatory foe may not purposely confront him and then invoke self-defense for an immediate homicide.
    Syllabus Point 3, State v. Curry, 112 W.Va. 549, 165 S.E. 810 (1932).

    [W]hen there is a quarrel between two or more persons and both or all are in fault, and a combat as a result of such quarrel takes place and death ensues as a result; in order to reduce the offense to killing in self-defense, two things must appear from the evidence and circumstances in the case: first, that before the mortal shot was fired the person firing the shot declined further combat, and retreated as far as he could with safety; second, that he necessarily killed the deceased in order to preserve his own life or to protect himself from great bodily harm . . . .
    Syllabus Point 6, in part, State v. Foley, 131 W.Va. 326, 47 S.E.2d 40 (1948).
    Last edited by JimMullinsWVCDL; 04-25-2011 at 06:49 PM.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Alabama

    Alabama has both castle doctrine and no duty to retreat:

    Section 13A-3-23
    Use of force in defense of a person.

    (a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

    (1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

    (2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

    (3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

    (4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

    a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

    b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

    c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

    d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

    (b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

    (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

    (1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

    (2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

    (3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

    (d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

    (e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
    (Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, 610; Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p. 1060, 1; Act 2006-303, p. 638, 1.)

  8. #8
    Regular Member Sc0tt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Asheboro, NC
    Posts
    315

    North Carolina

    Castle Doctrine with Stand your ground.

    "North Carolina General Statutes 14-51.1 defines Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

    (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

    (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
    http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedl...s_14-51.1.html
    Last edited by Sc0tt; 04-25-2011 at 08:33 PM.
    -----------------
    --SCOTT

    Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum

    "A government that is big enough to give you everything you need is beg enough to take everything you have, the course of history shows that as government incresses - liberty decreases."


    LEGAL NOTICE: I am not a lawyer, no content in the above post should considered legal advice

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Michigan

    ELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
    Act 309 of 2006

    MCL 780.972

    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.Sec. 2.
    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
    (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
    (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
    (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

    You can use this to defend yourself and any elf that you might encounter.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 04-26-2011 at 01:12 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    411

    Mississippi

    Mississippi

    Both are covered by the Mississippi Code of 1972 97-3-15.

    Castle Doctrine:
    (1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:

    <(a) - (d) removed as they deal with "peace officers">

    (e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;

    (f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

    (g) When necessarily committed in attempting by lawful ways and means to apprehend any person for any felony committed;

    (h) When necessarily committed in lawfully suppressing any riot or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.


    (2) (a) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section, the term "when necessarily committed" means that a public officer or a person acting by or at the officer's command, aid or assistance is authorized to use such force as necessary in securing and detaining the felon offender, overcoming the offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm; but such officer or person shall not be authorized to resort to deadly or dangerous means when to do so would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The public officer or person acting by or at the officer's command may act upon a reasonable apprehension of the surrounding circumstances; however, such officer or person shall not use excessive force or force that is greater than reasonably necessary in securing and detaining the offender, overcoming the offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm.

    (b) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section the term "felon" shall include an offender who has been convicted of a felony and shall also include an offender who is in custody, or whose custody is being sought, on a charge or for an offense which is punishable, upon conviction, by death or confinement in the Penitentiary.

    (c) As used in subsections (1)(e) and (3) of this section, "dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any attached porch;


    (3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;

    <(4) removed, see SYG quote below>

    (5) (a) The presumptions contained in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a defense.

    (b) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant acted in accordance with subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section. A defendant who has previously been adjudicated "not guilty" of any crime by reason of subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from same conduct.
    Stand Your Ground (from the same section, snipped):
    (4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person's failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.

  11. #11
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Missouri

    Yes

    563.031 Missouri statute
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000031.HTM

    home/car/private property

    3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.


    no civil lawsuit
    Last edited by zekester; 04-28-2011 at 04:35 PM.
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Casper
    Posts
    4

    Wyoming

    YES

    Modifications to existing Castle Doctrine Law go into effect on 1 July 2011. Wyoming's original Castle Doctrine went into effect 1 July, 2008, and "...provides immunity from civil lawsuits to anyone who uses force in defense of his or her "person, property or abode or to prevent injury to another." "
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1986197/posts
    Modifications further define 'residence'.

    I'm not sure where we stand on criminal protection under WY "Castle Doctrine" - I don't think we have blanket immunity.

    Of note, Concealed Carry for state residents who otherwise may legally posses a firearm also goes into effect on 1 July, 2011.

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6366 (summary, with links)

    Full text of WY firearms laws can be found here: http://michie.lexisnexis.com/wyoming...&fn=main-h.htm
    Title 6 - Chapter 8

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746
    Florida: - Stand Your ground and meet force with force wherever you have the right to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by 776.013(1) - Castle Doctrine
    Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
    (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
    Quote Originally Posted by 776.013(2) - Exceptions
    The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
    (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
    (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
    (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
    (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
    Quote Originally Posted by 776.013(3) - Stand Your Ground
    A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    Quote Originally Posted by 776.013(4) - Presumption of Violent Intent
    A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
    Last edited by StogieC; 05-03-2011 at 09:29 AM.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Louisiana

    Louisiana has both in 2 different laws - one for use of force and one for justifiable homicide.

    http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78336

    RS 14:19
    19. Use of force or violence in defense
    A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.
    B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
    (1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
    (2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
    C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
    D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.
    Acts 2006, No. 141, 1.

    http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338
    RS 14:20
    20. Justifiable homicide
    A. A homicide is justifiable:
    (1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
    (2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
    (3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.
    (4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.
    (b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
    B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
    (1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
    (2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
    C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
    D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.
    Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, 1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, 1; Acts 1983, No. 234, 1; Acts 1993, No. 516, 1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, 1; Acts 2003, No. 660, 1; Acts 2006, No. 141, 1.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Irish_Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Peoples Repulic of MA
    Posts
    39
    Massachusetts castle doctrine is found in MGL Chp 278 sec. 8A

    "Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

    It should be noted that Commonwealth v. Bennett, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 920, 921 (1996) stated that this doctrine does not apply to someone who is illegally on your property, the intruder would have to actually enter your dwelling.

    Outside of the dwelling there is a duty to retreat in MA, I'm too tired to find the cite for it right now but I'll edit this post when I find it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by Irish_Dave View Post
    Massachusetts castle doctrine is found in MGL Chp 278 sec. 8A

    "Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

    It should be noted that Commonwealth v. Bennett, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 920, 921 (1996) stated that this doctrine does not apply to someone who is illegally on your property, the intruder would have to actually enter your dwelling.

    Outside of the dwelling there is a duty to retreat in MA, I'm too tired to find the cite for it right now but I'll edit this post when I find it.
    That is actually much better than I thought it would be in Taxachussetts, considering my knowledge of other laws there. Though you would MUCH better like the "Castle Doctrine" laws in my neck of the woods. No duty to retreat, EVER, if you are not trespassing or otherwise where you do not have a legal right to be.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Irish_Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Peoples Repulic of MA
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    That is actually much better than I thought it would be in Taxachussetts, considering my knowledge of other laws there. Though you would MUCH better like the "Castle Doctrine" laws in my neck of the woods. No duty to retreat, EVER, if you are not trespassing or otherwise where you do not have a legal right to be.
    Yeah it's kind of surprising that MA has that law but over the years case law from the courts keeps weakening it. Your 100% right too, your castle doctrine/no duty to retreat laws are how things should be.

Posting Permissions

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