Castle Doctrine" legislation introduced.

[SavageSun4x4]

Castle Doctrine" legislation introduced.

Two bills have been introduced in the Senate to strengthen your
fundamental right to self-defense:

SCR 1001:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/47leg/2r/bills/scr1001p%2Ehtm
SB 1090:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/47leg/2r/bills/sb1090p.htm

SCR 1001 is a legislative referendum that would submit a proposed
constitutional amendment to the voters for approval. SB 1090
contains substantially similar language to SCR 1001, but would not
require voter approval.

SB 1090 has bipartisan sponsorship from 10 legislators (6 Democrats &
4 Republicans).

SB 1090 & SCR 1001 strengthen your right to self-defense and
partially restore your right to an affirmative defense. We support
the language in both bills but believe that SB 1090 is the better
vehicle. It has a greater chance of passage and will enjoy greater
bipartisan support.

We urge you contact your legislators to support SB 1090 and to
recommend the same to their colleagues.

You can find your state legislators, their phone numbers, street and
email addresses at:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/formatdocument.asp?
indoc=/alisStaticPages/HowToContactMember.asp

As legislation progresses or is introduced, we will keep you up to
date via these Alerts:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AZCDL_Alerts/

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League
(AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots
organization. Join today!

AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html

[xFallen]

What is the current law?

Basically, many of the cowboy antics and acts people say (or like to boast) they would do and maybe even have done would stand a very good chance of landing them on the wrong side of the law.

The way I read these proposals they should help bring it back to being able to protect your home, vehicle and more importantly your loved ones in a lawful manner.


Barry

[xFallen]

I am aboslutely in favor of protecting my loved ones!

However, I find it hard to justify shooting someone for stealing your car. I have chased down one such individual with a golf club but I never would even think about shooting him, just bruising him a bit.


I reluctantly agree. Damage to or even loss of a car is not worth a human life even if that human life belongs to a thief. "Reluctantly" because I completely understand the desire to wail on a thief or other scum, or worse.

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand the law in practice, it doesn't matter what you use, deadly force is deadly force. This is not a gun issue. A golf club is capable of causing serious injury or death and using one to hit someone would no doubt constitute deadly force. You do not even have to mean to use it. Someone else just has to believe you were capable.

It is pretty hard to justify beating on someone who is running away form you. Chasing a car thief puts you in the offensive. By definition they are running away from you presumably to avoid injury. You are now the aggressor under the law. You typically have no legal right to be an aggressor. That is pretty much universal and being convicted can make you a felon. Wait a minute...a few moments ago you were the victim of theft/larceny (and possibly as low as a misdemeanor offense on the part of the scumbag).

In some States or situations you may not even have the legal right to use deadly force and stand your ground and protect yourself where you stand in a public place. Extending these rights to your home and vehicle give the victim a bit more latitude in what they can do under the law to (attempt) control over the situation.

To understand how the law is actually applied one should probably look at actual local case history and see how the courts treat victims who end up killing or threatening perpetrators. Regardless of what the laws says, it is how the judges and juries in your area see it that ultimately matters to you.

It is a wiggly world, Wally.


Barry

[NVRSTUKXJ]

I like the new Florida law.....it basically says that if you "feel" threatened, you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself......burden of proof has been lessened considerably.....

[Special K]

My guess is the inclusion of a vehicle as part of this statute will not survive the committee process. I can't see any justification for using deadly force on someone trying to break into your car. On the other hand, using deadly force on someone that breaks into your house can be easily justified, even under current laws. You can't "give up" your house to a burglar. Even if the person appears to be unarmed, if they are in your house they have access to deadly weapons, ie; kitchen knives, blunt objects. And of course, if you have other family members you certainly can't retreat and leave them defenseless.

[azdesertrhino]

I just quickly scanned all the legal mumbo jumbo but it specifically states "occupied vehicle". I think this indicates someone trying to carjack your family or yourself or jumping in and trying to take your wife or daughter/son or ............ against their will. I don't think it means you can shoot some crackhead for ripping off the vehicle.

That being said, it should be legal to hunt them down and beat the ever lovin' dog stuff out of them!!

[xFallen]

I just quickly scanned all the legal mumbo jumbo but it specifically states "occupied vehicle". I think this indicates someone trying to carjack your family or yourself or jumping in and trying to take your wife or daughter/son or ............ against their will. I don't think it means you can shoot some crackhead for ripping off the vehicle.


Exactly. It is not just breaking into a car, it is breaking into an occupied vehicle (note it could be a motorcycle or bicycle the way it reads). In many ways your occupied vehicle is not much different than your occuiped home.

This amendment makes total sense. Other States already have such provisions.


Barry

[Antman]

Lucky for that car theif I have a large handicap :D

If this law pertains to 'feeling threatened' HOW is different then waht is currently on the books?

Did it matter before WHERE I felt threatened?

John the old law was you had to feel that your life or someone else's life was threaten in order to use deadly force.

I still think its wrong to shoot someone just because they are in your house. I prefer the Life threatened scenerio. Remember, you have to live with it afterwards.

[Sautin]

Don't quote me but in the current law I think that you have to use every attempt to escape the house before you are allowed to use deadly force. I think the occupied vehicle definition stands for both carjacking and those in the unforunate situation of having to live in their car.

[xFallen]

John the old law was you had to feel that your life or someone else's life was threaten in order to use deadly force.

I still think its wrong to shoot someone just because they are in your house. I prefer the Life threatened scenerio. Remember, you have to live with it afterwards.

Or the consequences of a mistake. Like some drunk who stumbles in, or other confused but otherwise relatively harmless person. Tough calls which is why the responsibility and consequences accompanying use of lethal force are grave.


Barry

[Brian Blum]

The current state of the law can be found at Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-401 - 13-417 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=13).