Springfield XD Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Picked up the latest issue of Recoil Magazine last night and read a very interesting article from a defense attorney who specializes in self defense cases out of AZ. Had some good points, also some holes in the stories but overall an enlightening read to those who carry a gun with them. Online, I have only been able to find a preview but here is a link to some of it.

Please, No More Clients…

Jason Squires


Please, No More Clients... - RECOIL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Very interesting... I have to buy the magazine. Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,836 Posts
Read it; somebody brought a copy in to work.

I rather thought the line if "don't cross your threshold with a gun in your hand" very, VERY smart...

And something I've seen members here say they'd do without thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,229 Posts
Will pick that issue up tonight.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,993 Posts
Read it also....good info...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,385 Posts
You deftly exit your residence to confront the intruder.


HUGE mistake! Stay in the house and call 911. Confronting someone outside is a vastly different situation than inside where you have justification in most states for using a firearm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,645 Posts
HUGE mistake! Stay in the house and call 911. Confronting someone outside is a vastly different situation than inside where you have justification in most states for using a firearm.
Not to mention stupid from a tactical perspective. Never know how many friends bad guy may have out there, great way to get ambushed and killed. Best to stay inside, hold the ground you have, call the cops and set up to "repel boarders" until the cavalry shows up.

And when the cops do arrive, make sure you don't have a gun in your hand. I once heard Clint Smith make the point that there's no real reason for the cops to know when you show up that you're the homeowner, so if they see you armed, all they know is that there's some guy with a gun in their hand, so guess who they're gonna point THEIR guns at? Put the gun away and then go answer the door and talk to the cops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,854 Posts
In the case cited, the homeowner made a couple of mistakes:

He exited the residence to confront... Once you pursue an intruder or attacker,. you are now NOT engaged in self defense, YOU are the attacker.

He did not call 911 first. Granted, sometimes you don't have time to call 911, but in this case. he did.

Now, I also have some problems with the advice offered by the writer.

Never cross the threshold...
In SC, I am empowered to defend life or property within the confines of my "castle", which can extend to any place I have a legal right to be.

Always call 911...IF you have time to safely do so. And even after the call, continue to be ready to defend - it may take from several minutes to a half hour for the cops to get there. You can call, but you can NOT wait to act.

A knife at 50 feet, huh? If the guy is standing still, no, it's not a direct threat. However, if the guy is charging you, you have about 5 seconds to stop the threat.

Afraid...
"I was in fear of my life". Maybe, maybe not. However, a good gunfight is one that never happens. Many times, the mere presentation of a defensive weapon will cause the bad guy to flee. Your first option is to draw and prepare to defend. Your last option is to shoot. Flee or hunker down and prepare to repel - only if you can do so safely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
In the case cited, the homeowner made a couple of mistakes:

He exited the residence to confront... Once you pursue an intruder or attacker,. you are now NOT engaged in self defense, YOU are the attacker.

He did not call 911 first. Granted, sometimes you don't have time to call 911, but in this case. he did.

Now, I also have some problems with the advice offered by the writer.

Never cross the threshold...
In SC, I am empowered to defend life or property within the confines of my "castle", which can extend to any place I have a legal right to be.

Always call 911...IF you have time to safely do so. And even after the call, continue to be ready to defend - it may take from several minutes to a half hour for the cops to get there. You can call, but you can NOT wait to act.

A knife at 50 feet, huh? If the guy is standing still, no, it's not a direct threat. However, if the guy is charging you, you have about 5 seconds to stop the threat.

Afraid...
"I was in fear of my life". Maybe, maybe not. However, a good gunfight is one that never happens. Many times, the mere presentation of a defensive weapon will cause the bad guy to flee. Your first option is to draw and prepare to defend. Your last option is to shoot. Flee or hunker down and prepare to repel - only if you can do so safely.
Never cross the threshold...
In SC, I am empowered to defend life or property within the confines of my "castle", which can extend to any place I have a legal right to be.

How does SC law define "Castle?"

Who told you this a CCW instructor, or an attorney who knows how SC law, courts, and juries have ruled in such cases? I doubt it was the lawyer seeing that SC statutes makes no allowance for the use of deadly force in protection of property. Also the word "Castle" only appears twice in Chapter 16 in the intentions section of the law, and is never formally defined in the definitions, whereas the actual statutes use the words dwelling and residence. "Dwelling" and "Residence" are defined in SECTION 16-11-430. Your above statement is too general and that is where people get into trouble when they thought they knew something and they were misinformed or did not know the legal definition of some word.

Always call 911...IF you have time to safely do so. And even after the call, continue to be ready to defend - it may take from several minutes to a half hour for the cops to get there. You can call, but you can NOT wait to act.

Yeah, that section could be worded allot better, but I believe the intent was if you are in your home and the individual was outside, not if the individual was physically attacking you. But in any case the question of "Why didn't he call 911?" will need to have a darn good answer that will convince a jury.

A knife at 50 feet, huh? If the guy is standing still, no, it's not a direct threat. However, if the guy is charging you, you have about 5 seconds to stop the threat.

Hopefully you and your attorney can convince a DA or jury of who society says (not you,) is reasonable people to that same fact. In any case this type of situation will mean more money to cover your legal expense, you hopefully will win but as he said "make checks payable."

Afraid...
"I was in fear of my life". Maybe, maybe not. However, a good gunfight is one that never happens. Many times, the mere presentation of a defensive weapon will cause the bad guy to flee. Your first option is to draw and prepare to defend. Your last option is to shoot. Flee or hunker down and prepare to repel - only if you can do so safely.

The minute you have drawn you have used deadly force. If you are right and the person had ill intentions then you are fine and covered by law. However if you are wrong and pull your gun on somebody you thought had ill intentions but turns out did not, well then you are going to charged with SECTION 16-23-410. Pointing firearm at any person and SECTION 16-3-600. Assault and battery, plus SECTION 16-3-610. Certain offenses committed with a carried or concealed deadly weapon.

So, your first option should be knowing what the heck kind of situation you are into, and make darn sure that person has ill intentions before leather is broken.

I am not sure if you read the article or just the preview but rule #6 is the biggest kicker that most people fail to do as gun carriers.



I will quote the author here: "seek expert instruction on the legal issues surrounding firearm ownership in your specific jurisdiction." Meaning not the CCW instructor, or buddy police officer but a qualified lawyer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,854 Posts
So, your first option should be knowing what the heck kind of situation you are into, and make darn sure that person has ill intentions before leather is broken.
Contrary to what you believe, I DO know SC law as explained to me by a CWP instructor of 20 years experience as a LEO, and several conversations with DA's and prosecutors.

"Castle" DOES extend to my person in any place I have a legal right to be.

My "castle" is my person, whether I'm in a car, store, restaurant or my home. This is tied in with "no duty to retreat" and "stand your ground'. Both in effect in SC.

As for assuring the stranger has ill intentions, SC law also states that I must either be in fear of imminent loss of life, you HAVE THE BELIEF I am in imminent fear of loss of life. I am also fully justified in defending loss of property with deadly force.

I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
This idiot doesn't understand the concept of "curtilage", the immediate area surrounding your house that is treated EXACTLY like the interior for all lawful purposes. Maybe he lives in Maryland where they are finding every excuse to persecute (and prosecute) lawful gun owners. In Georgia, everything in the scenario is exactly right. We had a case recently where a guy did exactly what was described, except the intruder kept coming at him so the homeowner shot the intruder. Turned out it was a mentally deficient elderly man who had wandered off from his caregivers, but the police didn't charge the homeowner with anything. In Georgia, we have Castle Doctrine, which here means that any unwanted intruder to your home (including the curtilage) is presumed to be engaged in a forcible felony. Georgia law allows for you to shoot to stop a forcible felony with no duty to retreat.
Real lesson is to live in a place with sane gun laws where you don't have to choose what kind of victim to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Contrary to what you believe, I DO know SC law as explained to me by a CWP instructor of 20 years experience as a LEO, and several conversations with DA's and prosecutors.

"Castle" DOES extend to my person in any place I have a legal right to be.

My "castle" is my person, whether I'm in a car, store, restaurant or my home. This is tied in with "no duty to retreat" and "stand your ground'. Both in effect in SC.

As for assuring the stranger has ill intentions, SC law also states that I must either be in fear of imminent loss of life, you HAVE THE BELIEF I am in imminent fear of loss of life. I am also fully justified in defending loss of property with deadly force.

I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Contrary to what you believe, I DO know SC law as explained to me by a CWP instructor of 20 years experience as a LEO, and several conversations with DA's and prosecutors.

"Castle" DOES extend to my person in any place I have a legal right to be.

Really, because the only two mentions of "castle" within SC law states comes from the intentions part of the law.


A. Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business. SECTION 16-11-420.A



Seems that the laws version is much more narrow than yours when speaking of "castle."

My "castle" is my person, whether I'm in a car, store, restaurant or my home. This is tied in with "no duty to retreat" and "stand your ground'. Both in effect in SC.

Wrong SC law is clear your Castle is your home, occupied vehicle or place of business. It is not you. Your home is defined by law under SECTION 16-11-430. Definitions. and the subsection dealing with your residence and dwellings are under Section 16-11-440.D



(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.


You yourself are covered Section 16-11-440.C


(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.


Notice the two differences in the subsection when within your residence or dwelling, you are afforded the right of presumption of ill intent. Outside of your residence or dwelling you are not afforded that right you must be being attacked. This is the problem with saying "Castle" is you and lumping everything together when the law sets two very different standards between inside and outside your residence.


As for assuring the stranger has ill intentions, SC law also states that I must either be in fear of imminent loss of life, you HAVE THE BELIEF I am in imminent fear of loss of life.


It also states as posted above 16-11-440.C, "who is attacked," both have to be present not just the fear but also the act against you.

I am also fully justified in defending loss of property


I'm betting you cannot find a section to back that claim up.


I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.


I'd rather know every section of laws and differences within, so I am not carried by 6 or tried by 12. You can pick one or the other, I will choose neither.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
This idiot doesn't understand the concept of "curtilage", the immediate area surrounding your house that is treated EXACTLY like the interior for all lawful purposes. Maybe he lives in Maryland where they are finding every excuse to persecute (and prosecute) lawful gun owners. In Georgia, everything in the scenario is exactly right. We had a case recently where a guy did exactly what was described, except the intruder kept coming at him so the homeowner shot the intruder. Turned out it was a mentally deficient elderly man who had wandered off from his caregivers, but the police didn't charge the homeowner with anything. In Georgia, we have Castle Doctrine, which here means that any unwanted intruder to your home (including the curtilage) is presumed to be engaged in a forcible felony. Georgia law allows for you to shoot to stop a forcible felony with no duty to retreat.
Real lesson is to live in a place with sane gun laws where you don't have to choose what kind of victim to be.
This idiot doesn't understand the concept of "curtilage", the immediate area surrounding your house that is treated EXACTLY like the interior for all lawful purposes.

Seeing that you live in GA, what is GA's legal definition of curtilage?
Chapter _*__ Section __ Subsection ___

We had a case recently where a guy did exactly what was described, except the intruder kept coming at him so the homeowner shot the intruder. Turned out it was a mentally deficient elderly man who had wandered off from his caregivers, but the police didn't charge the homeowner with anything.

The two incidents are actually completely different, in the article the girl was cutting through the yard, she was in no way committing a forcible felony. In your case the man was coming at and engaging multiple times the owner which is a forcible felony.
In Georgia, we have Castle Doctrine, which here means that any unwanted intruder to your home (including the curtilage) is presumed to be engaged in a forcible felony.
No, You have state laws that are based on Castle doctrine, Castle doctrine is not a law but a concept. In GA you have:

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23
Use of force in defense of habitation
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

a habitation is defined as:
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24.1
Habitation and personal property defined
As used in Code Sections 16-3-23 and 16-3-24, the term "habitation" means any dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and "personal property" means personal property other than a motor vehicle.
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24
Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation

(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Notice the word that is missing from Georgia law, "curtilage." For the purposes of these laws curtilage does not exist in GA. Instead they use the word dwelling, so inside the dwelling is one standard and outside the dwelling is another. Inside your home you operate under 16-3-23 which permits and presumes forcible felony authorizing deadly force. Outside your dwelling you operate under 16-3-24, where you must be of belief that a forcible felony was about to happen or was happening. The mere presence is not enough outside the confines of your habitat to use deadly force. Outside of your dwelling you must be able to articulate why you believed a forcible felony was going to take place. In your example he was able to articulate it, which is why charges were never filed. Moving the article's example to GA the outcome would have been the same, cutting through a neighbors yard to get to hers is not considered a forcible felony, trespassing at most, therefore deadly force would not be justified under 16-3-24.

It is amazing how many people believe their actions are or would be protected under a Castle doctrine but never learn the intricacies of their states laws to know a ever so slight misinterpretation is the difference between prison or a good shoot. Claiming it is a good shoot to use deadly force on someone outside your home, who's only attachable actions is their presence would constitute at least assault and at most murder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
In the scenario, the guy had reasonable suspicion that an intruder was in his yard and up to no good (the loud noise that alerted him). Lights and pointed weapon are reasonable responses. Shooting would not have been.

As for curtilage, it is a concept, not a law. It is typically used in fourth amendment cases to define a "dwelling" for purposes of search, but it has the same meaning and effect for defining a "dwelling" for defense purposes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
In the scenario, the guy had reasonable suspicion that an intruder was in his yard and up to no good (the loud noise that alerted him). Lights and pointed weapon are reasonable responses. Shooting would not have been.

As for curtilage, it is a concept, not a law. It is typically used in fourth amendment cases to define a "dwelling" for purposes of search, but it has the same meaning and effect for defining a "dwelling" for defense purposes.
Up to no good is not a reason to use deadly force. Pointing a gun is deadly force. In GA you must be able to reasonable determine the person was commiting a forcible felony, not just a felony, but forcible.

A pointed weapon is Aggravated Assault, 16-5-21. and 16-11-102 Pointing or aiming gun or pistol at another. Personally I would like to give my attorney more to work with than I heard a loud noise. Maybe a DA will see it your way, but it would not be a stretch of the imagination for a judge to deny immunity and DA to take it to a jury. A jury you don't get to choose. Either way going out of your dwelling to confront is a lose lose situation. In the best case you spend a couple of thousand for a defense attorney, and the worst you find out he wasn't alone out there. I would be intrested to know in your case of the old man, how much the shooter had to pay in lawyer fees to help him navigate through the system.

GA has defined a habitation as it relates to there use of force laws for whatever reason curtilage was left out. Meaning it's concept has no bearing on these laws.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top