Since 2006, there have been significant U.S. legislative changes that support and encourage self-defense. These statutes, which have been adopted by most state and local governments, protect individuals who are standing up to protect themselves against attack.
The two most significant statues are the “Stand Your Ground” and the “Castle” statutes. The “Stand Your Ground” laws give individuals the right to use deadly force to protect a residence, place of business, vehicle or other property (Washington Crime News Service, 2006)1.
The “Castle” law, adopted by other states, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. Those protected by the Castle laws no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully.
The two most significant statues are the “Stand Your Ground” and the “Castle” statutes. The “Stand Your Ground” laws give individuals the right to use deadly force to protect a residence, place of business, vehicle or other property (Washington Crime News Service, 2006)1.
The “Castle” law, adopted by other states, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. Those protected by the Castle laws no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully.
The Castle Laws also extends this principle to vehicles (Liptak, 2006)2. These significant changes in most U.S. states laws show a growing trend in individuals who want to be able to defend themselves against attackers. With more people with the right to defend themselves more people will seek training on how they can effectively defend themselves and family against attack.This growing trend will hopefully drive greater interest in American's to seek home and self-defense training so they can be prepared for any threat and no longer be a potential victim.
States with the "Stand Your Ground" Law:
- Alabama
- Arizona
- Florida
- Georgia
- Indiana
- Kentucky [2]
- Louisiana
- Montana
- Nevada
- Oklahoma Title 21§1289.25
- South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
- Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
- Texas
- Utah
- Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)
States with a Castle Law
No duty to retreat if in the home.
- Alaska
- California (California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197 [3]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'” The court held that because a "trap-gun" was used, the doctrine did not apply. [4]
- Colorado "...any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
- Connecticut
- Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
- Illinois (Use of deadly force justified. Specific legislation prevents filing claim against defender of dwelling. Illinois has no requirement of retreat.)
- Kansas (§ 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling; no duty to retreat.)
- Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed)[28]
- Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the commonlaw castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.)
- Massachusetts
- Michigan (more recent law—Act 309 of 2006—does not relieve duty to retreat "unless [deadly force is] necessary to prevent imminent death;" this represents no change from common law, which does not require retreat unless it can be safely done)
- Minnesota No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense in one's place of abode[29]) This isn't as clear as it appears, however. There are four cases in Minnesota where duty of retreat was upheld.[30]
- Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat")
- Missouri (Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.)
- Nevada
- New Jersey ("Statutes" link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4, retreat required outside home if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc.)
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008.[31] Section 2901.09)
- Oregon. (ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).")
- Rhode Island
- Utah
- West Virginia (Senate bill 145 signed March 12, 2008. WV code §55-7-22)
- Wyoming
States with weak or no specific Castle Law
These states uphold castle doctrine in general, but may rely on case law instead of specific legislation, may enforce a duty to retreat, and may impose specific restrictions on the use of deadly force.
- Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
- New York (May not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor.)
- Pennsylvania 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505 on the defense of self says there is no obligation to retreat from the home or workplace unless the actor was the initial aggressor or, in the latter case, set upon by a co-worker; however, "surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" and "complying with a demand that [one] abstain from any action which [one] has no duty to take" are listed in addition to retreating as avenues which, if open to the actor but not taken, invalidate justification for the use of deadly force. Deadly force itself is not justifiable unless "the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507 allows the use of deadly force if the actor believes there has been an unlawful entry into his or her dwelling and believes that nothing less than deadly force will end the incursion; if the person on the receiving end of the deadly force is "attempting to dispossess [the actor] of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession;" or if deadly force is the only thing that will prevent a felony from being committed in the dwelling. In any of those cases, the property owner must first ask the interloper to desist — unless the owner believes that doing so would be "useless," "dangerous," or would result in the property being defended coming to substantial harm before the request to desist could be effectively communicated.
- South Dakota "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." SD Codified Laws 22-16-34 (2005).
- Iowa ([32])
- Nebraska
- New Hampshire (A proposed law was vetoed in 2007.[3])
- New Mexico
- Virginia
- Vermont
- District of Columbia
1. Washington Crime News Service. (2006, 11 08). 16 States Adopt 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Authorizing Use Of Deadly Force. Retrieved 08 02, 2010, from findarticles.com: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4440/is_200608/ai_n17175535/12
2. Liptak, A. (2006, 08 07). 15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense. Retrieved 08 02, 2010, from nytimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html?_r=1
No comments:
Post a Comment