General Categories > General Firearm Discussion
"Informal" Castle Doctrine Poll
FarmerRick:
I can't make it to Columbus, not having any luck getting anyone to volunteer to man tables at any gun shows so far(besides Scott, of course).
http://www.nebraskafirepower.com/forum/index.php?topic=1107.0
http://www.nebraskafirepower.com/forum/index.php?topic=1095.0
http://www.nebraskafirepower.com/forum/index.php?topic=1102.0
???
Rich B:
--- Quote from: Krylancelo on September 05, 2009, 08:15:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: FarmerRick on September 05, 2009, 08:10:58 AM ---
--- Quote from: Krylancelo on September 05, 2009, 08:01:20 AM ---Thanks for copying and pasting that for us, Rick.
I never understood why we're supposed to have to retreat and leave our home and all of our possessions behind if necessary. Why can't we legally defend ourselves if retreat is an option? It's not like we asked them to come onto our property and threaten us, our belongings, or our families. That's a load of BS imo.
--- End quote ---
Only 2 places in NE where it is not required for a person to retreat, sort of:
(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; and
Then, below in the (3) jury instructions:
A defendant is not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction when he could have safely retreated. State v. Kuntzelman, 215 Neb. 115, 337 N.W.2d 414 (1983).
These 2 parts seem to contradict each other.
--- End quote ---
They do indeed. That needs to be looked at. How can we follow the law if it's contradictory?
--- End quote ---
IANAL, but consider the following scenario:
You are at your back door and you hear Something Bad happening towards the front of your house. IMO, the law says you need to exit the back door and seek help elsewhere. You are not supposed to walk to the closest AR-15, charge it, and engage whatever kicked in your door.
I'm not saying I like or agree with the above scenario. In fact, I would not convict someone who did that. But then, I favor Texas-style laws that allow you to use deadly force after dark to protect personal property (as opposed to just real property).
Dan W:
No, the law says you must KNOW that you can exit the back door without harm to your self or your family.
"The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating"
If you don't know for sure that there is not another perp outside the back door, you can't safely retreat.
AFVet1982:
I voted for "Other," meaning another state's (specifically Texas) Castle Doctrine law. Hopefully, the pendulum is swinging back in the direction of laws protecting the law-abiding and imperiling the law-breakers instead of what we have now.
GunFun:
--- Quote from: Krylancelo on September 05, 2009, 08:01:20 AM ---Thanks for copying and pasting that for us, Rick.
I never understood why we're supposed to have to retreat and leave our home and all of our possessions behind if necessary. Why can't we legally defend ourselves if retreat is an option? It's not like we asked them to come onto our property and threaten us, our belongings, or our families. That's a load of BS imo.
--- End quote ---
I agree completely. If someone comes into your house with the intent of committing a felony, I believe deadly force should be authorized, and the law regarding that should be advertised loudly to the criminal element.
That might be a deterrent to all of the recent home invasions happening around the area.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version