Criminal Liability
13A-3-23 Use of Force in the Defense of a Person
(A) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person
in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonable
believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by
that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably
believes to be necessary for that purpose. A person may use deadly force
if the actor reasonably believes that such other person is:
1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or
2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling
while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling; or
3) Committing or about to commit a kidnaping in any degree, assault
in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any
degree, forcible **** or forcible sodomy.
(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (A), a person is not
justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if it
reasonably appears or he knows that he can avoid the necessity of
using such force with complete safety:
1) By retreating, except that the actor is not required to retreat:
a) If he is in his dwelling or at his place of work and was not the
original aggressor; or
b) If he is a peace officer or a private person lawfully assisting a
peace officer at his direction.
2), & 3) repealed by Acts 1979, no.79599, p.1060, ss 1.
© Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (A), a person is
not justified in using physical force if:
1) With intend to cause physical injury or death to another person,
he provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person; or
2) He was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force
upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he
withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to
the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless
continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
Duty to Retreat
The confusion comes from a fundamental difference in the philosophy of criminal law. The current self defense laws in America are based on a theory of one's duty to retreat, meaning when faced with a hostile situation, run away. If you cannot run away and have to defend yourself, then use of force is acceptable.
In criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.
The Law
"Stand-Your-Ground" Law - The New Debate in Self Defense Law
"Stand Your Ground" laws, sometimes called shoot-first laws by their critics, are statutes that significantly expand the boundaries of legal self-defense by eliminating a person's duty to retreat from an invader or assailant in certain cases.
The state of Florida became the first to enact such a self defense law on October 1, 2005. The Florida statute allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony." Under the statute, forcible felonies include "treason; murder; manslaughter; ****** battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful placing, throwing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."
The Florida law authorizes the use of defensive force by anyone "who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be." Furthermore, under the law, such a person "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." The statute also grants civil and criminal immunity to anyone found to have had such a reasonable belief.
Since the enactment of the Florida legislation, South Dakota, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Indiana have adopted similar statutes, and 15 other states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" self defense laws of their own.
The confusion comes from a fundamental difference in the philosophy of criminal law. The current self defense laws in America are based on a theory of one's duty to retreat, meaning when faced with a hostile situation, run away. If you cannot run away and have to defend yourself, then use of force is acceptable.
In criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.
The Law
"Stand-Your-Ground" Law - The New Debate in Self Defense Law
"Stand Your Ground" laws, sometimes called shoot-first laws by their critics, are statutes that significantly expand the boundaries of legal self-defense by eliminating a person's duty to retreat from an invader or assailant in certain cases.
The state of Florida became the first to enact such a self defense law on October 1, 2005. The Florida statute allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony." Under the statute, forcible felonies include "treason; murder; manslaughter; ****** battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful placing, throwing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."
The Florida law authorizes the use of defensive force by anyone "who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be." Furthermore, under the law, such a person "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." The statute also grants civil and criminal immunity to anyone found to have had such a reasonable belief.
Since the enactment of the Florida legislation, South Dakota, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Indiana have adopted similar statutes, and 15 other states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" self defense laws of their own.
MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Governor Riley signed legislation today that puts Alabama among a growing number of states giving new legal protection to people who kill intruders in their homes, businesses and vehicles.
The new law deletes language from state law that says a person should not use deadly force during a break-in if he or she can "avoid using force with complete safety."
The new law was pushed by the National Rifle Association. It follows the passage of similar laws in Florida, Indiana, South Dakota and Mississippi. NRA lobbyist Chris Cox says the pendulum had been swinging toward criminals for too long and now it's swinging back toward crime victims.
Ronald Jackson of People United in Birmingham says the legislation will lead to more gun violence. He says it also sends the wrong message about Alabama because it implies that crime is out of control in Alabama.
looks like I can blast intruders away
The new law deletes language from state law that says a person should not use deadly force during a break-in if he or she can "avoid using force with complete safety."
The new law was pushed by the National Rifle Association. It follows the passage of similar laws in Florida, Indiana, South Dakota and Mississippi. NRA lobbyist Chris Cox says the pendulum had been swinging toward criminals for too long and now it's swinging back toward crime victims.
Ronald Jackson of People United in Birmingham says the legislation will lead to more gun violence. He says it also sends the wrong message about Alabama because it implies that crime is out of control in Alabama.
looks like I can blast intruders away
That why I love florida..we are allowed to stand our ground and not retreat and kill a ***** if he breaks into our home...gues thats why they call it teh gunshine state..
bigbangtheory
5,000+ posts
CarAudio.com Veteran
I hope he takes you out!
Rather she was at fault and you knowningly didn't know she had a BF. He should just end it for you anyway. Win/win IMO.
Rather she was at fault and you knowningly didn't know she had a BF. He should just end it for you anyway. Win/win IMO.
TurdFergueson2
5,000+ posts
Team D.O.A.
Fixed
bigbangtheory
5,000+ posts
CarAudio.com Veteran
More people like me than you. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif Wtf is this? Highschool! Get a fawking clue ***-nugget!
Also if you want to take me out, then all you had to do was ask nicely. So where you taking me? Olive garden has some killer pasta dishes on the cheap?
Joe89
10+ year member
Senior VIP Member
Never have I heard the word "***-nugget". That's just weird...
There are so many words you don't have to call someone what you find in your own pubic hair from who knows what.
bigbangtheory
5,000+ posts
CarAudio.com Veteran
Yeah waiting for weeks did piss me off. You are right, but you act like a tool on here majority of the time, which of course you know this already............you do know that right? God, I hope so.
Also who the hell cares about the word ***-nugget? That is wierd!
- Thread Starter
- #89
Name one time I act like a tool on here... Please do tell... I come here to BUY and SELL and look for help on questions about car audio.... This thread is one of maybe three threads that wasnt car audio related..... So please do tell.... You just come on this forum to act like a E thug by putting people down because you are a unhappy baby
Depends on where you live. Most places state that if you have a reasonable exit, you should not defend your property, but leave. Not to mention that even if the state clears you on charges, you can still be sued for damages in civil court -- which can ruin your life just as well.
Timmy supported his family and was all they had, now that he's gone the family is asking for damages since the defendant has slain their only sense of well being. Doesn't make much sense, but to a jury of your peers who don't really know what the **** is going on -- it may.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
Similar threads
- Started by jacksonlukeblocker
- Wiring, Electrical & Installation
About this thread
- Start date
- Participants
- Who Replied
- Replies
- 91
- Views
- 2,164
- Last reply date
- Last reply from
- BassAddictJ
