Laws for SD

I was told by an TKD instructor and security expert that the law is (In Oregon anyway and Florida) that if you feel that you or your loved ones are in immediate physical danger that you can react with extreme deadly force so long as oyu do a good job articulating why oyu felt threatened. Is that true?

Here in Pa it is not just "physical danger" But REASONABLE belief that you or a loved one is in IMMEDIATE DANGER OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.

That is the standard in Florida as well. It used to read that you had an obligation to retreat (run away) unless it was impossible or impractical. Now, if you have the means to protect yourself from a deadly force threat, you do not have to run until you get cornered. You can meet deadly force with deadly force.

It was always like that anyway once it got into the courts, but they spelled it out last year or the year before in the "Stand your ground" law. ACLU tree huggers were coming unglued and predicting mayhem in the streets with shootouts on every corner.

Never happened.

Thanks for the confirmation.

In MS we can shoot you the moment you touch our property line. No explanations needed. Call a meatwagon.

Here in Texas, a law was just passed (it will be in effect Sept. 1) that we can defend our home with deadly force. Do I expect crime rate to fall? No, but I do think that more people won't hesitate to shoot first and ask questions later. I'd like to know the specifics on the new law. Any ideas on how to find something like that out?

Casey

yes. you would look along the lines of Texas/selfdefenselaws.gov. Or something like that. Each state has a .gov website that you can find those types of things.

Thanks Chen I'll look those up one day when I get bored.

Casey

what are the laws of new jersey? im guessing since it is liberal it would be more on the criminals side

Stormdragon,
The world is full of self appointed experts in everything imagineable. Personally if I heard the words "extreme deadly force" spoken as an option I'd distance myself from the source. On the other hand, if I heard something to the effect of reasonable and proportionate to the threat, I'd be inclined to listen. The letter of the law varies a bit from one jurisdiction to another but it's overall very similar. The state reserves the "right" to use force. It forgives a citizen for it's use under certain circumstances. Provided you can articulate the threat and subject to "the reasonable man doctrine". Chances are very good that in your jurisdiction you can use enough force to nuetralize a threat. That is, to cause someone to cease the action that threatens you. If he dies in the process that's unfortunate. Nowhere in any statutes will you read that you have the "right" or permission to kill another human being. My home state of Arizona recognizes two types of force. Physical force, and Deadly physical force. Deadly physical force is defined as that level of force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. The case law defintion of serious bodily injury is an injury from which one would likey require a prolonged period of recovery. All other force from an unwelcome touch on up is "physical force".
If you notice that the law leaves things somewhat less than crystal clear, welcome to the club. Use of force is a highly uncertain game. Lethal force intitute guru Massad Ayoob recomends that a citizen carrying a weapon have an extra million dollars of liability insurance and have had a sitdown with a lawyer that you can call at home, any hour of the day or night. He also recomends that you carry a weapon and ammunition of similar type to the local police and have an escalation of force plan that mirrors law enforcement. Why? because theirs is successful and has already been extensivley litigated and therefore refined.
The last thing I would say is,,anything and everything I've written here could be wrong and you would be wise to seek information from a subject matter expert in the jusrisdiction where you reside. K-

if I lived in chens country and I had the same neighbor Id invite him over for dinner and then blast him with the 4.10

For Casey and other Texas residents:

REP. CHUCK HOPSON APPLAUDS GOVERNOR FOR SIGNING 'CASTLE DOCTRINE' BILL
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, March 27, 2007

~ Rep. Hopson Glad To See Governor Follow Legislatures Lead ~AUSTIN — Representative Chuck Hopson was glad to see that Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill into law Tuesday that gives Texans a stronger legal right to defend themselves using deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.

With the support of Representative Hopson, Senate Bill 378 or the 'Castle Doctrine', passed in both chambers of the legislature overwhelmingly earlier this month. The bill states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force.

"The right to defend yourself and your family from harm should be clearly defined and the law should be easy to interpret," Hopson said. "This is the first bill Governor Perry has signed this session and it is a good one to start with."

The bill is being referred to as the "castle doctrine," drawing from the idea that a man's home is his castle and that he should have the right to defend it. A building or vehicle must be occupied at the time for the deadly force provision to apply, and the person using force cannot provoke the attacker or be involved in criminal activity at the time.

The new law will also provide civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill. Police and prosecutors can still press charges if they feel deadly force was illegally used, legislative sponsors said.

Please contact our offices at 1-866-233-5100 or 512-463-0592 should you have any questions or concerns regarding issues or a particular piece of legislation.
Contact: Daniel Mahoney
Phone: 866-233-5100

source:http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/release.php?id=2017

We also have "Castle Doctrine" laws in South Carolina, but there is a caveat (as always) that you might want to take note of. If you are defending yourself in your home, you are still liable if your shots are errant and do some kind of harm offsite.

If you shoot at an intruder... miss, and hit the old lady waiting on the bus down the street... you're liable. Any reasonable person would realize this, and be prudent in how they optioned to use deadly force.

What "anti-gun" people never understand is that most people who use and deal with guns every day are much more reasonable than their imaginations of the "O.K. Corral" syndrome. Just because people have a right to do something doesn't mean they'll make it an everyday occurrance. I have the right to burn down my house, but it isn't a very prudent thing to do, and I might be liable for setting my neighbors houses on fire... so it's a "last option". Most gun laws are the same way. The Castle Doctrine only makes it reasonable to use force when necessary without having to have a mental gymnastic session with yourself before defending your home and family.

Also, remember that many of the famous shootouts, such as the OK Corral incident, became famous merely because of their rarity. The Wild West was only wild outside of the towns and cities.

It's good for the residents of Texas that their legislature is providing them some legal and civil protection. No doubt in response to the legal profession preying on the innocent homeowner, along with the overzealous prosecutors. I'd like to know what some of the "circumstances spelled out in the bill" are. I would be very surprised to find out that one could shoot for mere entry onto the premesis. The legal advisor in my tactical handgun class summed it by saying that you should "shoot when you must, not when you can". He also said, "if the other guy dies, there will only be ONE liar on the witness stand. Remember being cleared to use deadly force isn't the same as a license to kill. You must cease fire when the bad guy ceases whatever action that cause you to shoot. I.E. he see's your weapon and attempts to flee or surrender.
K-

In answer to my own question;
The Texas legislation specifies precise criteria for justifying deadly force:
[W]hen and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.8
Furthermore, such force is justified only if the aggressor :

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor ’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment of the actor; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described [above].9
It doesnt look like a "shoot 1st and sort it out later" law to me. It does appear to have nixed the "duty to retreat" mindset that the lawyers had introduced. Which by the way is actual law in many places.
Chen, I'd be willing to bet that you're mistaken about MS trespass laws. You may betting your liberty on something that you've heard from many people for a long time, but just isn't true.
K-

There is a law still in the books in texas that you can kill a man IF "he needed killin" (it is actually spelled "killin")
I LOVE it.
J

Ground fighter. I wouldnt bet my liberty on it until Ive read the statue. And then I'd want to review what the stated "needs' are. K-

The safest and smartest thing anyone could do to answer any questions on self defense and the permissible levels is to contact your local Commonwealth or District Attorney's office and request the information pertaining not only to your states laws but also to you city/town's laws and that of local surrounding City/towns.. This will go a long way to covering your butt when you really need it covered after the fight in the street/home is over and the fight for your life in the court begins.