Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=375814)

CoinHunter53562 | 05-17-2009 01:02 AM
AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? From the state where gun laws suck (I live in Madison, WI)... http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/451457 In a nutshell Current law allows Wisconsin residents to use deadly force in self defense when the force is reasonable and believed necessary to prevent unlawful interference with him or another person. AB 193 and SB 129 would require a court to presume that the use of deadly force in a home was warranted if the person against whom force was used was breaking into or already inside that home. The presumption wouldn’t apply if the person who used force was involved in illegal activity or the person entering a home identified himself as a police officer. The case for it Sen. Jim Holperin, D-Conover, lead sponsor of SB 129, said prosecutors and judges have too much leeway to interpret whether a person correctly used force in defending him or herself. The bill is needed to make sure people who are protecting their property don’t face unnecessary criminal charges, he said. And he said it won’t make people more likely to fire a weapon. “I don’t think a bill like this changes much behavior,” he said. “If somebody forcibly enters my house I’m shooting first and asking questions later, man.” The case against it Jeri Bonavia, executive director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, said the bills are “a solution in search of a problem.” If passed, the law would limit the flexibility of the courts to respond to the specific facts of a case, she said. In other states, drug dealers and other “bad guys” have successfully used similar laws to challenge criminal charges, she said. “In theory, this sounds good. Who wouldn’t want to protect their home?” she said. “But that’s not it. It’s this idea that we can decide legislatively what’s usually decided in court rooms.” How to get involved The Assembly Committee on Personal Property is holding a hearing on it chamber’s version of the bill May 28 at 10 a.m. in room 415 NW at the Capitol. Speakers will have three minutes each to address the bill. The committee may vote on the bill after the hearing. Those who can’t make it to the hearing can also register their opinions with the Legislature. Call 266-9960 or 1-800-362-9472.

mick silver | 05-17-2009 01:30 AM
Re: AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? if some one comes into my home that i do not know , he well not be walking out on his own .

EireGoBragh | 05-17-2009 01:35 AM
Re: AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? There's nothing inside my house worth risking your life for.....:36_1_30:

WAoG | 05-17-2009 01:44 AM
Re: AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? If young virgin females decide to attack me and take what they want, well I have decided not to shoot them. It took some thinking but well young girls are just so nice looking.

leadfoot | 05-17-2009 02:21 AM
Re: AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? Quote:
AB 193 and SB 129 would require a court to presume that the use of deadly force in a home was warranted if the person against whom force was used was breaking into or already inside that home. The presumption wouldn’t apply if the person who used force was involved in illegal activity or the person entering a home identified himself as a police officer.
In Florida, I believe, they go one step further. With certain exclusions of course, the state can't even bring charges if it's self-defense. Why should an anti-gun prosecutor be able to bankrupt someone even if there is no chance of conviction?

WAoG | 05-17-2009 02:44 AM
Re: AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? Quote:
Originally Posted by leadfoot (Post 1726172) In Florida, I believe, they go one step further. With certain exclusions of course, the state can't even bring charges if it's self-defense. Why should an anti-gun prosecutor be able to bankrupt someone even if there is no chance of conviction?
Florida is strange. I got mixed information from everyone. No open carry I was told but I saw a man open carring. Put your gun in a case in the car I was told but others had guns out in the open? I'm not sure what the rules are there? I was not going to spend bucks to find out as only there for less than two months this time but it would be nice to know the rules and not spend bucks on lawyer. I also could not get one young virgin to take what they wanted that was also kind of not good on getting me to go back there:-) I'm going to get guitar case that way no one will know what is in it and I can carry it in and out of hotels. I feel safer with shotgun or ak when I travel and moving these and people not knowing what I'm moveing I think s a smart idea? Hand guns are ok but I sleep better with shotgun or ak next to me.

leadfoot | 05-17-2009 04:37 AM
Re: AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? Quote:
Originally Posted by WAoG (Post 1726187) Florida is strange. I got mixed information from everyone. No open carry I was told but I saw a man open carring. Put your gun in a case in the car I was told but others had guns out in the open? I'm not sure what the rules are there?
Florida is pretty clear cut on open carry. It is illegal except on your own property (your home or business) or while hunting. Perhaps that is what you saw or maybe a LEO.

MilitantOne | 05-17-2009 08:26 AM
Re: AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? Some states have adopted the Castle Doctrine :applause_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_US A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

MilitantOne | 05-17-2009 08:30 AM
Re: AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? The state i currently reside. West Virginia �55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary. (b)A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker in the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section. (c) A person not engaged in unlawful activity who is attacked in any place he or she has a legal right to be outside of his or her home or residence may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker: Provided, That such person may use deadly force against an intruder or attacker in a place that is not his or her residence without a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that he or she or another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he or she or another can only be saved by the use of deadly force against the intruder or attacker. (d) The justified use of reasonable and proportionate force under this section shall constitute a full and complete defense to any civil action brought by an intruder or attacker against a person using such force. (e) The full and complete civil defense created by the provisions of this section is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing or escaping from the commission of a felony; (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, herself or another with the 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, herself or another, unless he or she withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. (f) The provisions of this section do not apply to the creation of a hazardous or dangerous condition on or in any real or personal property designed to prevent criminal conduct or cause injury to a person engaging in criminal conduct.[16]

elroy | 05-17-2009 03:48 PM
Re: AT ISSUE: Should the use of deadly force in the home get more protection? Indiana has Castle Doctrine also. It also applies to your car, car jackings.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47 AM. |

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM