Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-17-2013, 14:36   #41
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 35,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car 2217 View Post

exchanged gunfire

“….in the event that an individual, or a person under protection of the individual, is in immediate danger of loss of life or immediate danger of grave bodily injury, it shall be an affirmative defense that the use of deadly force by the individual is justified.”
There you go.

Quote:
To that (in some states) is added that the individual must attempt to flee (disengage) unless that action would place the individual or the person under protection of the individual in even greater danger.
Not in Texas (or Kentucky, or Florida, etc.).

Quote:
And somewhere in the statutes it will say something like “…once the threat has ended, the affirmative defense has also ended”.

Note that the statute speaks of 'Affirmative Defense', not the 'Right' to use Deadly Force. There is a world of difference.

Anyway, in the case of the two good guys who popped the crook, what they did was illegal because they were in no danger of immediate loss of life or grave bodily injury and, since the crook fled the scene without harming the victim, the victim wasn’t either. (Still, I hope that if a LEO discovers their identity he has the good sense to ‘misplace the paperwork’.)
Without going into a Texas law research project - many states allow deadly force to prevent any felony involving the use of force - here, for example, you can kill a purse snatcher who is unarmed. Same goes for a person who punches a school volunteer or bus driver. All felonies involving the use of force. In addition, our courts say that "robbery" includes the escape with the goods, so that deadly force could still be used to stop the robbery even where the robber was fleeing.

Next, the justification is usually decided at the point force is used. For example, in many places you can use non-deadly force to take back your property or someone else's (as here in KY). If you try to lawfully take back your property and the thief or robber then threatens you with deadly force ("exchanged gunfire") you can use deadly force in self-defense.

Then, of course, texas is the one state that allows you to kill a thief, under some conditions, while he is fleeing.

I think there is a pretty good chance these guys would be justified.
__________________
"Liberal" is when you hire others to use a guns to protect you, so you can pretend guns aren't necessary.

Last edited by Bren; 01-17-2013 at 14:37..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2013, 23:40   #42
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 350
Quote:
Without going into a Texas law research project - many states allow deadly force to prevent any felony involving the use of force - here, for example, you can kill a purse snatcher who is unarmed.
I don't necessarily agree with this. While I don't research every use of force statute from every state, I find it hard to believe that many states allow you to use deadly force involving a felony where force is used by the suspect. A purse snatcher is normally not going to subject someone to serious bodily injury or death. So how can you justify using deadly force against him?

If I'm pursuing a purse snatching suspect and fire on him I'd be looking for a new job and possibly a lien on my home. And I have greater protection as a LEO.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 03:40   #43
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I don't necessarily agree with this. While I don't research every use of force statute from every state, I find it hard to believe that many states allow you to use deadly force involving a felony where force is used by the suspect. ...

In most states, statutes/laws allow for use of deadly force to terminate/thwart a kidnapping, rape or sodomy of a minor.

In many states deadly force is permissible to thwart a robbery subsequent to a break in of a domicile.

In some states, the disparity of force is a consideration, and in some other states, so long as the VICTIM can conclusively ("reasonableness standard") express that he or she was in grave fear of his/her life, deadly force is permissible.

What is so hard to believe about those things I've outlined?

I find it hard to believe that you're approaching the subject in such a narrow, focused way.

- G

Now I'm done.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 13:52   #44
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 350
Quote:
In many states deadly force is permissible to thwart a robbery subsequent to a break in of a domicile
I'm aware of the "castle" doctrines. With regards to these statutes, there's normally an automatic presumption of serious bodily injury or death when the person is in your home. That doctrine has been extended to your car & business in my state (TN).

Quote:
In some states, the disparity of force is a consideration, and in some other states, so long as the VICTIM can conclusively ("reasonableness standard") express that he or she was in grave fear of his/her life, deadly force is permissible.

What is so hard to believe about those things I've outlined?
Exactly what I mentioned. There normally needs to be a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury or death.

To me a purse snatcher doesn't meet the criteria unless he displays or emphasizes he has a weapon during the strong armed robbery attempt.

We're talking about a purse snatcher and you introduced several other examples where the use of deadly force would more likely be justified. Such examples as forcible rape or kidnapping of a minor, home invasion, and any time a person is in fear of serious bodily injury or death are fine with me when it comes to the use of deadly force.

Like I mentioned in my first post, I don't see the same with a purse snatcher. Although it's a robbery by definition in most states, if I was to shoot a purse snatcher as a LEO with no threat of a weapon or serious bodily harm I'd likely lose my job and a wrongful death action. Many courts follow the TN v. Garner standard when it comes to felonies & deadly force.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 16:26   #45
SouthernBoyVA
Senior Member
 
SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Western Prince William County, VA
Posts: 3,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car 2217 View Post
So, since this thread has degenerated into an uncivil, personalized discussion, here is my response...
Trust me, these forums have a lot of this going on. All you need do is follow a thread a few pages and you're bound to run into a health measure of incivility. Many times, it's the same crew doing this.

I just ignore it for the most part. Think of it this way...

Except for those whom you choose to care about, what others think and say about you means absolutely nothing.
__________________
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
SouthernBoyVA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 06:21   #46
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 35,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I don't necessarily agree with this. While I don't research every use of force statute from every state, I find it hard to believe that many states allow you to use deadly force involving a felony where force is used by the suspect. A purse snatcher is normally not going to subject someone to serious bodily injury or death. So how can you justify using deadly force against him?

If I'm pursuing a purse snatching suspect and fire on him I'd be looking for a new job and possibly a lien on my home. And I have greater protection as a LEO.
Well, I do research use of force laws of others states. I reviewed this bill for the executive branch before the governor signed it. We borrowed it from Florida's castle doctrine elgislation, as did several others states. In Kentucky, it is KRS 503.050 and 503.070:

Quote:
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055.
Quote:
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055; and
(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
In Kentucky, purse snatching is Robbery 2nd - a felony involvibng the use of force. So is slapping a school bus driver or a teacher (Assault 3rd).

In Florida it is Fl. St. 776.012 

Quote:
Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
In New Hampshire it is 627:4, but is limited to being on your own property:
Quote:
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.
Those are some examples from the top of a quick google search. When I teach the class to law enforcement, I point out that a private citizen can use deadly force in KY in situations that would be a criminal civil rights violation if the police did it.
__________________
"Liberal" is when you hire others to use a guns to protect you, so you can pretend guns aren't necessary.

Last edited by Bren; 01-23-2013 at 06:22..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 06:32   #47
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 35,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I'm aware of the "castle" doctrines. With regards to these statutes, there's normally an automatic presumption of serious bodily injury or death when the person is in your home. That doctrine has been extended to your car & business in my state (TN).
Kentucky requires no danger to justify deadly force against a burglar or arsonist. One example I use in class is, if you invite your buddy over to a superbowl party and you get in an argument and tell him to leave your house and he says, "I'm not leaving because I'm going to smash your TV" he is then committing a burglary and deadly force is perfectly legal to stop it. The supreme court has mentioned that Kentucky law allows deadly force against anyone who enters or remains unlawfully in your home for5 the purpose of committing ANY crime (felony or misdemeanor). KRS 503.080.

In Colorado
Quote:
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, 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.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
So Colorado's law is, in some ways, less strict than Kentucky. In Kentucky, it has to be your own home to use deadly force against a person who comes in uninvited to steal a loaf of bread, but in Colorado, anybody in the house can do it.
__________________
"Liberal" is when you hire others to use a guns to protect you, so you can pretend guns aren't necessary.

Last edited by Bren; 01-23-2013 at 06:33..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 14:31   #48
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 350
I have no issues with broader legislation involving use of force as you guys have pointed out in KY. I would just not want to be the attorney for a defendant if the plaintiff was the family member of the decedent (the D shot) who wouldn't leave his buddy's house during a superbowl game or the purse snatching suspect who was shot multiple times and had no weapon or failed to display/advise of a weapon during the snatching. It appears the CO statute only outlines deadly force when the person made any unlawful entry to the house or remains in the house after an unlawful entry. That seems to be on point with the castle doctrine.

We all know that every case is very fact-specific when a court/jury comes to the conclusion that it does. I just would not want those specific scenarios in a wrongful death action. It appears in those limited circumstances that citizens have more latitude when it comes to deadly force than LEOs do.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 16:34   #49
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 35,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I have no issues with broader legislation involving use of force as you guys have pointed out in KY. I would just not want to be the attorney for a defendant if the plaintiff was the family member of the decedent (the D shot) who wouldn't leave his buddy's house during a superbowl game or the purse snatching suspect who was shot multiple times and had no weapon or failed to display/advise of a weapon during the snatching. It appears the CO statute only outlines deadly force when the person made any unlawful entry to the house or remains in the house after an unlawful entry. That seems to be on point with the castle doctrine.

We all know that every case is very fact-specific when a court/jury comes to the conclusion that it does. I just would not want those specific scenarios in a wrongful death action. It appears in those limited circumstances that citizens have more latitude when it comes to deadly force than LEOs do.
Could be tricky, but we also have immunity from suit for shooting burglars in KY and the plaintiff has to pay for our attorney and all costs, lost pay, etc., if they sue and the court rules that the shooting was justified.
__________________
"Liberal" is when you hire others to use a guns to protect you, so you can pretend guns aren't necessary.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 21:03   #50
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Could be tricky, but we also have immunity from suit for shooting burglars in KY and the plaintiff has to pay for our attorney and all costs, lost pay, etc., if they sue and the court rules that the shooting was justified.
I think we have a similar standard in TN for the same thing.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply


Tags
attorney for deadly force, ccw, deadly force
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:44.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,292
305 Members
987 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31