(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
Those two clauses put severe restrictions on the use of concealed weapons for personal defense and almost forbids their use to defend yourself at work and in public places.[/b]
How can one know that a retreat can be done "with complete safety" until after the retreat is done? What if, while retreating, the bad guy decides he doesn't like what you are doing and shoots you? Not being able to shoot until you are shot at, or shot, defeats the purpose of a CHP and demands you play Russian Roulette with him, but he gets the first shot. Say you, fearful he might shoot if you retreat, shoot at him first? At your trial the prosecutor will claim you didn't try to retreat, or retreat far enough. How do you prove otherwise?
Secondly, part (b) also requires the concealed carrier to give up anything and everything the bad guy asks for and, on top of that, if the bad guy demands that you hand over any concealed weapon or do some other action that would be disadvantageous to you and
you refuse you have broken the law. IOW, the law seems to give the bad guy all the rights and the victim no chance at protecting his property or person, i.e. self-defense ... except ...
Part (i) when you are at home and your home is invaded. (I guess that is the "Castle Doctrine" part.) At work you don't have to retreat, PROVIDED that the bad guy doesn't work there also. If he does you can't defend yourself. What if you didn't know that he worked there and you use your weapon to defend yourself? Russian roulette again. More than likely you'll be prosecuted. It's like the legislature is favoring the bad guy. It will be especially bad if the prosecutor is like those in the Sanford, FL case -- zealous anti-2A types.
Now, personally, I wouldn't consider defending someone else when they have had the same opportunity to gain a CHP that I have and have chosen not to. And, I wouldn't consider using my CHP to protect a vendor's property by shooting at even an armed robber, if he wasn't threatening me. Insurance can replace property, not lives. But, why carry concealed when the law requires that you must give to the thug the personal possessions or yours that he demands? To the thug, what's his is his, and what yours is his also. The legislature seems to agree.
I'll be blunt. The people who wrote that law live in Ivory Towers and have NEVER been robbed, raped or murdered, nor have they had loved ones robbed, raped or murdered. If they had, they wouldn't have loaded the deck to favor the thieving and life of the thug.
This puts a new light on the "Stand Your Ground" Law. It's time Nebraska had that law.
