quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Hey Crush, do not try and apply that in North Carolina, as they have some of the strictest vigilante laws in the country. Many years ago, I almost got into a bad situation, while escorting one of my clients to a convention there. I would never have thought that rather than be proactive, as private personal security I was only able to be reactive. Even if body language, verbal language, and physical aspects showed that someone was about to be aggressive, I was told that I had to wait until an attack was initiated. The exception being if a weapon was obviously visible.

Since it was only for a weekend, and it was a minor incident, I never followed up on how personal security of celebrities and such got away with some of the things they do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Which goes back to what I said about castle doctrine, but the majority of states have not adopted those laws, so in those states a duty to retreat if possible is still the prevailing law.

What is your source for this claim?

Castle Doctrine Map

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Well, if you look back in the thread I believe I did offer support by citing Oklahoma law, which is where the matter in question happened.

So, I'm not sure what Kentucky has to do with this, but let's go with it.

quote:


I searched every legal database available and the only corresponding case I found titled Gill vs. Commonwealth involved a murder in which a party to the event did not take action to prevent it.  That is a far cry from requiring any citizen to intervene in a crime in progress as the author of your link seems to believe.

I also was not able to find any Kentucky statute that supports what the writer claimed, so if you can find a link to that I would like to read it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Do you consider that the threat has been eliminated because he's down? Or do you thank him for his forthrightness, and empty the rest of the clip into him?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Do you consider that the threat has been eliminated because he's down? Or do you thank him for his forthrightness, and empty the rest of the clip into him?

I am not the kind of person who could do such a cruel thing as you suggest.

So therefore, no - I would not inflict unnecessary mental anguish by thanking him first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

You made an absolute statement about the scenario not being justifiable homicide in any state. I showed otherwise, that is all I was showing there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I searched every legal database available and the only corresponding case I found titled Gill vs. Commonwealth involved a murder in which a party to the event did not take action to prevent it.  That is a far cry from requiring any citizen to intervene in a crime in progress as the author of your link seems to believe.

I also was not able to find any Kentucky statute that supports what the writer claimed, so if you can find a link to that I would like to read it.

Actually it listed the statute in the section of the Kentucky Constitution.

Well there is a Georgia case, which I cannot find any reference to, where the defendent was aquitted with a defense of justifiable homicide. I am not worrying about it anymore, you seem to only see that which supports your claim. All I am offering is that the law is not as absolute as you originally put it to be. That is all. Have a good evening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


But Wikipedia does, with links to the relevant statutes:

13 states with stand your ground laws (no duty to retreat anywhere)
19 states with castle doctrine laws (no duty to retreat in the home)
6 states with "weak" castle laws (duty to retreat, but deadly force may be used to end invasion of home without presence of immediate lethal threat).

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

~ FR ~

Since everyone is doing so much speculating anyway, let's speculate....

Let's speculate that the kid is laying there making friendly small talk, like, "I'll be out of jail tomorrow, mutherfucker, and the first thing I'm going to do is kill your wife and daughter, and then I'm going to kill you."

Remember, this is not just some irritable guy, possibly drunk, spouting difficult to evaluate threats. This is a criminal you just interrupted in the commission of a violent crime without concern for the life of his victims, and who you believe means it.

Do you consider that the threat has been eliminated because he's down? Or do you thank him for his forthrightness, and empty the rest of the clip into him?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Castle law protects home owners from recrimination

The “castle doctrine” is the principle that one’s home and residence is a place where one is protected from intruders and trespassers and has the right to use force, even deadly force, to defend that place and ensure that protection. In general, a “castle law” recognizes this principle and authorizes a homeowner or occupant to use physical force to repel a home invasion without fear of resulting criminal charges or civil liability.

A castle law shifts the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner or occupant and the burden of proof to the intruder or assailant.

Without some form of a castle law, the home occupant must prove that his or her conduct constituted self-defense. A castle law reverses the roles and provides the home occupant with the presumption that his or her conduct constituted self-defense.

quote:

Even when I take into account that castle law does allow a private citizen to use deadly force, I still can't help but question why use that option when subduing and incapacitating a criminal will usually serve the same purpose and doesn't result in a loss of a person's life?