Self defense scenario: Kicked-in windshield

[davidmcbeth]

. David would be in extreme danger because everyone hates him.:lol::lol::banana:

To know me is to love me ... lol

I'm sure you would love me on a jury in this type of case....

 

[peter nap]

To know me is to love me ... lol

I'm sure you would love me on a jury in this type of case....

David....If you and Obama were on fire and I had just finished my 10th cup of coffee.....:uhoh:

 

[Virginian683]

In Florida one is statutorily provided with the presumption of reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm when someone unlawfully enters or attempts to enter their occupied vehicle or home. Which as we all know is the standard when one may use deadly force in self-defense.

My comments were geared to VA self-defense law. We have no statute on it but common law going back to 1607, which is even better. Though some idiots who don't understand how a common law legal system works want to wipe out 400 years of self-defense precedent by creating a "castle doctrine" statute because that is the "in" thing now.

Frankly I think the Florida and Texas castle doctrine statutes, among others, go a little too far in that apparently somebody who simply knocks on your door or window after dark can legally be blown away.

In Texas there was an actual case of a guy blowing away a trick or treater on Halloween (and getting away with it) because the kid crossed the threshold of the door and thus the guy had a statutory right to "fear for his life."

"Reasonable" fear is the key here. Reasonable fear of death or great injury should not be automatically presumed in any case (FL, TX law), but should always be dependent on the circumstances. (VA law)

If somebody breaks into your home at night in VA, the law gives you the overwhelming benefit of the doubt in assuming deadly intent on the part of the intruder, but there is never a 100% automatic carte blanche to shoot. If you flip on the lights and find it is an unarmed 8 year old girl, you can't open up with your AR-15.

IANAL and informed lawyers feel free to correct.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Part of the lecture on carjacking was to never allow yourself to be trapped in traffic, with vehicles so close in front/behind that evasive maneuvers were prevented. Best was to drive away regardless of the risk of collisions. Crushing the assailant was mentioned. Better judged by twelve men good and true, than carried by six weeping and blue.

Anyone really concerned about carjacking though? Crush him eh? Nice style ... but what if he a zombie?

 

[Primus]

Is this your legal opinion? I don't see how a female has more reason to shoot; and what does 'reason' even mean? Justification under the ler?

What if a bystander videoed her as not being pure of motive, contributing? So, no it doesn't give her any enhanced legal standing to shoot.

See post 18. He explained it more in depth before I got a chance to.

And post 27 does even better job. Kudos to him for explaining whati meant about if it was a woman comment.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[davidmcbeth]

David....If you and Obama were on fire and I had just finished my 10th cup of coffee.....:uhoh:

Hey, I thought your stickers were inflammable ! I should not have super glued them to my underwear !!!!!

Now I have to go commando .... and be bothered by all those girls....

Have a good Christmas Peter.

 

[WalkingWolf]

My comments were geared to VA self-defense law. We have no statute on it but common law going back to 1607, which is even better. Though some idiots who don't understand how a common law legal system works want to wipe out 400 years of self-defense precedent by creating a "castle doctrine" statute because that is the "in" thing now.

Frankly I think the Florida and Texas castle doctrine statutes, among others, go a little too far in that apparently somebody who simply knocks on your door or window after dark can legally be blown away.

In Texas there was an actual case of a guy blowing away a trick or treater on Halloween (and getting away with it) because the kid crossed the threshold of the door and thus the guy had a statutory right to "fear for his life."

"Reasonable" fear is the key here. Reasonable fear of death or great injury should not be automatically presumed in any case (FL, TX law), but should always be dependent on the circumstances. (VA law)

If somebody breaks into your home at night in VA, the law gives you the overwhelming benefit of the doubt in assuming deadly intent on the part of the intruder, but there is never a 100% automatic carte blanche to shoot. If you flip on the lights and find it is an unarmed 8 year old girl, you can't open up with your AR-15.

IANAL and informed lawyers feel free to correct.

There was a case in southern Illinois where concealed carry is illegal. The defendant was found not guilty on the basis of self defense even though he was not supposed to have a gun. The incident was not even in a home, I believe a bowling parking lot. And Illinois has no castle doctrine.

Hopefully I can find the case again and post it.

 

[Primus]

There was a case in southern Illinois where concealed carry is illegal. The defendant was found not guilty on the basis of self defense even though he was not supposed to have a gun. The incident was not even in a home, I believe a bowling parking lot. And Illinois has no castle doctrine.

Hopefully I can find the case again and post it.

You mean stand your ground law right? Castle doctrine applies to your home. If he was in a public parking lot it would fall under a no duty to retreat law

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[mobeewan]

Anyone really concerned about carjacking though? Crush him eh? Nice style ... but what if he a zombie?

Zombie ammo?

 

[WalkingWolf]

You mean stand your ground law right? Castle doctrine applies to your home. If he was in a public parking lot it would fall under a no duty to retreat law

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

In some states castle doctrine applies to a persons vehicle. Your a LEO, I thought you knew that? And Illinois at the time had no such law! In fact the suspect had a firearm hidden in his car that he used for self defense, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW.

 

[JamesCanby]

In some states castle doctrine applies to a persons vehicle. Your a LEO, I thought you knew that? And Illinois at the time had no such law! In fact the suspect had a firearm hidden in his car that he used for self defense, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW.

Seems to me that there is a difference between Castle Doctrine and No Duty to Retreat. Here in Virginia we do not have an enacted Castle Doctrine, but we do have a No Duty to Retreat capability, so long as we have had no involvement in creating the confrontation -- i.e., "clean hands." If we were involved in instigating the confrontation, then we must retreat to avoid the confrontation or until we can no longer retreat before using deadly force.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Seems to me that there is a difference between Castle Doctrine and No Duty to Retreat. Here in Virginia we do not have an enacted Castle Doctrine, but we do have a No Duty to Retreat capability, so long as we have had no involvement in creating the confrontation -- i.e., "clean hands." If we were involved in instigating the confrontation, then we must retreat to avoid the confrontation or until we can no longer retreat before using deadly force.

Illinois as far as I know has no laws for Castle Doctrine or no duty to retreat laws. It is a very liberal anti gun state, yet cases of self defense are still recognized, and self defense is successfully used for defense. Not only Illinois but New York State, and even New York City. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used

I don't care much for Wiki as a cite, but I didn't feel like citing every state.

If a old former LEO knows this you would think a younger current LEO, in a state known for education would know it.:uhoh:

 

[Primus]

Seems to me that there is a difference between Castle Doctrine and No Duty to Retreat. Here in Virginia we do not have an enacted Castle Doctrine, but we do have a No Duty to Retreat capability, so long as we have had no involvement in creating the confrontation -- i.e., "clean hands." If we were involved in instigating the confrontation, then we must retreat to avoid the confrontation or until we can no longer retreat before using deadly force.

Correct... obviously it depends on state but the idea is in your house is castle doctrine. In public no castle doctrine and kicks in stand your ground stuff. As to if castle doctrine applies to to a car I guess depends on then state and case law.

Funny part is this labeling stuff is what got the stand your ground law brought up in Zimmerman. He didn't have the ability to retreat so it wasn't a stand your ground issue. It was pure self defense. But the liberals still wanted to attack stand your ground.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Correct... obviously it depends on state but the idea is in your house is castle doctrine. In public no castle doctrine and kicks in stand your ground stuff. As to if castle doctrine applies to to a car I guess depends on then state and case law.

Funny part is this labeling stuff is what got the stand your ground law brought up in Zimmerman. He didn't have the ability to retreat so it wasn't a stand your ground issue. It was pure self defense. But the liberals still wanted to attack stand your ground.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

WRONG! You really should do some research before making absolutely false claims.:uhoh:

 

[Primus]

WRONG! You really should do some research before making absolutely false claims.:uhoh:

Lol ok walking wolf thank you for your much needed input. Its appreciated as always.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[JamesCanby]

Illinois as far as I know has no laws for Castle Doctrine or no duty to retreat laws. It is a very liberal anti gun state, yet cases of self defense are still recognized, and self defense is successfully used for defense. Not only Illinois but New York State, and even New York City. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

Having no enacted Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws, but where "cases of self defense are still recognized" simply gives all charging discretion to the police and City/County Attorneys -- and denies the self-defense-shooter a legal basis or plea in the case of a shooting incident.

That kind of situation is too subject to politicization (e.g., do the police or CAs 'like' me or not) and makes the scenario a very subjective situation. I don't think I'll be living in Illinois any time soon -- or ever -- not that I'd ever leave the Commonwealth of Virginia.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Having no enacted Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws, but where "cases of self defense are still recognized" simply gives all charging discretion to the police and City/County Attorneys -- and denies the self-defense-shooter a legal basis or plea in the case of a shooting incident.

That kind of situation is too subject to politicization (e.g., do the police or CAs 'like' me or not) and makes the scenario a very subjective situation. I don't think I'll be living in Illinois any time soon -- or ever -- not that I'd ever leave the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Castle Doctrine is just a formality for common law. The self defense argument is used in ALL states. Hopefully USER will chime in.

As far as Florida the law does not even mention Castle Doctrine, the statute is a Use of Force Statute. Home and vehicle, as well as any place that a person is there lawfully the state recognizes the use of force for self defense.


The 2013 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.013 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

 

[Virginian683]

There was a case in southern Illinois where concealed carry is illegal. The defendant was found not guilty on the basis of self defense even though he was not supposed to have a gun. The incident was not even in a home, I believe a bowling parking lot. And Illinois has no castle doctrine.

Hopefully I can find the case again and post it.

A while back I was watching one of those cop reality shows, "The First 48" possibly, and it was about a case in upstate NY where a "gangsta" was arrested for a fatal shooting but he claimed self-defense. After investigation the police determined it was in fact a case of self-defense, so ruled it justifiable homicide. Then they still charged him with "felony possession of a weapon" -- which is not the same as felon IN possession of a weapon (which he may or may not have been) -- and presumably he went to prison for that.

So you are are committing a felony if you carry a handgun in NY, but if somebody is trying to kill you and a gun magically drops out of the sky at that moment, you can use it.

 

[notalawyer]

My comments were geared to VA self-defense law. We have no statute on it but common law going back to 1607, which is even better. Though some idiots who don't understand how a common law legal system works want to wipe out 400 years of self-defense precedent by creating a "castle doctrine" statute because that is the "in" thing now.

Frankly I think the Florida and Texas castle doctrine statutes, among others, go a little too far in that apparently somebody who simply knocks on your door or window after dark can legally be blown away.

In Texas there was an actual case of a guy blowing away a trick or treater on Halloween (and getting away with it) because the kid crossed the threshold of the door and thus the guy had a statutory right to "fear for his life."

"Reasonable" fear is the key here. Reasonable fear of death or great injury should not be automatically presumed in any case (FL, TX law), but should always be dependent on the circumstances. (VA law)

If somebody breaks into your home at night in VA, the law gives you the overwhelming benefit of the doubt in assuming deadly intent on the part of the intruder, but there is never a 100% automatic carte blanche to shoot. If you flip on the lights and find it is an unarmed 8 year old girl, you can't open up with your AR-15.

IANAL and informed lawyers feel free to correct.

Frankly I think the Florida and Texas castle doctrine statutes, among others, go a little too far in that apparently somebody who simply knocks on your door or window after dark can legally be blown away.

Frankly you have no idea of what you are talking about and have not looked into the Florida law at all!

 

[scouser]

So ...

what would be the best thing to do if someone jumped on the hood of your car in Virginia and started to try to kick in your windshield ?

wasn't that what we were discussing ?