General Categories > General Firearm Discussion
"Informal" Castle Doctrine Poll
FarmerRick:
I actually like Kansas' law a bit better, thing seem to be a bit more well defined to me.
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/index.do
Kansas ? 21-3211: Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
Kansas ? 21-3212: Use of force in defense of dwelling; no duty to retreat.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle.
Kansas ?21-3213: Use of force in defense of property other than a dwelling.
A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling is justified in the threat or use of force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with such property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof as a reasonable man would deem necessary to prevent or terminate the interference may intentionally be used.
21-3214. Use of force by an aggressor. The justification described in sections 21-3211, 21-3212, and 21-3213, is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping from the commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or another, with intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(3) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself or another, unless:
(a) He has reasonable ground to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, ? 21-3214; July 1, 1970.
AND
Article 32.--PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY 21-3219. Use of force; immunity from prosecution or liability; investigation.
(a) A person who uses force which, subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 21-3214, and amendments thereto, is justified pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213, and amendments thereto, is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of such officer's official duties and the officer identified the officer's self in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, "criminal prosecution" includes arrest, detention in custody and charging or prosecution of the defendant.
(b) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (a), but the agency shall not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause for the arrest.
(c) A county or district attorney or other prosecutor may commence a criminal prosecution upon a determination of probable cause.
History: L. 2006, ch. 194, ? 2; L. 2007, ch. 169, ? 1; May 17.
FarmerRick:
--- 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.
SeanN:
--- 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?
FarmerRick:
There is a pretty good overview and comparison of various Castle Doctrine laws at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States
About 2/3 of the way down the page is the section of states with "no duty to retreat" with links to each states' laws.
I like Oklahoma's law quite a bit too. http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782
When I was talking with Sen. Christensen last weekend at the picnic, he asked that I send his office some examples of what state statutes we thought would be good models for a Nebraska Castle Doctrine law. I sent the above link to wikipedia along with the text of the laws from Kansas, Florida, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama. I think any of those would be great examples to use as a base for a new Nebraska law.
DanClrk51:
Excellent FarmerRick! So you met Senator Christensen at the open carry picnic in Columbus? Did the media report on the picnic at all? Anyways good stuff sending Christensen's office with Castle Doctrine statutes.
One thing I noticed was that Kansas and Florida unlike our current Nebraska law-as bad as it is- did not mention "kidnapping or forced sexual intercourse (rape)" as justifiable reasons to use deadly force. Am I wrong about this? I would hope that those states do respect those conditions as well. Here is the part where it talks about it in Nebraska Law:
--- Quote from: FarmerRick on September 05, 2009, 07:55:13 AM ---
(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
--- End quote ---
If we do introduce a "Castle Doctrine Bill" this session I would like to see those four conditions fully recognized.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version