Question about recent events…

In light of recent events, how many states allow us to enforce the questionable “CASTLE LAW”? (Defense of Habitation) And in your jurisdiction, what are the benefits or consequences of the castle law. We all know what we would do, but, what does your government say we should do?

We welcome every member of FRN to reply...

_________________
Jay Shell
Covering North East AL.
AAA / Eagle Bail Bonds, LLC
Anniston, AL
256.235.2437

Colorado has the castle doctrine law. When I took my CCW class, there was a question raised as to whether it covered only actual living quarters versus an attached garage or outbuildings. The objective opinion was that outbuildings or an attached garage both had means to prevent entry to a residence, so may or may not be covered.

As an average citizen, I feel that I have every right to protect and defend any and every possession that I have. Now that I have multiple professions, I feel the same, but because I have added more dangerous professions, feel that many of my rights as a normal citizen have been compromised.

_________________
Kathy Blackshear
Blackshear Investigations
Blackshear Bail Bonds
Sales Associate, Prepaid Legal Services, Inc.
Walsenburg, CO

Proud Member of the AB Reject Club

_________________
R&R
Professional Skip Trace Service
_________________________

Well if what i read is true than i am happy about this change i am not going to run from anyone in my own home they better hope they can run fast because they wont even hear themselves die if they come in my house.

As Kathy stated; that is all very true (as far as Colorado) Recently during an advanced CCW and weapons retention course I attended there was a question asked about if your vehicle, parked in the driveway or even a city street was an extension. One of the instructors who is also an LEO stated that; "Yes, your vehicle is an extension of your property and thus, lets say someone was breaking into your vehicle could you 'protect' it. You can." I found this interesting as in the area I live there have been a rash of car break-ins and hold up during the morning hours when people are leaving to go to work.

But some politicians are lobbying against our rights though. its a shame.

_________________
Bryan Wheeler
'WHEELZ" Fugitive Recovery
Bail Enforcement Agent
Montrose/Monument/Denver Colorado
COIBE CERT # 2009-1030
970-417-9482

CT has it...you break into my house, chances are you won't be walking out:

Sec. 53a-20. Use of physical force in defense of premises. A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination.

History: 1971 act specified use of "reasonable" physical force; P.A. 73-639 allowed use of deadly physical force when necessary to prevent crime of violence and deleted language allowing use of deadly physical force "not earlier in time" than necessary to prevent or terminate unlawful entry in dwelling or workplace by force; P.A. 92-260 made technical changes by replacing "believes it is necessary" and "believes it necessary" with "believes such to be necessary".

Sec. 53a-19. Use of physical force in defense of person. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor, or if he or she is a peace officer or a special policeman appointed under section 29-18b or a private person assisting such peace officer or special policeman at his or her direction, and acting pursuant to section 53a-22, or (2) by surrendering possession of property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto, or (3) by complying with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person, or (2) he is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but such other person notwithstanding continues or threatens the use of physical force, or (3) the physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

_________________
Kate
650.863.8470

" Yeah, I see ya, you ding dong..."

Covers ones car as well here in Arkansas . . . Bring it ON "Car Jackers"

_________________


Do not consider anything for your interest which makes you break your word, quit your modesty, or inclines you to any practice which will not bear the light, or look the world in the face .... Marcus Antonius

I AM Some Folks "KARMA" and A MODERATOR @ FRN

Missouri has the Castle Doctrine. It removes your duty to retreat in your domicile or vehicle. Domicile is your house, trailer, hotel, tent, camper, whereever you are spending the night. Even if your at a relatives house, your there for the night, so you have no duty to retreat from intruders.

It has always pretty much been that way. The real key to the whole thing is you cannot be charged with a crime or sued. Normally, if you shoot someone, the crippled intruder, or if they are dead, a family member, will sue you. You might as well count on it. Now, you cannot be sued. Thats a huge plus.

There is actually a bill in the MO house right now, and looks like it will pass, that extends the Castle Doctrine to any property you own or lease. Meaning if Im a quarter mile from the house and some a-hole is trespassing, I confront them and they attack me, I have no duty to retreat. Sucks to be them.

Its a real good deal. However, it does make me think twice when entering a house to pick someone up. Normally, as you all know, the skip doesnt own the house. Even if you are let in to search, whats to keep a sleeping family member from waking up and shooting your ass? I know that danger has always existed, but it even hits closer to home now.

That is coming into play in Texas where an illegal shot and killed an Officer. The kicker is ~ The fact that the shooter was aware of who the intruder was . . .

_________________


Do not consider anything for your interest which makes you break your word, quit your modesty, or inclines you to any practice which will not bear the light, or look the world in the face .... Marcus Antonius

I AM Some Folks "KARMA" and A MODERATOR @ FRN

I recently encountered this situation. I went to the defendant's mother's house at 2 am because that's where the co-signer said he was. So my partner and I went there, took up routine positions..yadda yadda yadda....the mother, who was in her mid 50's, obviously refused to open the door.

I repeatedly announced who I was, showed her my credentials through the window, etc. that lady was not opening that door...period. The first thing that was running through my mind was the def. was in there. She kept saying she was calling the police....I told her to go ahead, did she know the number ?.... We had already done our leo check in.

So the cops get there, y'all know the drill...yadda yadda yadda...the point I'm trying to get to is that she made the statement to me, in front of the cops, that she could have shot me....before I could respond, 1 of the cops replied, "yes ma'am, and then he would have been justified in shooting back....he has a warrant for your house".

That shocked the woman because she felt justified...she didn't like being told she would have been wrong. Needless to say she wouldn't let me search the house, but she did the cops. Bad guy wasn't there.

So yeah...we have the castle doctrine here and we have to be careful when stepping onto people's property.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
On a seperate note, while out in the field stopping for gas or whatever, I've had an increase in the activity of people in general approaching me asking me for everything from money to rides to gasoline....you should hear some of these stories.

Before they even get started I cut 'em off....I don't let them get within 10' of me or my car. If they start to get persistent, I just raise the tail of my shirt to show them my gun and they quickly move off.

I never used to be approached by anyone, but here in the last 2 years, they have gotten braver.

_________________
River City Associates
Decatur, Al. 35601