# Is this the kind of scenario that "Stand Your Ground" was intended to cover.



## Warrigal (Oct 29, 2015)

I thought is was about defending yourself against intruders/assailants in your home.



> *Lawyer for Curtis Reeves to invoke 'stand your ground' law
> *Anna M. Phillips, Times Staff Writer
> Wednesday, October 28, 2015
> 
> ...



I'm gobsmacked by the fact that it happened in a Wesley Chapel movie theater. I wonder what the Wesleys would have made of this.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 29, 2015)

Always the best way to handle a dispute... pull out your gun and blow the other guy away...  done...   Oh... and them claim you feared for your life.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 29, 2015)

Better than pleading insanity, or maybe not...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 29, 2015)

was that Oulson guy armed with a gun also...  ??     Because if not then I think "fearing for your life" might be a bit dramatic...  Fearing for a black eye would be more like it.  Yeah.. he may have been punched.. BUT is the equal response to KILL someone..  Would Reeves have died?  Likely not..


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 29, 2015)

In a theatre how would you know whether someone was armed or not?
Or do you simply assume that they are because, after all, you are carrying so everyone else must be too?


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 29, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> In a theatre how would you know whether someone was armed or not?
> Or do you simply assume that they are because, after all, you are carrying so everyone else must be too?



My question is...  in a crowded, dark theater... if someone starts shooting people.. and everyone stands up and starts shooting.. how does anyone know who they are shooting at?


----------



## fureverywhere (Oct 29, 2015)

******* Wild West City...sigh... 
http://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/sights/sight-sets/tritium-handgun-sights-prod13165.aspx

But like you say, a dark theater and everybody starts shooting, I don't even know what the safest way to get out of such a situation. You would think hit the ground and crawl. But then you could get trampled. Hiding still on the floor somehow might leave you a target too. If you can see the exit and can run fast enough, but then you're out in the open. Crazy we have to consider such things.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 29, 2015)

Cripes... and all because you want to go see a movie..


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 29, 2015)

Hmm, perhaps it is safer to stay home and watch Netflix?


----------



## fureverywhere (Oct 29, 2015)

Agreed, and the darn movies cost too much nowadays anyways.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 29, 2015)

fureverywhere said:


> Agreed, and the darn movies cost too much nowadays anyways.



Old people tickets here:  £6.50.  I like the big screen for certain films.  And guns are never a worry here.


----------



## AZ Jim (Oct 29, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Old people tickets here:  £6.50.  I like the big screen for certain films.  And guns are never a worry here.


 But YOU are not a "old" people Annie.  You are still a bubblegummer.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 29, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> But YOU are not a "old" people Annie.  You are still a bubblegummer.



My bus pass and ferry card say 'elderly' on them.  Isn't that a hoot!?? LOL.  They can call me what they want as long as it gives me free stuff.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 29, 2015)

Can we get back to the case?

I've found another detail



> Reeves, 73, a retired Tampa police captain, is accused of second-degree murder in the death of Chad Oulson, 43, in January 2014. After arguing with Oulson about use of a cellphone to send a text message during film previews in a Wesley Chapel, Fla., theater, Reeves allegedly shot him to death.
> 
> A bullet grazed Oulson's wife, who was sitting beside him.Richard Escobar, Reeves' attorney, has said video from inside the theater shows that Oulson threw his cellphone at Reeves, striking him in the face, before the gunfire. Reeves' wife and other witnesses said they did not see a cellphone thrown.
> 
> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015...ed-in-Florida-theater-shooting/8991446140643/



The dead man was apparently shot in the chest. Does that sound like he was advancing on the shooter?

On the other hand, this account presents a different picture



> Security videos from the theater showed Oulson, who was sitting in front of Reeves, grab Reeves’ popcorn and throw it at him. The video, shown in court during a bail hearing last year, showed Reeves then pull out a handgun and shoot Oulson.
> “Another aspect of the case is that (Reeves) was 71 at the time of this attack,” Escobar said. “When I was 30 or 35, I could probably take a punch, but I’m 58 now and would not do very well if a 40-year-old man attacked me. Your body can’t take that kind of punishment.”
> http://www.tbo.com/pasco-county/acc...-will-use-stand-your-ground-defense-20151029/



Cell phone or popcorn? Which sounds more likely? How many people would throw their own cell phone at someone complaining about it being used to text in a theatre?

What surprises me is that if the stand your ground argument is accepted, all charges will be dismissed. There will be no trial. Will witnesses be called without a trial happening?


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 29, 2015)

Well heck... that popcorn could have killed him... total justification to shoot and kill..


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 29, 2015)

Sooo, popcorn can now be classed as a lethal weapon? Who knew?


----------



## mitchezz (Oct 29, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Sooo, popcorn can now be classed as a lethal weapon? Who knew?



Maybe it had extra butter and salt?


----------



## fureverywhere (Oct 29, 2015)




----------



## Shalimar (Oct 29, 2015)

That must be it Mitchezz.


----------



## Susie (Oct 29, 2015)

Thank goodness, this would never happen in Ozzieland!
Why?
Movies so expensive here, attendance can be very poor (counted only 12 persons in theatre the other day!)!
More likely a knifing or rape!


----------



## mitchezz (Oct 29, 2015)

Susie said:


> Thank goodness, this would never happen in Ozzieland!
> Why?
> Movies so expensive here, attendance can be very poor (counted only 12 persons in theatre the other day!)!
> More likely a knifing or rape!



You're right about the expensive cinema prices Susie although sometimes it's worth it to see some films on the big screen.

Never heard of anyone being knifed or raped in the cinema.


----------



## imp (Oct 29, 2015)

*Duty to Retreat*

*"Florida's "stand your ground" law, which erased the duty to retreat from violent confrontations."


*The Duty to Retreat law is absurd, in a situation having lethal possibility. A gun is pointed at you, and the law requires that you "retreat"? What, to be shot in the back?

Absurd.    imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 29, 2015)

imp said:


> *"Florida's "stand your ground" law, which erased the duty to retreat from violent confrontations."
> 
> 
> *The Duty to Retreat law is absurd, in a situation having lethal possibility. A gun is pointed at you, and the law requires that you "retreat"? What, to be shot in the back?
> ...



Was a gun pointed.... or a box of popcorn...  It's really easy to mistake one for the other..


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 29, 2015)

Reeves provoked the man it seems to me, then thinks he can get a free pass to execute the guy, because he "feared for his life".  Retired police captain, you'd think he would have enough of a pair of balls to be able to deal with another guy in public.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 29, 2015)

Apparently the theatre was pretty empty.



> Reeves’ attorney has maintained all along that video recorded inside the Wesley Chapel movie theater will show that Oulson attacked the older man first — causing Reeves to fear for his life.
> 
> Defendants must show they had a “reasonable belief” that they were threatened before using force — even if no such threat actually existed.
> 
> ...



Does the lack of other people in the theatre act in favour of the man who thought he was being threatened?
Also, if the man in front of him was texting, couldn't he have moved to another seat where that wouldn't be such a problem? 
I've done that more than once to avoid people who talk or rattle lolly wrappings without consideration of other people.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 29, 2015)

I doubt we have the whole story -- and as we all know, the devil is in the details.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 29, 2015)

What worries me is that the case could be dismissed without a full examination of the details.
Then the dead man's family will have no legal redress in a civil court.


----------



## imp (Oct 29, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> What worries me is that the case could be dismissed without a full examination of the details.
> Then the dead man's family will have no legal redress in a civil court.



All the B.S. aside, if it were me, or any other reasonable person, doing the texting so aggravating to the other guy, it simply should have been stopped. Points up the fact that the world today is filled with a$$hats more so, than ever before. 

Not condoning shooting the guy, mind you. A swift kick to his groin would have sufficed, had not all those fixtures been in the way,   imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 30, 2015)

Seems getting up and moving would have solved the problem..


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 30, 2015)

It seems he did get up and move. He left the theatre to complain to the manager, then came back to the same seat.

This comment refers to this action.


http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...invoke-stand-your-ground-law/2251689#comments


----------



## Manatee (Oct 30, 2015)

Age 73 vs 42, that is lousy odds.


----------



## imp (Oct 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Was a gun pointed.... or a box of popcorn...  It's really easy to mistake one for the other..



That's not the issue, QS. The issue is a law requiring you to submit to the criminal.   imp


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 30, 2015)

imp said:


> That's not the issue, QS. The issue is a law requiring you to submit to the criminal.   imp



What criminal? 
The dead man was texting in a movie theatre. 
Irritating but hardly a crime worthy of the death penalty.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 30, 2015)

So...texting and popcorn assault merit death in an American movie theatre, jeez tough audience! I think I'll stay home!


----------



## mitchezz (Oct 30, 2015)

Oh well, at least no one's Constitutional Right to bear arms was threatened.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 30, 2015)

Hmm.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 30, 2015)

This is not actually a thread about the right to bear arms.

It is about a particular case under consideration now, and whether it is right that someone can kill another person because of fear and not even stand trial for the killing. How is a situation like this to be decided? 
How can anyone know of the mind of the killer - fear? rage? hatred? 
How do you tell the difference or is it simply enough to declare that "I was in fear of my life?" to have all criminal and future civil actions dismissed?


----------



## imp (Oct 30, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> What criminal?
> The dead man was texting in a movie theatre.
> Irritating but hardly a crime worthy of the death penalty.



Come on, Dame! Twisting the context of my intent, and you know it! I'm talking about a lousy concept not connected with the account depicted herein. Lately, everyone is "baiting" me, it seems.     Trying to break my code of civility, perhaps. Go on and try, I'm as sober as a judge!    (urp).   (excuse me).    imp


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 30, 2015)

imp said:


> Come on, Dame! Twisting the context of my intent, and you know it! I'm talking about a lousy concept not connected with the account depicted herein. Lately, everyone is "baiting" me, it seems.     Trying to break my code of civility, perhaps. Go on and try, I'm as sober as a judge!    (urp).   (excuse me).    imp


No I don't know it at all and I'm not intentionally twisting the context of your intent. Nor am I baiting you or anyone else. This is a serious thread.



> That's not the issue, QS. The issue is a law requiring you to submit to the criminal.   imp



What law requires you to submit to the criminal? I would really like to know where this is the legal environment.

Over here one may lawfully act in your own self defence but the measure of force used must be proportionate to the level of threat, not the level of fear. You cannot kill someone who is simply stealing your goods if they are not threatening you with violence. For example, you cannot simply shoot someone who is running away from you even though to do so might get your diamond necklace back. You certainly can't shoot someone over a dispute about texting during a film.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 30, 2015)

I think there is a clash of cultures here. I see absolutely no evidence of baiting, merely sharp differences in opinion. Disagreement is not necessarily indicative of any intent to provoke anyone. That is a straw argument, and patronising in the extreme.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 31, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I think there is a clash of cultures here. I see absolutely no evidence of baiting, merely sharp differences in opinion. Disagreement is not necessarily indicative of any intent to provoke anyone. That is a straw argument, and patronising in the extreme.



That tends to be a trend around here..  Disagree... or argue your point and it's a personal attack.. Some folks haven't been around much...  they have NO clue what an ACTUAL personal attack really is..  They ought to visit some forums where the personal attack is an art form.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 31, 2015)

QS, I have witnessed some of the  verbal evisceration prevalent on some of these forums. Eek! Too extreme for my tastes. I don't enjoy having my heart ripped out by the roots and served up to me on toast. Lol.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 31, 2015)

For sure...  This place is fuzzy puppies and gentle butterflies by comparison.


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 31, 2015)

The forum section that generates such aggression is one typically like "Current News & Hot Topics", which is why many forums do not allow such discussion...too much drama, flame-wars and sometimes litigation.

Here is an example of an image created in response to such aggression(strong language warning):



Spoiler


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 31, 2015)

Hahahahahhahahahaha.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 31, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> The forum section that generates such aggression is one typically like "Current News & Hot Topics", which is why many forums do not allow such discussion...too much drama, flame-wars and sometimes litigation.
> 
> Here is an example of an image created in response to such aggression(strong language warning):
> 
> ...




Yet on the other hand... how long can ones interest be held by recipes and pictures of kitties?   As has been said over and over..  this is a very tame "hot topics current event" section.  If anyone is upset by what is talked about or how.. they really need to not venture into this section..  I'd leave if this section were removed.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 31, 2015)

I would too, QS.


----------



## fureverywhere (Oct 31, 2015)

For sure...  This place is fuzzy puppies and gentle butterflies by comparison. 

Definitely so, the moderators on some sites are asleep at the switch sometimes. A topic spirals so far out of control that there are actual flames popping out of the screen. Worse yet is when the moderator jumps into the argument against you. I've quit a site or three when that happens. I've probably shared it before but one of the worst was on a reading forum of all places. I posted a rainbow flag celebrating equal marriage being passed. One character posted a message so ugly you wanted to believe it was satire. But no he was dead serious. Then the moderator chimed in with his reasons for being against it. Okay I am in the wrong place...yikes, life is too short to hang out in nasty forums. This site is quite civil in comparison.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 1, 2015)

Well, back to the question -- I don't think the "stand your ground" issue is something we can resolve or agree on.  After all, the best legal minds in the country cannot agree, and it very much depends on the way the laws in any particular state are written -- what's legal in one state may or may not be legal in another.


----------



## fureverywhere (Nov 2, 2015)

All we can do is agree to disagree. On one of the minefield sites I will wander into a topic briefly. I just state my opinion and then support why I feel that way. Then I don't read responses because it doesn't matter. They can go back TO WRITING IN CAPS WHILE the Socialist Swine make fun of the Gun Toting Nutjobs...nothing is going to change the others perspective.


----------



## The Inspector (Nov 2, 2015)

Like a good health debate but the name calling is just starts a fight.

It would be good if we could collect more info. on why people have guns and usage. So on


----------



## BobF (Nov 2, 2015)

The Inspector said:


> Like a good health debate but the name calling is just starts a fight.
> 
> It would be good if we could collect more info. on why people have guns and usage. So on



Plenty of that type of info on the web.   Lots of data from the US government and other groups.   Lots of emotional posts and some just straight data.    Most likely everyone will say something about why they want to own guns.    Some are hunters, some collectors, some for personal reasons like self defense, some belong to gun clubs for shooting competitions, some other personal reasons that make sense to them but maybe not to others.   One big reason is that in the US it is legal to own guns by part of the 2nd amendment.   When the US folks tire of the 2nd amendment they can change that with the approved amendment procedure which requires 3/4 of the states to agree with it.   A tough go for those that wish to change something such as the US Constitution.


----------



## The Inspector (Nov 2, 2015)

The U.S. Supreme Court has given people the right to own guns and the government the right to regulate them. The 2nd amendment has little to do with it. The 2nd amendment just implies the feds can't ban the states from having them.


----------



## fureverywhere (Nov 2, 2015)

But with so many gun owners it just sounds like this deadly security blankie they like to carry around. Knowing they have it makes them feel safe and they feel everybody should have the right to their own deadly security blankie. And if bad people start shooting they can whip out their blankies and save the day. Even armed if you get caught in crossfire it's not way likely you're going to get off a clean shot or three before being disabled yourself. And even if you can shoot, in a panic situation how do you know exactly who to shoot?


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 2, 2015)

fureverywhere said:


> But with so many gun owners it just sounds like this deadly security blankie they like to carry around. Knowing they have it makes them feel safe and they feel everybody should have the right to their own deadly security blankie. And if bad people start shooting they can whip out their blankies and save the day.* Even armed if you get caught in crossfire it's not way likely you're going to get off a clean shot or three before being disabled yourself. And even if you can shoot, in a panic situation how do you know exactly who to shoot?*



I've asked this question.. with no response.  Everyone walking around packing would be more deadly in a shooting situation.   Many more would be killed by "friendly fire" than by the one instigating the shooting.   In essence.. it would be a circular firing squad.


----------



## BobF (Nov 2, 2015)

The Inspector said:


> The U.S. Supreme Court has given people the right to own guns and the government the right to regulate them. The 2nd amendment has little to do with it. The 2nd amendment just implies the feds can't ban the states from having them.



Not sure where you got your information as this is what it says.   Regulate does not mean take away.    To change these words means a complete amendment situation must be started and completed.

*U.S. Constitution - Amendment 2*

*Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms*

 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 2, 2015)

Meanwhile, back to the topic.

I did not start this thread to argue once again about the 2nd Amendment.

I am interested is a law that seems to say that if you are afraid that someone is going to kill you or do you serious injury then you can defend yourself by shooting them. Apparently you don't have to say "Stop of I'll shoot" or give any other warning and you are then immune to prosecution for murder, manslaughter or civil damages. 

The location doesn't seem to matter. In your own home or in the street late at night I understand but in a darkened movie theatre where there are other people and where you are able to remove yourself from danger is beyond my comprehension. At the very least I would consider this to be reckless endangerment of the public.

It also doesn't seem to matter whether or not you yourself provoked or escalated a confrontation because there will be no trial to establish all the facts if the charges are dismissed.

I will be following this case with interest because I find it totally incomprehensible. I would welcome any clarification from members who do understand this law and its application to real life situations.


----------



## fureverywhere (Nov 2, 2015)

There stands another comparison...you have a gun to guard your home. I have two dogs. I also have prominent "Beware of Dog" signs...one of the more playful " I Can Make It to the Fence in 2.8 Seconds, Can You?". First off my dogs would be aware of outside activity before it would be humanly possible to hear it. If someone were foolish enough to enter front or backyard they would hear the hounds from Hell. If that same prowler was desperate enough or perhaps armed themselves and decided to enter our home...all bets would be off. Dog law where we live is if someone trespasses even into your backyard the dog is permitted to guard his property. Even if my dog removes the prowler's arm the dog is not at fault. I believe the law is different if you shoot the prowler. IMHO dogs are a much better alternative to firearms.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 2, 2015)

:lol: fureverywhere.

I have no dog, no gun and not even a front fence.
How have I managed to live to the ripe old age of 72?
I must have a guardian angel.


----------



## BobF (Nov 2, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> :lol: fureverywhere.
> 
> I have no dog, no gun and not even a front fence.
> How have I managed to live to the ripe old age of 72?
> I must have a guardian angel.



Seventy two is just a young age for some folks.    I am 82.

To answer your comments above.    Each state has different gun laws and usage requirements.   As far as I know their is no one 'Stand your ground law' for everyone in the US.   Do you know of one like that yourself?   If so enlighten me.   Being a Republic the US is different from many nations where the rules come from the federal control.   Here it is 'intended' to be mostly state and local control for the people.     But with some of the current politicians they are trying hard to change that to all federal control over all.


----------



## AprilT (Nov 2, 2015)

This isn't so uncommon a practice in Fl we've had more than one of these such cases where the line of Stand your ground law has come into question, they've yet to have been able to make it clear where the fine line is sometimes pick and choose sporadically who to apply it to.  In one case a woman fired a warning shot when she tried to invoke the law when she felt threatened at her residence, she didn't even shoot the person and she received a 20 year sentence, she was eventually let out after three years after the case was later revisited.  

This was another case where a man shot his neighbors over mail then invoked the stand your ground law, but, we've had quite a few others.  It's insane how many cases exist like this and their fighting to get open carry here, that will surely improve the situation.  Maybe it will, someone will be less likely to draw on the other person carrying, unless of course they think they can draw quicker .  Not saying one way or the other about the gun carrying laws, just a statement on this situation in FL and how it may affect our stand your ground situation as it is in the environment now.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/florida-veteran-invokes-stand-ground-law-killing-neighbors-30669068

BTW, seems they want to make it even harder to convict so lots to look forward to.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-stand-ground-defense-scott-maxwell-20151003-column.html


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 2, 2015)

Bobf, the case that prompted this thread relates to the law in Florida.
I am aware that the states have different laws regarding stand you ground and that it doesn't apply in the majority of states.

Perhaps members who live in states where SYG applies will be able to shed light on the way it is applied where they live. ???


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 2, 2015)

fureverywhere said:


> But with so many gun owners it just sounds like this deadly security blankie they like to carry around. Knowing they have it makes them feel safe and they feel everybody should have the right to their own deadly security blankie. And if bad people start shooting they can whip out their blankies and save the day. Even armed if you get caught in crossfire it's not way likely you're going to get off a clean shot or three before being disabled yourself. And even if you can shoot, in a panic situation how do you know exactly who to shoot?



I don't carry around my security blankie with me -- it is at home, where I could use it to defend myself.  I DO take it with me (legal here) if I'll be driving a far distance -- a lot of our area here in NM is vast stretches of desert, where a woman my age could certainly be at risk in the instance of, say, a breakdown or flat while waiting for help to arrive.  If I still went camping, I would still take it with me then.  Otherwise, no.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 2, 2015)

The Inspector said:


> The U.S. Supreme Court has given people the right to own guns and the government the right to regulate them. The 2nd amendment has little to do with it. The 2nd amendment just implies the feds can't ban the states from having them.



I strongly disagree that the US Supreme Court has given people the right to own guns.  The Second Amendment does that.  The Supreme Court has elaborated on the right, but certainly did not convey the right.


----------



## fureverywhere (Nov 2, 2015)

Then again I have a cousin who drives through St. Louis with a rifle beside him. What could possibly go wrong there?


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 2, 2015)

I found this explanation of the general evolution of stand your ground on a criminal law website:

*DUTY TO RETREAT*
 English Common Law required that an individual, when threatened, must "retreat to the wall at one's back" before justifiably killing someone. Only the crown could kill someone and justify it. Everyone else had to get a pardon from the king if they killed someone. The only way to do that was to prove that you did everything you could not to kill someone.
  "private persons are not to be trusted to take capital revenge one of another." - Sir Matthew Hale, Jurist
  This English Common Law became America's Common Law and is the starting point for all self defense laws to follow.
*
CASTLE DOCTRINE*

 Castle Doctrine is another English Common Law adopted in America to remove people from the "duty to retreat" when attacked in their own home. Every state supports the Castle Doctrine through legislation, case law, or common law.
  "A man's house is his castle -- et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium" (and where shall a man be safe if it be not in his own house?) -Sir Edwar Coke, The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.
  Everywhere else, one must try to retreat when threatened if it is safe to do so, before committing to killing someone in self defense.
*
STAND YOUR GROUND*

 Stand Your Ground laws are renovations to the Castle Doctrines already found in the states. In fact, they are often called Castle Doctrine Expansions. They are also called 'Shoot First', 'The Right to Commit' Murder', 'Line in the Sand', and 'Make My Day' laws.
  These are laws that extend the castle doctrine in several different ways:
*
Location* - Nobody has ever had to retreat when threatened in the home. SYG laws remove the 'duty to retreat' from outside the home as well.

*
Presumption* - Justifiable homicide requires a 'reasonable belief' that a serious threat has been posed, and the threat must be 'imminent'. SYG laws presume that the surviving party had 'reasonable belief' or that the threat was 'imminent' or simply that the survivor killed legally in self defense. In other words, it's up to the non-survivor's party to prove otherwise.

*
Immunity* - Generally speaking, criminal law punishes wrongdoers, and civil law attempts to restore what was damaged to whoever has been wronged. SYG laws give the survivor immunity from civil law suits and sometimes criminal law suits and even arrest.

*
Threat* - Some states don't require there to be a 'reasonable belief' that a serious threat has been posed or that the danger be 'imminent'.


----------



## imp (Nov 2, 2015)

"Castle Law" doctrine was significantly strengthened in New Mexico, back in the 1990s, I believe, by Gov. Gary Johnson. Subsequently, Gov. Bill Richardson publicly strongly supported it. The question then had become is an individual's vehicular device, car or truck, any different from his home, with respect to invasion from without. Generally, it was decided to be the same. This concept may have (but likely did not), opened up the can of worms allowing defensive "drive-by shootings".     imp


----------

