jpe– on use of force to stop an attacker: It is the perogative of the one defending his life, property or wife to use what force he deems necessary in our state. In England, Australia and NZ (I think), the defender must not harm his attacker (give him what he wants, rape his wife, etc). If you like, I can find some links of the grandfather who defended his own house after several breakins. He went to jail, can not leave England for the free USA and the attackers are roaming the streets today!

When I took a carry permit class, I was told about this provision in MN law (we are a “must retreat if practical” state), and the instructor noted that even if MN became a “stand your ground” state, he’d continue to advise permit holders to try to retreat. In most cases, it’s simply a better tactical decision–and who wants to kill a man if he doesn’t need to, anyways?

I personally don’t see the issue here; yes, police chiefs have all too often taken Brady Campaign “evidence” as gospel. Moreover, another consistent provision of carry law is the duty to be a “reluctant participant”–that is, you’re forced into a confrontation, not inciting it. Retreat, when practical, demonstrates that one is a reluctant participant. Needlessly standing one’s ground, on the other hand, argues against this.

In other words, they have no ground to stand on–pun intended.

Paulie B — I agree. Law abiding citizens should not have to “run out the back door of your own house”–letting a criminal then shoot you in the back, steal your things and rape your wife and children. Period.

Here are two real cases, just this week that are excellent outcomes of South Carolina’s Castle Defense.

Chief, it actually turns out that most states have “make my day” laws inasmuch as the home is concerned. When someone comes into your home to commit a felony (e.g. burglary), you don’t need to retreat, demonstrate that no lesser force would do, or demonstrate that you had immediate fear of death of grievous bodily harm.

As gun owners (and burglars) often know this, perhaps this explains why only 12% of burglaries in the U.S. are of occupied homes. :^) Check with your state law, of course, but in general, the laws Rob is getting at here apply to carry permit holders in public.

Here in PA Ed”Da Thug”Rendell is all atwitter over anti-gun legislation he wants to force through, planning to withhold state funding from roads and waterway projects to get the votes. He is quite open and loud about his plans.

In most counties it is a fill-out-the-paper formality to get a CC permit, that and plenty of carry regardless. Living in the boonies and hunting alot have their obvious advantages.

jpe,

see my reader blog. I’ll respond to your post there if you’ll post your anwser.

since it is legal to kill someone for attempting murder, why is it not ok to kill (death penalty) him if he is successful in his attempt and convicted of murder?

I don’t think this is a hijack cuz the answer is fairly simple. We allow killing for self-defense because it’s necessary. You don’t punish the innocent (allow him to be murdered), but let them defend themselves. By contrast, the killer in jail is not an immediate threat. The killing no longer serves the purpose of protecting, but is done for retributive purposes.

HG, the trick is simply that when you’re not in the situation itself, you don’t know beyond a reasonable doubt that the man is the murderer, and hence to allow vengeance killings deprives the accused of his due process.

Soldiers have to deal with this on a day to day basis with the media in Iraq. “Did that soldier/marine really need to shoot that person?” (a la the Marine in Falujah some time back who shot a guy who was pretending to be dead) Law abiding citizens shouldn’t be the people that live in fear.

The re-writing of this law does not prevent anyone from attempting to flee first. It gives the vicitm the freedom to choose his actions.

Robert, my big problem laws requiring me to flee threats to my person and others is one of a concern over vague legislation.

I’m not really sure I want to leave it up to a prosecutor, or a judge, to decide whether or not I made enough of an effort to flee a threat to meet the criteria set out in current law.

Prosecutors, not surprisingly, are quite fond of legislation that gives them a lot of discretion in applying the law. I often think that some prosecutors would be happy to have our laws written so vaguely that nearly all individual activity is criminalized so that the only thing keeping us out of prison at any given moment is their discretion.