21 "Stand Your Ground" Bills

[bratch]

BTW, wasn't Oklahoma the first state with the employee protections?

As far as I know you are correct. It was tied up in court and I haven't heard much about it latley.

I know OK protects you from civil shoots for a shoot inside your house. I haven't been able to find anything about the use of CCW but it would be wonderful if we did.

 

[Azrael256]

AFAIK, Oklahoma doesn't protect you from civil liability outside your home. That particular law refers only to an occupant of the dwelling.

There are three things I want at home in Texas (at least): A good stand your ground law, civil liability immunity when the criminal court calls it a good shoot, and unlicensed open carry. I should have a choice to retreat, I should not be liable for shooting an attacker, and the idea that a Texan, of all people, can be criminally prosecuted for carrying his six-gun on his hip is morally and ethically repugnant.

 

[DunedinDragon]

Here's the way the Florida law addresses criminal and civil liabilities. I think they did a pretty decent job:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

 

[c_yeager]

once again Florida leads the way.
Now we're going to stop employers and shopping area's from not letting you have your ccw in your car.

Can you guys please catch up and maybe even pass us.

AFS

You do realize that many states, uncluding some "blue states" like washington, never put that "duty to retreat" nonsense in the books in the first place. You dont need a law telling you that you dont have to run away from people, what you need is to avoid laws saying that you do. I guess Florida is leading the way by passing new laws to fix old laws. I personally think its better not to pass bad legislation in the first place, at least you guys are trying

 

[AirForceShooter]

And in Fla you don't have to be at home.
Any place you're legally entitled to be and you're threatened or someone else is, you're pretty much entitled to shoot. No duty to retreat or anything. And, if it's deemed a good shoot you can't be sued.

AFS

 

[45crittergitter]

MS bill on gov's desk

The MS bill has passed the legislature and is awaiting gubernatorial action. He's likely to sign IMHO, but the MS Prosecutors Association opposes it, because it makes them prove a person guilty, instead of presuming he/she is guilty like the current law.

 

[joab]

Any place you're legally entitled to be and you're threatened or someone else is, you're pretty much entitled to shoot.

The Stand Your Ground Law seems to be one of the most misunderstood laws in the history of Fla.
many have taken the anti's interpretation as fact.

The law does little to change when it is acceptable to use deadly force. You still have to show that you had to use deadly force to protect yourself. If it can be shown that you had a viable escape route that would have protected you and therefore there was no need to use deadly force you can still be charged.

Before you had to show that you had no choice but to shoot and that there was no reasonable escape route. Now you don't have to prove that you had no way of retreating.

But if you think just a little
If there is a viable escape route shooting would not be necessary.

The only real update on the law is that you cannot be sued if it is found that the deadly force was necessary

 

[45crittergitter]

MS Update

The MS bill has been signed into law by the governor, and will take effect July 1.