testtest

In Texas …

Belt Fed said:
I did.
Click to expand...
IMG_1730.gif
 
Hi,

I'm bored. So shoot me. ;) This is for Mr. @Snake45 and Mr. @Keystone19250.

This is the lousiest castle doctrine I've every heard of. Emphasis is mine. I'm no lawyer so I don't know how this would fit into the (intruder's) knife vs. (homeowner's) gun argument in court.

From: https://casetext.com/statute/genera...19-use-of-physical-force-in-defense-of-person


(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor, or if he or she is a peace officer or a private person assisting such peace officer at his or her direction, and acting pursuant to section 53a-22, , or (2) by surrendering possession of property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto, or (3) by complying with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform.(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person, or (2) he is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but such other person notwithstanding continues or threatens the use of physical force, or (3) the physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-19

A couple of other related statutes:

Section 53a-20 - Use of physical force in defense of premises, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-20 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 53a-20 - Use of physical force in defense of premises, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-20, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

Section 53a-21 - Use of physical force in defense of property, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 53a-21 - Use of physical force in defense of property, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
BassCliff said:
Hi,

I'm bored. So shoot me. ;) This is for Mr. @Snake45 and Mr. @Keystone19250.

This is the lousiest castle doctrine I've every heard of. Emphasis is mine. I'm no lawyer so I don't know how this would fit into the (intruder's) knife vs. (homeowner's) gun argument in court.

From: https://casetext.com/statute/genera...19-use-of-physical-force-in-defense-of-person


(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor, or if he or she is a peace officer or a private person assisting such peace officer at his or her direction, and acting pursuant to section 53a-22, , or (2) by surrendering possession of property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto, or (3) by complying with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform.(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person, or (2) he is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but such other person notwithstanding continues or threatens the use of physical force, or (3) the physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-19

A couple of other related statutes:

Section 53a-20 - Use of physical force in defense of premises, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-20 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 53a-20 - Use of physical force in defense of premises, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-20, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

Section 53a-21 - Use of physical force in defense of property, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 53a-21 - Use of physical force in defense of property, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
Click to expand...
No, thank YOU, BassCliff!

I didn't see one word in there about you may not use a gun against a knife. In fact, I didn't see anything that contradicted the generic, 50-state standard for the use of deadly force that Ayoob taught me in 1988: "Immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to innocent human life." Good then. Good now. Good everywhere in the US. And not a word about who's armed with what, if anything. ;)

Thanks again, BassCliff! ;)(y)
 
Do not rely on the law, the rule of law, or the law of the land.
If you need an example of what the law and the procedural protocol requires, look no further than the example in the movie My Cousin Vinny (1992). As we’re seeing in cases of large urban jurisdictions, the prosecutors office and the judge seem to defy the scope of the law with political interpretation rather than the actual law Itself. No judge wants to go against the system that controls the system.
A judge has that power and privilege to allow, deny and limit interpretation to fit a broader narrative and agenda. “By the book” is over-rated these days...so they say.
In fact, rumblings from these elected-folk are actually demanding judiciaries “to ignore” courts that disagree with their new world order.

Vinny:
I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he'd testify. No discovery of any tests he's conducted or reports he's prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of any witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we may properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have the witness's reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.

Judge :
Mr. Gambini, that is a lucid, well thought-out, intelligent objection.
Vinny:
Thank you.
Judge :
OVERRULED.
 
Snake45 said:
No, thank YOU, BassCliff!

I didn't see one word in there about you may not use a gun against a knife. In fact, I didn't see anything that contradicted the generic, 50-state standard for the use of deadly force that Ayoob taught me in 1988: "Immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to innocent human life." Good then. Good now. Good everywhere in the US. And not a word about who's armed with what, if anything. ;)

Thanks again, BassCliff! ;)(y)
Click to expand...
BassCliff said:
Hi,

I'm bored. So shoot me. ;) This is for Mr. @Snake45 and Mr. @Keystone19250.

This is the lousiest castle doctrine I've every heard of. Emphasis is mine. I'm no lawyer so I don't know how this would fit into the (intruder's) knife vs. (homeowner's) gun argument in court.

From: https://casetext.com/statute/genera...19-use-of-physical-force-in-defense-of-person


(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor, or if he or she is a peace officer or a private person assisting such peace officer at his or her direction, and acting pursuant to section 53a-22, , or (2) by surrendering possession of property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto, or (3) by complying with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform.(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person, or (2) he is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but such other person notwithstanding continues or threatens the use of physical force, or (3) the physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-19

A couple of other related statutes:

Section 53a-20 - Use of physical force in defense of premises, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-20 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 53a-20 - Use of physical force in defense of premises, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-20, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

Section 53a-21 - Use of physical force in defense of property, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 53a-21 - Use of physical force in defense of property, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
Click to expand...
If someone breaks into my house with a knife they will be shot.
 
Snake45 said:
There are several states where you might be able to get away with that. In others, most definitely not. That's why I like Ayoob's standard, as cited in post #46. That one's good in EVERY state in the US. ;)
Click to expand...
What state doesn't consider a knife wielding home an intruder an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm ? That idea is ridiculous and dangerous. Dude is coming at you with a knife and you are supposed to be thinking about how you can avoid being prosecuted for defending yourself WITH WHATEVER YOU HAVE AVAILABLE ?????


I saw a video of Ayoob talking about the 21' rule. That was outdoors. He says a lot of crap. Don't mod the trigger of your carry gun for instance.

I think when you make your living talking about self defense scenarios you eventually run out of things to say and start dreaming :poop: up.

I'd ask the same thing I did when I asked him ( or anyone) to give me an example of someone being prosecuted over a trigger job. Is there ANY examples of someone being prosecuted for shooting a knife wielding attacker ?
 
Bassbob said:
What state doesn't consider a knife wielding home an intruder an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm ? That idea is ridiculous and dangerous. Dude is coming at you with a knife and you are supposed to be thinking about how you can avoid being prosecuted for defending yourself WITH WHATEVER YOU HAVE AVAILABLE ?????


I saw a video of Ayoob talking about the 21' rule. That was outdoors. He says a lot of crap. Don't mod the trigger of your carry gun for instance.

I think when you make your living talking about self defense scenarios you eventually run out of things to say and start dreaming :poop: up.

I'd ask the same thing I did when I asked him ( or anyone) to give me an example of someone being prosecuted over a trigger job. Is there ANY examples of someone being prosecuted for shooting a knife wielding attacker ?
Click to expand...
Things have greatly changed in some states.
How about this single example: these innocent victims of the wyld savages were on their typical rampage in their murderous Burn Murder Loot peaceful demonstration. The Communist Nazi Network only showed them as outside with firearms against all the poor innocent repressed victims of white oppression. What CNN refused to show was all the wyld savages broke into a closed gated community and they were actually defending their lives that were displaying firearms as all the savages yelling "wer gonna kil ya". There are actual videos showing the savages with firearms yelling "wer gonna kil ya". In that state they were 100% within legal rights but they were arrested for all types of charges and confiscated their firearms. They put them through hell and fortunately they had the funds to fight it and won and got their firearms back.

For now this type of atrocities against true innocents will continue until ALL OF US rid our society of these proven traitor Demoncraps in every state
I understand why the person did not go outside with a firearm to protect as he was very likely fearful of being the victim of the proven traitor Demoncraps in control of that state

1681819688731.png
 
Bassbob said:
What state doesn't consider a knife wielding home an intruder an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm ? That idea is ridiculous and dangerous. Dude is coming at you with a knife and you are supposed to be thinking about how you can avoid being prosecuted for defending yourself WITH WHATEVER YOU HAVE AVAILABLE ?????
Click to expand...
I'm glad you brought that up. Go back and read what mikep said again:

"If someone breaks into my house with a knife they will be shot."

JUST being in your house "with a knife" does not meet the standard of "immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to innocent human life." YOU added the part about "coming at you with a knife" and you are correct, at that point, you might well be justified in using deadly force--but it's entirely possible you will have to argue the point in a very expensive trial.

Some states with strong "castle laws" would allow you to shoot any intruder, but even then, in today's leftist-controlled climate, is it worth it? :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top