Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground in Nebraska

[bullit]

(b) The actor knows [/size]that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating

Emphasis mine.....The burden of proof is going to be on the Prosecution to demonstrate said 'actor' could "retreat" in complete safety...  this of course is where the "Reasonable Man Theory" is going to apply.  Being a native Texan, I have some problems with "stand your ground" in some respects and how it has been used in some Texas cases.  One example is checking out neighbors home then engaging BG who was in neighbors front yard and BG ends up dead.  Yes, the GG had the "right" to be there, but IMHO he needed to be a good witness and protect his home, family, etc.  ....   unless he heard the neighbor girls screaming rape as an example......but I digress.

To my knowledge and research, section (b) has never come into play in a Nebraska case, even as recent a J. Mac and the Walgreen's shooting.  PLEASE anyone correct me if I am wrong.

At the end of the day, I am fine with how the law is written and feel the NFOA should STRONGLY push the Civil protection side of the issue i.e. ajudicated not guilty by a jury or no true bill by a grand jury, then cannot be sued in a civil proceeding.....

My final comment is join the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network

[Gunscribe]

Let’s get to the down and dirty.

Have you been in one or more violent situations? Do you honestly think you will have time to think it through, decide and act?

You can call it whatever you want, but;

Self Defense – A legally defined term that one’s actions must conform to for society to judge what was done as justifiable.

If it doesn’t conform it isn’t self-defense.

From my friend Sheriff Jim Wilson;

PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE...For some of the so-called defensive shooting experts who wonder why some of us don't take your BS seriously, try this...Go to the Safari Club Annual Meeting...tell them that you've never been to Africa...never shot a buffalo, lion, or elephant...never been there when one was shot...then proceed to tell them what guns, calibers, and bullets, they should be using on Africa's dangerous game. Let me know how that works out for you.

You can talk all the talk all you want about this or that, but until you have survived one or more violent encounters you don’t have a clue what you will or not do.

Gun or knife? Ball bat or broken bottle? One or multiple assailants? What direction do I go? Do I run? Can I outrun a slew of bullets or leap a tall building with a single bound? Do I draw? Do I shoot?

With the onset of tunnel vision, auditory exclusion and the loss of fine motor skills can you honestly say you are capable of answering all of those questions and taking an action in ½ of a second or less?

If you think for one second that you will have time to evaluate and decide you are deluding yourself.

In that moment you either know and do or die.

Now in the aftermath thousands will take days, weeks and months to Monday morning quarterback a decision you had less than a second to make.

And let’s get this out of the way; “Reasonable man” is a legal fantasy.

Who determines what is or is not a reasonable man? It will be those on the jury that have hours and days to pick apart everything you decided and did in 2-3 seconds.

To the hold hands and sing Kumbya group no “reasonable man” would ever use a weapon to defend against violence.

Stand your ground takes all of that Monday morning quarterbacking and reasonable man B.S. out of the legal equation.

[Thanke]

 I disagree, and will leave it at this:

I would prefer to stay out of violent situations all together.
I have never been in a violent situation.
I do not believe that only people who have been in a violent situations are credible.
I do hope I am willing to evaluate and make sound decisions in seconds.
I hope I will be accountable for my actions and able to keep safe.
I believe someone who has never been in a bad situation is capable of falling back on training.

[bullit]

Gunscribe.... now we can talk about a topic of which I do have experience in .......  I HAVE SURVIVED a gun involved violent assault/attack.  When said person of color stuck said gun in my face, your comments about how one might or might not react (my paraphrase of your comments) are relatively true.   When his colleague proceeded to beat me over the back of the head my only thought was hoping to survive (did I forget to mention this occurred at 1030 ((that's in the morning for those of you in Rio Linda or who didn't serve in the military)) in a very nice part of town.  In short, one has really no time to do much of anything but PRAY when essentially ambushed.  I can assure you that I did not,  nor ever have had any delusions of being a Rambo and have the attitude of "I would do this and I would do that ..... "  I certainly am play no Monday Morning Quarterback...if you ain't there shut your opinion hole is my feeling......
With regards to the "Reasonable Man Theory"....yes, you will be judged by a jury of your "peers" ... indeed in a lot of cases this is a joke (e.g. soccer mom or UNL professor on the jury).  I have no delusions of how such things might occur.   Having taken over 60 hours of continuing legal education in the use of Justifiable Homicide (some even with Ayoob)..... believe me I get it. 
In conclusion, I go back to my original premise that Nebraska's current SD laws are pretty good, thus my push for the Civil Liability protections as a priority (I think that is third time I've hinted at that in this thread).   Please show me a case(s) to the contrary that have worked against a "righteous shooting" defendant in Nebraska.  Legal precedent here continues to prove otherwise.  Would I prefer or like to see SYG? .....to some degree it might be beneficial.  Do I feel Florida and Texas have some problems with theirs?  IMHO ...ABSOLUTELY.  And from my "What Its Worth Department" (and only because you quoted him), I am from Jim Wilson's parts so know about him and his reputation intimately.  Never met the man, but have plenty of family and friends in the LEO Denton County community who have, know him in one way or another, etc.  That's all I will say about that ......

[Lorimor]

I don't know how I'd react. 

I hold no illusions that my "peers" will populate the jury. 

I'll still carry.

[Dan W]

or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto

This does not mean you must turn over your possessions to any one that demands them. It means that if the other guy has what may be a reasonable legal claim to some item(s) you possess, and you can avoid using deadly force by giving up the disputed item(s) then you must give up the item(s)......

   It refers to disputed property and the use of force to defend property