Subscription Status

Supporting Member : No
Pro Supp. Member : No

Join & Become a Member
Supporting Memberships

Our Local Sponsors


Forum Links

CTGUNTALK.COM Forum Links
  1. CT AWB / LCM FAQ
  2. CT Shooting Range Info
  3. CT Gun Shops


Like & Follow us on :


Author Topic: OLR Opinion on "Castle Law" in CT  (Read 18844 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline undecided

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 434
  • PROTECT the 2nd!
  • Referrals: 0
Re: OLR Opinion on "Castle Law" in CT
« Reply #55 on: February 24, 2014, 06:03:07 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stop wondering and start learning.  :teach:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Furthermore there are various courses held locally or around the state that deal with the law and how it impacts gun owners. RayJay (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login) and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login have run one or two (or more) courses in the past called "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login". They have an You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login in a few months.


I read it, this is very subjective: "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.".
[/size]
[/size]For example, the guys who sent the old guy who got sent to the hospital with severe injuries did not use weapons. I would assume that in this case he would have been justified in using DF since getting sent to the hospital with broken bones would be considered [/size]great bodily harm in my book. Unfortunately by the time you realize that even bare hands can inflict [/size]great bodily harm or kill it's too late....
[/size]

Online SafeActionJackson

  • Mover of threads!
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+41)
  • Highly Active Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 8028
  • Thanked: 67 times
  • Referrals: 2
Re: OLR Opinion on "Castle Law" in CT
« Reply #56 on: February 24, 2014, 06:06:56 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It was plugged (twice in the same post) about 7 minutes before your post.  :wink:  ;D

Doh!

I should have known better!


~g

Sent from my iPhone
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting ~Sun Tzu

Offline RayJay

  • Polymer Ray..
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Posts: 1673
  • Hi all!
  • Referrals: 0
    • Yeah, it's my little space in the wide world of innernets.
Re: OLR Opinion on "Castle Law" in CT
« Reply #57 on: February 24, 2014, 11:03:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I read it, this is very subjective: "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."

It is subjective.  I say again, "[T]here are no "black and white" answers or absolutes in any situation where human emotion is involved."

Quote
For example, the guys who sent the old guy who got sent to the hospital with severe injuries did not use weapons.

Yes, assailants' bare hands and feet have inflicted grave physical injury upon victims.  At times, even caused death. 

Quote
I would assume that in this case he would have been justified in using DF since getting sent to the hospital with broken bones would be considered great bodily harm in my book.


The word you are looking for is not, "assume." 

You, "reasonably believe that the posture, demeanor and actions of the aggressor(s) posed a deadly threat to the victim.  The victim, exhausting all other means of escape and de-escalation, would have been justified in using deadly force to stop the actions of the aggressor(s), as you reasonably believed that the the victim would have suffered grave(r) physical injuries or death if the attack went unabated."

Quote
Unfortunately by the time you realize that even bare hands can inflict great bodily harm or kill it's too late....

Your job is to not let it get that far.




You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It was plugged (twice in the same post) about 7 minutes before your post.  :wink: ;D

I will take any press I can get.   8)
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 11:05:38 PM by RayJay »
Don't piss anyone off until I get my Trac Phone.

"You can't polish a turd with tactical nylon."  -WmTS

Offline Rich_B

  • President - Connecticut Carry
  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Posts: 5672
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Banned for not giving enough free ice cream.
  • Referrals: 1
    • Connecticut Carry - Fight for your rights!
Re: OLR Opinion on "Castle Law" in CT
« Reply #58 on: February 25, 2014, 09:30:02 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I will take any press I can get.   8)


You may not want to say that in my company.  :beer:
Real discussion on real issues, no third party ads, no virus shenanigans, no tin foil hats: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline snake eater 332

  • *OFFICIAL CTGUNTALK PIMP*
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 1821
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • Evil prospers when good men stand by & do nothing.
  • Referrals: 0
Re: OLR Opinion on "Castle Law" in CT
« Reply #59 on: February 25, 2014, 11:18:34 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stop wondering and start learning.  :teach:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Furthermore there are various courses held locally or around the state that deal with the law and how it impacts gun owners. RayJay (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login) and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login have run one or two (or more) courses in the past called "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login". They have an You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login in a few months.

RayJay's RRM class is outstanding and, as a LEO, I also highly recommend it!

Additionally, I also highly recommend getting out there and putting this stuff into situational practice with a reputable firearms training company, using some kind of force-on-force training if possible.  We have a handful of such capable companies in CT, to include King 33, Secure Alternatives, Prepare to Act, just to name a few. 
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.  -  George Orwell

2/1 SFG(A)
ILLEGITMI NON CARBORUNDUM / DE OPPRESSO LIBER

Offline Dr. Prepper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 2258
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • ...shall not be infringed!
  • Referrals: 0
Re: OLR Opinion on "Castle Law" in CT
« Reply #60 on: February 25, 2014, 09:35:38 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For a civilian to use Deadly Force their life or the life of another person must be in immediate danger.  The only difference in your own home is that you do not have to leave the house to avoid the confrontation involving Deadly Force.  AFAIK, "Hunting" is also not permitted.  So, if you hear noises downstairs, and you are in your Bedroom, you can't take your gun and go investigate.  Stay in your bedroom, have your gun ready, and call 911, shoot if they come in, but you can't do anything until they come into your bedroom.

I have a couple issues with this.  There is no law that says one can't walk around their house armed if they hear something out of the ordinary, at any time of day or night.  Call it a stroll, call it investigating, call it whatever you want, but it's perfectly acceptable.  If a prosecutor ends up trying to paint that as "hunting", I don't personally see enough risk in a jury buying such an asinine portrayal of activities in one's own home to avoid it completely.  I would also lean toward clearing the house to ensure there is zero chance of arson being committed.  I wouldn't use DF over a TV or other such objects, but if I'm sitting in my room on a cell-phone, how do I know whoever is downstairs or elsewhere isn't pouring out a couple cans of diesel fuel with the intent to burn the place down, potentially blocking my family's safest egress?  If LE was informed of a B&E in such a scenario, the FD may well set up a perimeter if the perp isn't confirmed to have left the premises.  Legally speaking, 53a-20 backs up this approach.

Quote
Sec. 53a-20. Use of physical force in defense of premises. A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination.

Condition number 2 for use of deadly force in defense of premises is interesting because it allows for such force in the prevention of any crime of violence on your property.  One would still have to prove they reasonably believed such a crime was about to occur, and a jury would be required to see the circumstances as you did.  Clearly one would have a tough time claiming rape was imminent if an unarmed male broke in, but a guy with a ski mask and a gun or knife wouldn't likely get much sympathy from a jury (assuming he wasn't able to appear on the stand and lie as an injured "innocent" victim).  Regardless, ANY of these circumstances where deadly force is an option would lead to a confrontation with the criminal in which the basic paradigm of reasonable fear of death or grave injury would be applied.  If in the face of a gun they decide to flee, they escape with their life.  If however they make a threatening advance, their luck will have run out.  The only deviation from this, for me, is the perp wielding implements to commit arson...whether on the porch or in the living room, and even without an advance toward me, it would be completely legal to kill them if the attempt did not cease upon initial contact.
If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. - Thomas Jefferson, 01/06/1816

Offline undecided

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 434
  • PROTECT the 2nd!
  • Referrals: 0
Re: OLR Opinion on "Castle Law" in CT
« Reply #61 on: February 25, 2014, 10:06:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have a couple issues with this.  There is no law that says one can't walk around their house armed if they hear something out of the ordinary, at any time of day or night.  Call it a stroll, call it investigating, call it whatever you want, but it's perfectly acceptable.  If a prosecutor ends up trying to paint that as "hunting", I don't personally see enough risk in a jury buying such an asinine portrayal of activities in one's own home to avoid it completely.  I would also lean toward clearing the house to ensure there is zero chance of arson being committed.  I wouldn't use DF over a TV or other such objects, but if I'm sitting in my room on a cell-phone, how do I know whoever is downstairs or elsewhere isn't pouring out a couple cans of diesel fuel with the intent to burn the place down, potentially blocking my family's safest egress?  If LE was informed of a B&E in such a scenario, the FD may well set up a perimeter if the perp isn't confirmed to have left the premises.  Legally speaking, 53a-20 backs up this approach.

Condition number 2 for use of deadly force in defense of premises is interesting because it allows for such force in the prevention of any crime of violence on your property.  One would still have to prove they reasonably believed such a crime was about to occur, and a jury would be required to see the circumstances as you did.  Clearly one would have a tough time claiming rape was imminent if an unarmed male broke in, but a guy with a ski mask and a gun or knife wouldn't likely get much sympathy from a jury (assuming he wasn't able to appear on the stand and lie as an injured "innocent" victim).  Regardless, ANY of these circumstances where deadly force is an option would lead to a confrontation with the criminal in which the basic paradigm of reasonable fear of death or grave injury would be applied.  If in the face of a gun they decide to flee, they escape with their life.  If however they make a threatening advance, their luck will have run out.  The only deviation from this, for me, is the perp wielding implements to commit arson...whether on the porch or in the living room, and even without an advance toward me, it would be completely legal to kill them if the attempt did not cease upon initial contact.


I agree, a while ago I heard a loud crash downstairs, it woke me and my family up. My immediate reaction was to see what it was,  as I was not going to risk running into any baddies unarmed, I grabbed my rifle. It ended up being the fireplace shelf had fallen to the ground along with everything that was on it but if there were baddies I may have had to defend myself. Are we to believe that we are not allowed to investigate loud noises in our homes while armed just in case?

Offline Dr. Prepper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 2258
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • ...shall not be infringed!
  • Referrals: 0
Re: OLR Opinion on "Castle Law" in CT
« Reply #62 on: February 25, 2014, 10:37:04 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I agree, a while ago I heard a loud crash downstairs, it woke me and my family up. My immediate reaction was to see what it was,  as I was not going to risk running into any baddies unarmed, I grabbed my rifle. It ended up being the fireplace shelf had fallen to the ground along with everything that was on it but if there were baddies I may have had to defend myself. Are we to believe that we are not allowed to investigate loud noises in our homes while armed just in case?

No.  You retain the same rights within your home whether a criminal has broken in or not.  It's important to know how prosecutors spin certain actions to mitigate the risk of landing behind bars for a clean shoot, but the old adage "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is a good starting point.    Speaking of prosecutorial spin, the idea of calling for an ambulance ahead of time may backfire and sound something like "he planned to shoot someone whether justifiable or not..."  I'm not convinced asking for an ambulance before injuries are sustained carries more benefit than risk.
If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. - Thomas Jefferson, 01/06/1816