Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground in Nebraska

[depserv]

I have to admit to some ignorance about our state laws, and hopefully I can get some answers here.  It's my understanding that Nebraska does not have a Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law; am I right about this? 

If I am, I assume it means that in this state if someone breaks into your house you are required to escape from your house if you can, rather than using lethal force (or presumably any force) to resist his aggression. 

Likewise, if you defend yourself outside your home, to make a case for self defense you have to prove that you could not have run away instead.  This means I assume that once someone acts like he might commit some kind of aggression you need to run away at that point, because if you don't, and then he assaults you, and you defend yourself, you are likely to be charged for not running away when you had the chance.  I'm sure there are gray areas, and that's where huge legal fees come into play... 

Am I correct in these assumptions about how the law works in this state?  I run across a lot of people here who don't know that the law here requires them to run away from aggression, even in their own home.  If the truth about these things was commonly known, I think Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground would have much more public support. 

[bullit]

Ref to NE statutes 28-1406-28-1416 
Also take this class

Saturday
January 25th, 2014
 
8:30a-1:00p

 
LEGAL ASPECTS OF LETHAL FORCE CLASS
In this class we review actual Nebraska self defense cases, Calling 911, Talking to the Police, Hiring an Attorney, Aftermath of a Self Defense Shooting, Castle Doctrine, Stand your Ground, and take an in depth look at Nebraska's Use of Force Laws.
This class taught by Chris Zeeb.
 
 

For a registration form contact:

Chris Zeeb
chris@neccwtraining.com
(402) 404-5625

 
Gretna, NE

I-80 exit



 
$85
 
Credit card payments optional

[RLMoeller]

The class referenced above is Highly recommended.

[NE Bull]

Yes, that course will answer a lot of Questions.

In short- our version of Castle Doctrine states you do NOT have to retreat from you home, BUT you do need to make sure the perp is there to cause you or yours death or severe bodily harm ( So it's best to ask their intentions first- no just blastin' thru the front door with your Joe Biden special shotgun.)
 

[AAllen]

Yes, that course will answer a lot of Questions.

In short- our version of Castle Doctrine states you do NOT have to retreat from you home, BUT you do need to make sure the perp is there to cause you or yours death or severe bodily harm ( So it's best to ask their intentions first- no just blastin' thru the front door with your Joe Biden special shotgun.)

Castle Doctrine - there is no requirement to retreat from someone who breaks into your home which a reasonable person would fear is there to kill, rape, kidnap, or do other severe bodily harm.  There has never been a requirement in Nebraska to retreat or attempt to retreat from your home.  We have the Castle Doctrine.

Stand Your Ground - in Nebraska you are required to retreat "If" you know or a reasonable person would have or should have known they could have retreated in "complete safety."  Again the various harms come into play before you can defend yourself etc.  But this is where things get more dicey here than lots of other places.  In most places that have passed SYG legislation they had a requirement to retreat, that known to be safe stuff becomes a kicker.  Along with that there is no proof that anyone has even been charged that this would have pertained to... Makes for a hard case to sell.

I'm not saying our Self Defense laws can not be improved obviously they can or we would not be having this discussion.  In many states your car, front porch, garage (unconnected) or fenced in yard is considered part of your home; in Nebraska they are not making the possible retreat provision apply here.

There are many more questions, like who is the reasonable man and where does he come into play because he is not in the law, this is a requirement added by the Nebraska Supreme Court.  I am certain we could come up with many more but the problem keeps coming down to nobody who should not have has been charged or convicted (that we have been able to track or find) of a crime where any of these self defense claims could have been used have ever happened in Nebraska.

[bullit]

Why exactly is a Castle Doctrine needed in Nebraska  

To the statute we go ......  Personally, I see no need for a "Castle Doctrine".  I would like to see a "Civil Liability Protection" law

28-1409 Use of force in self-protection

4) The use of deadly force shall not be justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, nor is it justifiable if:
   (a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
   (b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
      (i) The actor shall not be obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be;

[AAllen]

I would like to see a "Civil Liability Protection" law

Don't remind me, that is still a sore spot and I have trouble sitting because of it.

[depserv]

Thanks for all the good responses.  I might look into that class.  I took one of Chris's classes for my Utah permit awhile back and thought he did a really good job.

[pitch]

So if someone is on meth killing people when I was in my alley welding on a trailer by my garage I have no defance? Rmember the South O shooting last year killing 2 and 1 other lived? That guy was 100' feet from me. Good thing he didn't see me.

[Chris Z]

So if someone is on meth killing people when I was in my alley welding on a trailer by my garage I have no defance? Rmember the South O shooting last year killing 2 and 1 other lived? That guy was 100' feet from me. Good thing he didn't see me.

Not true...... In that situation you are able to use force to protect another person, and you have no duty to retreat unless you and the person you are protecting can both escape with complete safety

[Thanke]

Another +1 for Chris Zeeb's Legal Aspects of Lethal Force class.  Its well worth your time!

[Gunscribe]

  (i) The actor shall not be obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be;

Not obliged to retreat from own dwelling. Not retreat from place of work unlees assailed by a co-worker - then you have to run.

It says absolutely nothing about any other public place where you have a legal right to be. At or near your car in a parking lot, standing in line for movie tickets, waiting with your kids to see Joesy the clown etc...

Essentially the only place you aren't required to retreat is in your home; That is why Nebraska needs Castle Doctrine/Stand your ground.
            
         
                  
                  
                     
                     
                     
                           

[Thanke]

Essentially the only place you aren't required to retreat is in your home; That is why Nebraska needs Castle Doctrine/Stand your ground.
            
         
                  
                  
                     
                     
                  

I agree with Bullit,

 I would gladly exercise my duty to retreat safely, then  face the alternative, so I guess I don't see it as a huge deal. I can't understand why someone would pick the option of possible death or serious bodily injury over the option of getting the hell out of dodge.

[OnTheFly]

I agree with Bullit,

 I would gladly exercise my duty to retreat safely, then  face the alternative, so I guess I don't see it as a huge deal. I can't understand why someone would pick the option of possible death or serious bodily injury over the option of getting the hell out of dodge.

Because some people feel morally obligated to stop a bad person sans fleeing.  Even when they know it could mean death or serious legal battles.  I'm not talking about those gung-ho types that have watched too many Rambo movies.  I'm talking about someone who realizes they would have more anguish over knowing they ran when they might have helped.  On a related note, I was having a conversation with the mother of a child my kids went to school with.  She didn't understand why I would have guns.  My response was because it was my right first and foremost, but secondly if someone was doing harm to myself or my family, I would have a way to defend us.  She said that she couldn't live with herself if she ever killed anyone.  So she would rather watch her family be murdered, raped, etc. as opposed to living with her act that protected the ones she loved.  Pretty bass ackwards if you ask me.

Now the comments can ensue regarding all the problems with trying to help.  The most important in my mind are...

A) Police coming into the fight may not be able to differentiate between the good guy and the bad guy.  But really...when do the police show up in most of these gunfights?  During the fight?  No.  It is usually after.  This is not a slam on the police.  It is just the reality we live in.  Police can't be everywhere.  It normally takes minutes for the police to respond, but it takes only seconds for someone to murder multiple people.  Especially in the victim rich environments these scum have learned to choose from their predecessors.

B) You may be entering a fight where you end up harming the victim because YOU can't tell the difference between the good guy and the bad guy.  Maybe they are both bad guys fighting over a drug deal gone south.

C) You WILL have legal problems because of your acts.

D) By getting yourself killed or in a legal fight to defend yourself, you have not only hurt yourself, but your family.  Hopefully they will understand why you did what you did.

Before you take exception to my statements, please understand...

1) I'm not saying this describes me, but I know there are people who would rather put themselves in harms than see someone else harmed.

2) Whatever the circumstances, you WILL be in a world of legal hurt.

3) AGAIN...I'm NOT talking about someone who thinks they are some movie super soldier.

4) I am NOT condoning this response...just saying some people are compelled for different reasons.

5) Every situation is different.  Two youths pulling guns out of their belts on the street and shooting them sideways...RUN.  Some Alpha Hotel picking off people at the mall...not too hard to figure out who the bad guy is. 

6) Regardless of whether you carry concealed, you NEED to take Chris Z's class on Legal Aspects of Using Lethal Force to understand your best practices if you are ever involved in a SD situation.  Also, you will learn what you can do to prepare for the off chance that you would ever need to defend yourself or others.  There is much more information in the class.  Take it!

7) I am NOT saying this is the right thing to do.  Getting away from the fight and surviving to be there for your family is a very viable reason to retreat.

[flamesuit]ON[/flamesuit]

Fly

[ILoveCats]

I would gladly exercise my duty to retreat safely, then  face the alternative, so I guess I don't see it as a huge deal. I can't understand why someone would pick the option of possible death or serious bodily injury over the option of getting the hell out of dodge.

I think the counterpoint to that would be that, in a terrible, hectic situation, a person may not see all the avenues to retreat.  Or a person might feel that retreating / running (whatever) is actually more dangerous, or playing right into the "bad guy's" hand.  (There have been various criminal and terrorist tactics in the past designed to flush people out of a certain area, then attack them.  Or, conversely, draw them toward the chaos then attack them; the initial attack at our Nairobi Embassy drew people to the windows to see what was going on, then they detonated the big one.)  And then the Monday morning quarterbacking begins where that person is prosecuted and persecuted for making the spur of the moment decision that staying put was safer than fleeing.

[Thanke]

I think the counterpoint to that would be that, in a terrible, hectic situation, a person may not see all the avenues to retreat.  Or a person might feel that retreating / running (whatever) is actually more dangerous, or playing right into the "bad guy's" hand.  (There have been various criminal and terrorist tactics in the past designed to flush people out of a certain area, then attack them.  Or, conversely, draw them toward the chaos then attack them; the initial attack at our Nairobi Embassy drew people to the windows to see what was going on, then they detonated the big one.)  And then the Monday morning quarterbacking begins where that person is prosecuted and persecuted for making the spur of the moment decision that staying put was safer than fleeing.

I think this ties right into the "safely" aspect. If you can't do it safely, you don't have too. If your family can't safely, you don't have too. If everybody in the store can't safely retreat, you don't have to.

I can see where after the fact, it would be better in court to have some sort of Stand your Ground to help deal with the Monday morning quarter backs. But as it is right now, it is not terrible. (in my opinion)

Hey Onthefly, I think we may have sat next to each other at Chris' class   

[OnTheFly]

Hey Onthefly, I think we may have sat next to each other at Chris' class   

Why...did you have a guy in class asking a lot of dumb questions? If so, then yes, that was probably me. 

Fly

[bullit]

It says absolutely nothing about any other public place where you have a legal right to be. At or near your car in a parking lot, standing in line for movie tickets, waiting with your kids to see Joesy the clown etc...




Gunscribe, please reply with the statute that supports your statements .....

[Gunscribe]

I can't understand why someone would pick the option of possible death or serious bodily injury over the option of getting the hell out of dodge.

Who said anything about PICKING the option; What about the War Vet in a wheel chair, what about Gramma with a cane, what about a wife with a shopping cart full of groceries and babies? I could go on and on. Just because you are a physically fit gun-totin' olympic runner doesn't mean everyone is. Unless your suggesting that mom run off and leave her kids behind.

Gunscribe, please reply with the statute that supports your statements .....

 (b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

That right there says that if you can't run safely you MUST surrender your posessions, beemer keys etc.   Bottomline if you can't escape the law says you have turn over your stuff and assume the fetal position hoping the bad guy doesn't cap your ass anyway.

[Thanke]

Who said anything about PICKING the option; What about the War Vet in a wheel chair, what about Gramma with a cane, what about a wife with a shopping cart full of groceries and babies? I could go on and on. Just because you are a physically fit gun-totin' olympic runner doesn't mean everyone is. Unless your suggesting that mom run off and leave her kids behind.

If you have the option to leave with complete safety, leave.

If you are in a wheel chair, then leaving with complete safety isn't an option. Defend yourself.
If you are mom with kids, please don't run off  leaving them behind. Leaving with complete safety isn't possible, defend them.

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

That right there says that if you can't run safely you MUST surrender your posessions, beemer keys etc.   Bottomline if you can't escape the law says you have turn over your stuff and assume the fetal position hoping the bad guy doesn't cap your ass anyway.

It says if you know that you can be completely safe without using force then surrender your possessions or run away. Deadly force is justifiable if you believe that it is necessary to protect yourself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.

If you can get away in complete safety, deadly force is not necessary. I would prefer to leave in complete safety, then have to go through hell and back dealing with the aftermath of using deadly force. If you can not leave in complete safety, then you have to do whatever you think will give you the best odds in staying safe.