Kansas .... Castle Doctrine & using deadly force

I have to give a thanks to our legislature on this one. I point this out because it points out how you have to watch the "holes" in the law, and what the Legislature meant is not necessary how a Judge will interpret it.

In a case here, the person drew his gun ... but did not fire it ... because the "threat terminated" at that point. So, he was arrested and was not allowed to use self-defense as an argument in his defense and was convicted for aggravated assault (pointing a gun at someone and threatening them with it). The Judge said, the "law" did not permit pointing a gun to terminate a threat, only shooting it.

The Legislature passed the following .... unanimiously.... 100% YES and sent to the Govenor for his signature. The new law says that IF you pull a gun because you feel you or another's life is threatened with deadly force or with great bodily harm, and if the threat terminates at that point you are NOT quilty of a crime. The key, they also made it retroactive ... so the conviction on the person found guilty would be automatically reversed and dismissed.


The Governor's turn - KSCCW.com Forum

On Tuesday, March 30, the Kansas State Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 381(http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2010/381.pdf). This bill, commonly known as “castle doctrine legislation,” would make important corrections to Kansas’ current self-defense statute. The bill now moves to the desk of Governor Mark Parkinson (D) for his consideration.
The recent Kansas Supreme Court Ruling in State v. Hendrix stated that if a person threatens force instead of actually using deadly force, the individual is not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction and could be charged with aggravated assault. The ruling was applied to an individual who threatened force (but never discharged the firearm), when his fiancée was assaulted and was subsequently charged and given a felony conviction. He is now a prohibited person for exercising his god-given right of self-defense.
NRA has diligently worked with the legislature in both chambers to make sure that Kansas citizens’ self defense rights are clearly articulated to minimize the chances that the State Supreme Court will misinterpret the legislature's intent.

That sucks for this fellow! Sounds like the court ruined this mans life just to prove or make a point!!!

Yep, the Judge was really saying, if you pull it you better use it. I don't think people at times read what's "not said" in the laws (the holes) and how that could be used or interpreted.

The argument, "well, everyone knows what they meant".... uh, want to bet your future on that one ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eagleks

Yep, the Judge was really saying, if you pull it you better use it. I don't think people at times read what's "not said" in the laws (the holes) and how that could be used or interpreted.

The argument, "well, everyone knows what they meant".... uh, want to bet your future on that one ?

---

lol, no one knows what the heck they meant. some judges don't even care what the legislature meant if the judge can twist the actual text to mean what they want it to say, then that becomes the law instead. They are lawyers and that is what they are trained to do.

Legislative intent is actually one of the least persuasive methods of covincing a court and a true "texualist" judge will not even listen to it. Of course there is good reason for it. Legislative history is spotty and written by aides who often have an axe to grind and thus get things into the legislative record that distort the true intent of the majority of the legislative body. Thus textualists say, "the best thing we have to go with is the language that actually passed and if the legislature doesn't like it they can rewrite the law, but we have to go with what we have on the books now." Seems to be the case here.

Good stuff, now to get it signed.

We must hope Gov. Parkinson will sign it. I just sent him an e-mail asking him to do just that. I urge all KS residents to do so too.

Already sent mine to him. It passed with such numbers however that a Gov. Veto would just be over ruled but it s the principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eagleks

Yep, the Judge was really saying, if you pull it you better use it. I don't think people at times read what's "not said" in the laws (the holes) and how that could be used or interpreted.

The argument, "well, everyone knows what they meant".... uh, want to bet your future on that one ?

---

How true, how true, I am glad you brought all this to light!

Parkinson's statement was; he was against passage of ANY conceal carry laws in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgtD

lol, no one knows what the heck they meant. some judges don't even care what the legislature meant if the judge can twist the actual text to mean what they want it to say, then that becomes the law instead. They are lawyers and that is what they are trained to do.

---

That's right.

Convictions win Brownie Points. Nothing else does. And that sets an entire array of ugly side-effects in motion.

A very wise person once suggested that, early in my days of carrying for defense. It explains much, to see our "legal" (not "justice") system through such a lens.

This thread is more then 2 years old. Hasn't Kansas changed the wording on this? Thought i read where it was all cleared up and no chance of a Judge misinterpreting it? Could someone that knows clarifly this? Thanks. Well i re read the first post and it sounds like the govenor must have signed off of this 2 years ago so it's not a problem now I hope?

If you follow the linked thread, the Gov. did sign the law, on the last possible day.

It's sad that this had to even be an issue. Sometimes common sense needs a little help from the lawmakers. I'm glad it has been addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mossweed

This thread is more then 2 years old. Hasn't Kansas changed the wording on this? Thought i read where it was all cleared up and no chance of a Judge misinterpreting it? Could someone that knows clarifly this? Thanks. Well i re read the first post and it sounds like the govenor must have signed off of this 2 years ago so it's not a problem now I hope?

---

Yes, the Legislature fixed it.....

Awesome! Thanks for sharing this.

It is very rare these days that you see politicians doing the right thing.