Hillhick - I'm in your same situation. I too have Psoriatic Arthritis, since age 10, and though at a glance I may look like your average 6' 200lb man I am far from 100% physically fit. As others have mentioned SA is your best defense. Avoiding the bad situation is your best course but as we all understand each situation has it's own unique circumstances. Do your best to be prepared and to take the appropriate action/force needed to defend yourself.
I have castle doctrine in my home in MA but not in public, so I've always wondered what you should do besides flee. If someone engages you in a fight, you can't draw your gun I'm pretty sure.
While researching Massad Ayoob's version of the Frank Magliato case, I found the NY statute concerning deadly force. This is part of it, bolding of text is mine:
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
Notice "with complete personal safety". I read that to mean if one is able to safely avoid using deadly force, he must do so.
Re: Duty to retreat?
Arkansas requires you to retreat if possible, but ONLY if YOU think it can be done safely without endangering yourself or others.
For the time being, you have a "RIGHT" to self defense! Of course that can change with the new elected officals who think we should fall under the UN! :aargh4:
Originally Posted by Hillhick
Now for the duty to retreat, in all 50 states your "duty to retreat" is ruled by "Can you retreat safely and to safety!"; if not you're within your rights to defend yourself or loved ones!
Iowa requires "retreat on the street" but not in your home. IOW, if you can retreat safely, you must... but, you must be safe in doing so... Turning your back on an armed aggressor is not safe or prudent (cap'n obvious, speaking).
The "reasonable man" requisite for defense means more than just "any ol' reasonable man." It means a reasonable man knowing what you knew at the moment of defense would act as you did. "A man's got to know his limitations."
You know yours. You have proof of those limitations... A reasonable person in your situation with your knowledge of your limitations... what would they do?
The burden of proof will be on you, which will be costly. But, if you had no safe retreat, because of those limitations, and could prove it to a jury of your peers, you will not be found guilty.
With SYG and Castle Doctrine, in most cases, the prosecution must prove you were not entitled to those defenses. And in some states, if they take it to trial and you are found not guilty, the state must pay all your expenses/losses for trial.
The best course of action is to ask an attorney for an opinion before you make any decisions. To research the issues, here are some good resources:
Castle Doctrine (Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
"Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another". The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states."
Stand Your Ground (Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
"A stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations."
Given your physical condition and assuming you were in a legitimate situation in which you were in fear for your life, I don't see how your failure to retreat would be a factor. But I am not a lawyer nor do I play on on this forum or anywhere else.
NY has this too. Just go upstairs if not already, call BG to the stair well....SHOOT, shoot again for good measure. you were up top, he was blocking your way to the bottom and thus the door......'nuff said!
Here's one for you with no specific conditions attached.
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
(3) A person 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 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.
There is no mention of having to make any attempt to evade or avoid, although a prudent person would hopefully take the opportunity to do both before having to pull a trigger. Not to pick a scab off an open wound, but this is Zimmerman's defence, although he passed up an opportunity to avoid the incident altogether. His charges are based on the unclear/questionable use of a firearm against an unarmed man--and a lot of applied pressure from other circles.
Here in NJ we have a duty to retreat.....no Castle Doctrine.....and as far as firearm laws and self defense laws here......this state has got to be the worst in the country.
if you can walk away, you should walk away.
nothing manly about making a confrontation worse, and possibly deadly, when you have the option to walk away.
I think the thread runs more like must versus should. Avoidance is always the prefered option . . . if available.
That's my issue with the way SYG laws are written, they seem to allow for people to stand there when they could get out of there and not shoot someone.
Originally Posted by Pythius
Brandon Baker was apparently the aggressor in Florida, but Seth Browning followed him, stopped in his car and LET Baker come at him and try to hit him. That's pretty much intentionally allowing to be hit so you can shoot someone. Yet he was cleared.
The 100% Correct Answer. You always escape if if you can do it safely. Always!!!!! If you can't escape you try to Evade if you can do that safely. If you can't escape or can't evade safely then you Engage because then it doesn't what law is or isn't on the books!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted by First Sgt
You have obviously haven't read Ms Brabara Frey, PHD University of Minnesota - Special Rapporteur to the United Nation and her penned "Prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons"!
Originally Posted by dbglock
She states in her report that we DO NOT have a right to self defense! Only the "STATE", i.e., government can protect you! Additionally, you may wish to do some research on who is supporting and propounding this assumption!
Prior to calling someone ignorant, You may wish to become well read! :aargh4: