Advertisements
Home

Homeowner Shot, Killed Home Invasion Suspect Who Tased Him

Leave a comment

H/T Breitbarts Big Government.

A good rule of thumb is Don’t bring  taser to a gunfight.

A home invasion suspect was shot and killed after allegedly tasing a homeowner in Kingman, Arizona, around 7:30 p.m. Saturday night.

According to 3TV/CBS 5, the homeowner said the suspect “got into the house and robbed him.” Mohave County Sheriff’s Office deputies said the suspect tased the homeowner “several times” while in the house, but at some point, the homeowner was able to retrieve a gun and fatally wound the suspect.

The Daily Miner reports that the incident occurred in the 2700 block of Potter Avenue.

Authorities have not charged the homeowner, and an investigation continues.

Arizona has a “Castle Doctrine” statute, which recognizes a homeowner’s right to use lethal force in self-defense if an individual with life-threatening intentions unlawfully enters his home. Claims of self-defense via the Castle Doctrine are not a valid defense, however, if an intruder is incited into entering the home. This is one reason an investigation follows an incident that appears, at first glance, to be an open and shut case.

Advertisements

Armed Female Homeowner Shoots and Kills Persistent Intruder

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom OutPost.

This Ohio woman made sure that  DeBrandon Jurrod Dickerson stopped his life of crime forever.

How long before some of the family of DeBrandon Jurrod Dickerson goes to the press saying how great of a person he was? 

A 22-year-old Detroit man is dead after he failed to stop attempting to break in an Ohio home with metal bars on the windows. He was subsequently shot and killed by the female homeowner.

A 46-year-old Ohio woman, who did not wish to be identified, had recently put metal bars on her windows on the first floor of her home in order to keep intruders out. The bars were an option she had installed due to a previous break-in, in which someone pried open her rear kitchen window open and disabled her alarm by knocking it off the wall. The thief was able to make off with a safe ten pairs of shoes and two flat screen televisions

However, her second floor windows remained vulnerable.

On Wednesday evening, just after 3am, 22-year-old DeBrandon Jurrod Dickerson attempted to get into the house through the windows with bars on them. He broke the glass of the window, but was unable to enter. Upon failing to get inside, he scaled one of the pillars of the woman’s home and onto the roof where he proceeded to break the glass of one of the windows and enter the house.

The woman called 911 upon hearing Dickerson attempting to break-in through the first floor window. She then grabbed her gun and hid in her bathroom.

As Dickerson came through the window. He then approached the woman, who shot him in the chest.

Dickerson then fled from the house, jumping off the roof and fleeing down the street before collapsing and dying just blocks from the house, near where he was living with his cousin. He left a trail of blood that was easily followed by police. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

However, her second floor windows remained vulnerable.

On Wednesday evening, just after 3am, 22-year-old DeBrandon Jurrod Dickerson attempted to get into the house through the windows with bars on them. He broke the glass of the window, but was unable to enter. Upon failing to get inside, he scaled one of the pillars of the woman’s home and onto the roof where he proceeded to break the glass of one of the windows and enter the house.

The woman called 911 upon hearing Dickerson attempting to break-in through the first floor window. She then grabbed her gun and hid in her bathroom.

As Dickerson came through the window. He then approached the woman, who shot him in the chest.

Dickerson then fled from the house, jumping off the roof and fleeing down the street before collapsing and dying just blocks from the house, near where he was living with his cousin. He left a trail of blood that was easily followed by police. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

This was not the 46-year-old’s first shooting of thugs attempting to break-in her home. According to Dayton Daily News, “The same female victim, whose name police did not release, also shot and wounded a juvenile who kicked in her back door in June 2013, according to police reports and her brother, 54-year-old Efrim Goldsmith.”

She also had break-ins in 2004 and 2008.

By the way, this woman is packing a Ruger .38 special.

 Don’t mess with her thugs!Ohio has a Castle Doctrine, which protects homeowners who defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, cars or vehicles of immediate family members. They do not have to retreat.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/09/armed-female-homeowner-shoots-and-kills-persistent-intruder/#FCruvP6UXtuZm2RB.99

 

The 11 Best US States for Gun Owners

1 Comment

This is from OutDoorHub. 

Is your state on the list?

Mine is not.

Gun laws can vary wildly from state to state. Depending on where you live, you might either be frustrated with your state’s iron-clad gun laws, or praising your lawmakers for standing up for your rights. Did your state make this list? We have ranked what is, in our opinion, the top 11 states in the country for gun owners. Our determinations are based primarily on the state’s gun laws, whether they have any restrictions placed on modern sporting rifles like the AR-15, the amount of states that recognize carry permits issued in that state, and other details. Also, “no-net loss” laws (which protect hunting land) and laws protecting the privacy of gun owners are also considered.

The states on this list do not require a permit to purchase, do not license gun owners, do not have a state-level firearm registry, and do not require a permit to carry long guns. Some states do require a permit to carry concealed handguns. With the exception of Florida, all listed states also allow open carry of handguns. Included with each entry is an excerpt from or related to the state constitution. Information is provided by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

Without further fuss, here are our top 11 gun states in loosely ranked order.

11. Vermont

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

  • Permit to carry: no
  • Castle Doctrine: no law
  • No-Net Loss: no legislation
  • Right to carry confidentiality: no provisions
  • Right to carry in restaurants: legal
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: outright recognition

10. Montana

“The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”

  • Permit to carry: Conditional
  • Castle Doctrine: enacted
  • No-Net Loss: no legislation
  • Right to carry confidentiality: provisions enacted
  • Right to carry in restaurants: partial ban
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: conditional

9. Florida

“The legislature of the State of Florida, in a declaration of policy incorporated in its “Weapons and Firearms” statute, recognizes that adult citizens of the state retain their constitutional right to keep and bear firearms for hunting and sporting activities and for defense of self, family, home, and business and as collectibles.”

  • Permit to carry: yes
  • Castle Doctrine: enacted
  • No-Net Loss: enacted
  • Right to carry confidentiality: provisions enacted
  • Right to carry in restaurants: partial ban
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: true reciprocity

8. Wyoming

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.”

  • Permit to carry: no
  • Castle Doctrine: enacted
  • No-Net Loss: no legislation
  • Right to carry confidentiality: provisions enacted
  • Right to carry in restaurants: partial ban
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: conditional

7. Georgia

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.”

  • Permit to carry: yes
  • Castle Doctrine: enacted
  • No-Net Loss: enacted
  • Right to carry confidentiality: provisions enacted
  • Right to carry in restaurants: partial ban
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: true reciprocity

6. Oklahoma

“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited, but nothing herein contained shall prevent the legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”

  • Permit to carry: yes
  • Castle Doctrine: enacted
  • No-Net Loss: no legislation
  • Right to carry confidentiality: provisions enacted
  • Right to carry in restaurants: partial ban
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: outright recognition

5. Kentucky

“All men are by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: … 7) the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.”

  • Permit to carry: yes
  • Castle Doctrine: enacted
  • No-Net Loss: enacted
  • Right to carry confidentiality: provisions enacted
  • Right to carry in restaurants: partial ban
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: outright recognition

4. Kansas

“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and : security; but standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.”

  • Permit to carry: yes
  • Castle Doctrine: enacted
  • No-Net Loss: no legislation
  • Right to carry confidentiality: provisions enacted
  • Right to carry in restaurants: partial ban
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: outright recognition

3. Utah

“The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.”

  • Permit to carry: no
  • Castle Doctrine: enacted
  • No-Net Loss: no legislation
  • Right to carry confidentiality: provisions enacted
  • Right to carry in restaurants: legal
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: outright recognition

2. Arizona

“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”

  • Permit to carry: yes
  • Castle Doctrine: enacted
  • No-Net Loss: no legislation
  • Right to carry confidentiality: provisions enacted
  • Right to carry in restaurants: legal
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: outright recognition

1. Alaska

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the state or political subdivision of the State.”

  • Permit to carry: no
  • Castle Doctrine: enacted
  • No-Net Loss: no legislation
  • Right to carry confidentiality: provisions enacted
  • Right to carry in restaurants: partial ban
  • Right to carry reciprocity and recognition: outright recognition

Much Confusion Around Both Stand-Your-Ground & Castle Doctrine

1 Comment

This is from AmmoLand.

This article explains both Stand-Your-Ground as well as explaining Castle Doctrine.

 

Law of Self Defense Question of the Week,

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- This is a great question because there is so much confusion around both these terms.

Much of the confusion stems from the fact that although both of these terms have a narrow, technically-correct meaning they have also been commonly used to refer to other aspects of self-defense law beyond these core meanings.

(In addition, of course, Stand-Your-Ground has been deliberately mischaracterized throughout the media by political activists for their own purposes.)

The Historical Context of Stand-Your-Ground and the Castle Doctrine

First, let’s talk about the core definitions of the Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground in terms of how they are similar. To provide necessary context, we’ll begin with some history.

America was, of course, a British colony prior to our Revolution, and operated under principles of British law, much of which was based on common law (that is, law developed by practice in courts rather then formed by statutes). Given the length of British history, much of that common law finds its foundations hundreds of years in the past. And it is in that distant past that we encounter the generalized duty to retreat.

The Pre-Gun Era: The Generalized Duty to Retreat
In the days before firearms a defender was likely to be faced only with contact weapons (projectile weapons such as bows were the tools of a highly trained few, and crossbows were essentially the equivalent of today’s SAWs—not in common hands). At the same time, British law tended to see its citizens as subjects of the Crown—in a way, property of the Crown—rather than through the individualistic lens we Americans are familiar with through our own history and culture.

The combination of these two factors led to the common law rule of the generalized rule of retreat—before a defender could use deadly force in self-defense against an attacker, he was required to first take advantage of any safe avenue of retreat available. This became a generalized duty to retreat, and a breach of this duty —the failure to take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat before using deadly force in self-defense— stripped you of any justification for your use of “defensive” force in self-defense.

This rule follows naturally from the weapons of the day and the perspective of the Crown. If it was possible for a defender to move himself even 20 or so feet distant from an attacker, he’s could essentially make himself safe from that attacker’s impact weapons. Further, by doing so he prevented a violent affray in which one of the Crown’s subjects —either defender or attacker— might be mortally wounded and no longer capable of paying taxes, serving the Crown’s military, etc.

Guns Changed Everything
The advent of firearms, of course, change this dynamic considerably. Even if the attacker is armed with a “mere” single-shot flint-ignition arm, the defender moving a small distance away from brings him little additional safety. Combined with the rapidity that an attacker can be brought to bear, the generalized duty to retreat made little sense in this context.

Britain never really changed its common law in this regard. America, on the other hand, was a whole new kettle of fish. We have effectively always had firearms as part of our culture and day-to-day life, and so gun-wielding attackers have always been a part of our self-defense context. As a result, historically in America there was no generalized duty to retreat—and absent any such legal duty, one could stand his ground and face deadly-force attack with deadly-force defense, with no obligation to first consider whether retreat was safely possible. Most commonly, these no-duty-to-retreat provisions of the law were referred to as “True Man” laws.

Urbanized America Begins to Impose Generalized Duty to Retreat
As the decades passed, however, America became more urbanized, with larger population centers beginning to offer such amenities as professionalized law enforcement capabilities. With these in hand, American courts in various —and, later, legislatures— began to reconsider the issue of retreat. They looked back favorably on the old English generalized duty of retreat, and began to adopt it into American law in their own jurisdictions.

In these jurisdictions, it became the law that one had a legal duty to first take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, and the failure to do so stripped the defender of any legal justification for that use of “defensive” force.

The Pendulum Swings Back: Stand-Your-Ground Returns
Over the last 20 years, however, many of these states began to reconsider the wisdom of imposing a duty to retreat on innocent defenders. Over time, and with the encouragement of gun owners —both individually and through various organizations like the NRA— they began to do away with the duty to retreat. In the modern era this has been done through statute, and most commonly these statutes have used some form of the phrase “stand your ground”—hence, high profile of the phrase in today’s self-defense lexicon.

So, what’s happened then is largely a return of the pendulum. America had been entirely stand-your-ground as a matter of our own common law, a number of states had adopted a generalized duty to retreat, and now many of those that did so have reverted back to the stand-your-ground norm.

“Stand-Your-Ground” Is the Majority Position in the United States
Today, 34 states —a considerable majority— are effectively stand-your-ground states in that they do not impose a duty to retreat. About half of these have done so through stand-your-ground legislation, but the other half have simply always been stand-your-ground states.

It is an interesting historical artifact, for example, that politically deep-blue California has always been a stand-your-ground state—indeed, it is arguably the most aggressive stand-your-ground state in the country. In California not only may you stand your ground, you are even explicitly permitted to pursue your attacker if necessary for safety. All this despite the fact that California has no Stand-Your-Ground statute—the rule derives from a long history of case decisions and is captured in the state’s jury instructions (see CALCRIM 505 Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another.)

Now that we’ve laid the proper context for Stand-Your-Ground, let’s talk about the Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine: Exempting the Home from the Duty to Retreat
Obviously, in Stand-Your-Ground states that impose no generalized duty to retreat, there is also no such duty to retreat in your own home. But what about states that do impose a generalized duty to retreat? Does it apply everywhere, even in your own home?

The answer is, no. Even in states that provide for a very broad generalized duty to retreat, an exemption is made for one’s home. The basis of this is the notion that any duty to retreat is supposed to be a retreat to a greater position of safety, and if you cannot expect safety in your own home, to where then would you retreat?

This exception to the generalized duty to retreat became commonly known as the Castle Doctrine, drawn from the expression that “a man’s home is his Castle,” one’s ultimate place of refuge from violence.

Interestingly, the Castle Doctrine was not always an undisputed principle. In my home state of Massachusetts, for example, our supreme court ruled in 1975 that residents of the Commonwealth enjoyed no such exemption from the generalized duty to retreat [see Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 326 N.E.2d 880 (MA Supreme Court 1975)].  The facts of the case are quite horrific. Shaffer and her two small children had retreated from her abusive fiance all the way to the basement of her home. She had received numerous beatings from him in the past.  The fiance, standing at the top of the basement stairs, told her: “If you don’t come up these stairs, I’ll come down and kill you and the kids.” When contrary to the woman’s pleas and warnings he began coming down the steps, she shot him once with a .22 rifle.  The wound was mortal.  Shaffer was indicted for murder, and was tried on manslaughter.  She was convicted at trial, the conviction was affirmed by the appellate court, and then again by the state Supreme Court (in the case cited above), on the basis that she failed to take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat.

The public response to this decision was immediate and overwhelmingly negative, and the MA legislature promptly passed Massachusetts General Law Ch. 278 §8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense, creating a statutory Castle Doctrine.  Even today, however, the Massachusetts Castle Doctrine is among the most restrictive in the country, applying only to the space within the four walls of your home—step one foot outside, and the generalized duty to retreat is once again imposed. (Most other states’ Castle Doctrines also apply it to what is known as the curtilage, the area around your home that is part of the ordinary use of the home–so, the porch, the driveway, the front yard, etc.)

The Castle Doctrine: Important Limitations
While few states have as restrictive a Castle Doctrine as does Massachusetts, many do limit it in a wide variety of ways. Some, for example, allow for the exemption only when the homeowner is using force against someone not legally present—an intruder, of course, but it also exempts somebody with some legal authority to be present such as a landlord or inspector–or even to an invited guest (and not just one who was invited by you personally, assuming several people live in your home).

Others apply the Castle Doctrine to every attacker in the world—except the attacker who is also a co-dweller in the “castle”. So if your attacker is a family member living in the household—say, an abusive spouse—or a housemate of some sort, the Castle Doctrine exemption to the duty to retreat is lost in those states.

Needless to say, if you do not know the constraints of the Castle Doctrine in your state, I urge you to learn them.

Tying Together Stand-Your-Ground and the Castle Doctrine
Now, the tie in between the Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground is essentially this—many folks living in duty-to-retreat states, and enjoying the benefits of the Castle Doctrine in the context of their homes, began to wonder why the doctrine should be limited to just their homes.

If it applies to my home, they wondered, why not to my place of business? With the advent of carjackings in the 1980s and 1990s, many began to wonder why it didn’t apply in their vehicles—for those of us living in highly congested cities, it often feels like we spend more of our life in our cars than in our homes. Finally, if the generalized duty to retreat was going to be waived for homes, businesses, and cars, why impose it anywhere at all? Why not just say that if a defender is the innocent party acting in otherwise lawful self-defense, they simply have no duty to retreat . . . and can stand their ground. And that is how we arrive at the modern adoptions of Stand-Your-Ground statutes, with about 17 states adopting such statutes in the past 20 or so years. (Alaska is the most recent state to adopt Stand-Your-Ground legislation, this past fall, and Ohio is looking like a good candidate to become the next). Keep in mind, again, that roughly 17 states have always were effectively stand-your-ground states, as they never imposed a generalized duty to retreat in the first place.

Now that we’ve, hopefully, brought some clarity to Stand-Your-Ground and the Castle Doctrine, it might be worth a few minutes to highlight some of the areas that cause the greatest confusion.

Areas of Confusion around “Stand-Your-Ground”
First of all, Stand-Your-Ground deals only with the issue of retreat in the context of lawful self-defense. It does not authorize any greater degree of force, nor does it allow you to use force under any lesser degree of threat. You must still meet every other qualification for lawful self-defense—innocence, imminence, proportionality, and reasonableness. If you are the aggressor in the fight, for example, you don’t qualify for self-defense in the first place, and Stand-Your-Ground has no application. In particular, Stand-Your-Ground in no way authorizes a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach to self-defense, despite what so many political activists have claimed.

Second, “Stand-Your-Ground” is also not a provision of immunity from criminal prosecution or civil suit. Immunity is a completely separate legal concept from the duty to retreat, and proper legal analysis demands it be kept separate. Florida causes a great deal of confusion here because they provide both statutory Stand-Your-Ground and statutory self-defense immunity, and both provisions were adopted by the legislature at the same time.

As an artifact of this even Florida judges and prosecutors tend to incorrectly use the phrase “Stand-Your-Ground” to reference self-defense immunity. The commonly referenced “Stand-Your-Ground hearing” in Florida, for example, is nothing of the sort—it is a pre-trial hearing to determine self-defense immunity, and is properly referred to as a “self-defense immunity hearing”. Issues of retreat may be considered in such a hearing just as would any other facet of self-defense law—such as whether you were the aggressor, used excessive force, or acted unreasonably—but the hearing has nothing to do with Stand-Your-Ground, per se.

Third, because the purpose of Stand-Your-Ground is to relieve you of an otherwise existing duty to retreat, it can only have application where such a duty to retreat would otherwise exist. Even in the toughest duty to retreat states, the duty is imposed only where it is reasonably possible to retreat safely. If retreat is not reasonably and safely possible, even duty to retreat states impose no legal duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.

This means that an act of defensive force can only be properly deemed a “Stand-Your-Ground” case where a safe avenue of retreat safely exists. If it does not, there is no duty to retreat, and absent a duty there is no role for Stand-Your-Ground.

To put it another way, if you are being beaten into a sidewalk by an attacker astride you, and your numerous efforts to escape have proven in vain, there is no role for Stand-Your-Ground in your use of defensive force—retreat is impossible, therefore not required, therefore no application exists for Stand-Your-Ground. Similarly if you are in the middle of a crowded movie theater where rapid retreat from an attack is effectively impossible—all of us know how difficult it is to move from your seat to the aisle in a crowded theater–then there is no application for Stand-Your-ground to relieve you of a duty that does not exist in the first place.

Areas of Confusion Around the Castle Doctrine
The Castle Doctrine is properly thought of as relieving the homeowner from any legal duty to retreat when defending himself in his home.

The home, however, is also frequently given numerous other advantages in the context of self-defense, relative to other locations. For example, many states have statutes that provide for a “presumption of reasonableness” that the defender’s use of deadly force was reasonable if committed against someone intruding, or attempting to intrude, into the home. Similarly, many states effectively treat a breach into the home as a de jure deadly force attack upon the residents inside the home, thus relieving the need for the evidence to show that an actual deadly force threat against the defender existed.

These and similar provisions, however, are distinct from the issue of retreat, and proper legal analysis requires that we consider them as separate and discrete legal concepts.

As always, if you do not know the limits around these self-defense legal doctrines in your state, I strongly encourage you to learn them.

Wrap-up

Ok, that’s probably enough for this week’s question of the week. This week’s winner, @bhrondeau, has won his choice of a custom autographed copy of “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” or the alternative of a snazzy LOSD baseball cap.

I you’d like to submit your own Question of the Week, and become eligible to win a free book or hat, simply submit your question at Ask Andrew at the Law of Self Defense web site.

 

Stay safe!
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
 

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (where a custom autograph can be specified, great for gift purchases!), Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle), Barnes & Noble (paperback and Nook), and elsewhere.

In addition to the book, Andrew also conducts Law of Self Defense Seminars all around the country. Seminars for 2014 are currently being scheduled, if you’d like to see one held in your area fill out the comment box on the LOSD Seminar review page, where you can also see reviews of recently completed seminars in New Hampshire, Maine, Texas, Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and elsewhere.

Andrew is also a contributing author on self defense law topics to Combat Handguns, Ammoland.com, Legal Insurrection, and others.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/01/much-confusion-around-both-stand-your-ground-castle-doctrine/#ixzz2rp1v7bFK
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

5 self defense myths that can destroy you financially!

Leave a comment

This is from Second Defense.org.

The N.R.A. and Buckeye Firearms Association endorse this organization.

These are things to ponder if you carry a firearm.

 

There are many myths about the aftermath of a self defense shooting, especially when it comes to insurance, financial consequences, and law. Here are five of the most common misunderstandings that could prove devastating.

Homeowners Policies

One of the most widespread myths about self defense “coverage” is that your homeowners policy will protect you after you use a firearm for self defense. However, most homeowner liability policies contain a provision that excludes coverage for injury or damage intentionally caused by the insured. This is sometimes called the “intentional injury exclusion.”

A few policies include language for a “reasonable force” exception for “bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.” But this only protects you for “liability,” meaning damages in a civil case and apply only after you are acquitted or the charges are dismissed.

By law, none of these policies can provide immediate assistance for an attorney retainer, bond money, lost wages, criminal defense fees, and other potentially devastating expenses. Back to List

Self Defense Insurance

Very few insurance companies are willing to provide any kind of insurance for using a firearm, even if it is justifiable self defense. Those who claim to provide such insurance may promise to cover you after a shooting, but the reality may not match the promise. After an extensive study of available policies across the U.S., we have found that these policies …

  • May not pay anything until after an expensive trial and you are found not guilty.
  • May have low limits on payments, sometimes as low as $5,000 total (which may barely cover a lawyer’s retainer fee).
  • Offer no coverage for bail, so you may have to pay this yourself or spend considerable time in jail.
  • Offer no reimbursement for lost wages, so you may find it difficult to pay bills while you’re in court defending yourself.
  • May be a rider on another expensive policy you are forced to buy before you get any coverage.
  • May have language in the fine print that prevents any support at all because the underwriter has no experience with the realities of firearms or criminal defense law. Back to List

Umbrella Coverage

Many people think that if they buy generic liability coverage, often called an “umbrella” policy, they will be protected if they use a gun in self defense. However, it is against the law for any insurance company to insure you against illegal actions you may commit.

So if you are charged with a crime, your umbrella policy will not protect you unless charges are dropped or you are acquitted. It is possible that an umbrella policy may provide some coverage for civil liability, but since civil suits generally follow criminal suits, you are unlikely to have coverage when you need it. Back to List

Savings and Retirement

Unless you are a multimillionaire, it is unlikely that you have enough ready cash available to cover all the potential costs of criminal or civil action against you. And even if you do have IRAs or savings to dip into, will it cover all your costs?

Will it cover a huge civil damage award? Will you lose your house? What will you do if all your assets are taken from you? How will you retire? Is it right to put such a burden on your family if they must support you when you’re penniless? And to make matters worse, withdrawing funds from a retirement account can trigger IRS penalties and taxes.

For most people, relying on savings or retirement cash is a huge financial risk. Back to List

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground

Legal principles put into place in recent years have made using lethal force easier to defend. But they do not remove the need to hire an attorney or give you a “get out jail free” card.

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground provide a way for police and prosecutors to think about self defense that favors you, the defender, rather than your attacker. But no matter how justified you may be in using lethal force, the police will show up to investigate your use of a firearm. If you are in a jurisdiction that is “anti-gun,” you can still face arrest and prosecution requiring a robust legal defense that can cost thousands of dollars. Back to List

 

Headline: Paraplegic man kills intruder during Johnstown home break-in printable page

Leave a comment

 

This is from The Buckeye Firearms Association.

This punk got the intended victims other gun just not like he wanted them.

It is because of  punks like this is why we need to legally owe and use firearms.

The Newark Advocate is reporting that a paraplegic man is alive today thanks to the .357 revolver he keeps near his bed.

From the article:

John Mutter was asleep in his bed on Sunset Drive when an intruder poked him in the head with a shotgun.

Mutter, a paraplegic who keeps a gun nearby for protection, fatally shot the intruder, early Sunday, Licking County Coroner’s investigator George Ridgeway said.

The man was pronounced dead at the scene, Ridgeway said.

It appears that he was looking for medication or money, Ridgeway said. Johnstown police are investigating whether someone else was involved in planning the burglary, Licking County Prosecutor Ken Oswalt said.

According to The Columbus Dispatch, police identified Johnstown native Brian Dyer, 27, as the man found dead on the floor of Mutter’s home when they arrived shortly after 2:15 a.m. Sunday.

Johnstown Police Chief Don Corbin said that the shooting appears to be a justified response to a home-invasion robbery.

Corbin said he does not believe charges against Mutter, 33, are warranted, but the case will be presented to the Licking County prosecutor’s office for review.

The intruder entered the house through an unlocked door and had found one of Mutter’s guns before he awoke the man, the police chief said.

The man told Mutter, “I have some of your property,” and wanted to know where other guns could be found, Corbin said. At least two gunshots fired by Mutter struck Dyer in the upper body, he said.

Mutter was composed when he called 911 shortly after the shooting, a recording of the call shows. “Somebody broke in my house and had a gun to me and I shot at him,” Mutter tells a dispatcher. “I woke up and they had a gun to me.”

The investigation continues, with police believing that Dyer may have been familiar with Mutter’s home and the fact he owned several guns, Corbin said.

According to the article, Mutter lost the use of his legs after a car crash about a year ago, neighbors said last night. Since then, he has been living at home and trying to regain his mobility.

Under Ohio’s Castle Doctrine law, if someone unlawfully enters or attempts to enter an occupied home or temporary habitation, or occupied car, citizens have an initial presumption that they may act in self defense, and will not be second-guessed by the State.

 

DEADLY FORCE New law provides more leeway for self defense action

1 Comment

 

This is from The High Point Enterprise High Point,N.C.
This should be the law nation wide.
You should not have to run before being able to defend yourself.


HIGH POINT – It soon will become easier to justify cases in which deadly force is used in self-defense.

Changes to the state’s Castle Doctrine Law that take effect Thursday do not require people to run before they fight back with a gun. The law expands the use of reasonable deadly force to include cars and workplaces if a person under attack fears imminent death or serious bodily harm.

The Castle Doctrine, rooted in English common law, is based upon the idea that a person should be safe from attack while at home. 

“You don’t have to run to the far part of your house if there is a threat,” said Terry Lamb, owner of The Gun Vault. “People like that and are very positive about these changes.”

The new law presumes that a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

“This change should make things a little more clear for people and more comfortable,” said Lt. Robert Hamilton of the Guilford County Sheriff’s Department. “There is a presumption now that if you fear for your life, you can use deadly force. The presumption before was that you had to retreat first.”

The changes also ease the civil liability gun owners can face if they shoot and kill or injure someone committing a crime against them. 

“You can use your gun for self-defense in more places than before,” Lamb said. “Most people think that is a good change.”

“The presumption now is that the vehicle is more like a residence and you can protect yourself against a car jacking,” said Hamilton, who works in the legal process division that handles concealed carry handgun permits. 

Also starting Thursday, North Carolina will expand handgun permit reciprocity so that a valid concealed handgun permit issued in another state will be valid in North Carolina, regardless of whether that state accepts a North Carolina issued permit.

“There should be no problem now if you get pulled over on the highway,” Lamb said.

Read more: High Point Enterprise – DEADLY FORCE New law provides more leeway for self defense action

 

%d bloggers like this: