Dog Brothers Public Forum

I'm looking into getting the Die less often pair, but only have marginal interest in the gun aspect of it.  How well does it translate over to knife vs. knife which is far more likely for me???

Any suggestions of other material?  I have a taste of Sayoc but it is very technical and I don't have the time or money to put into a ton of training hours.

I think that was the issue of why I'm not supposed to know.  It's either not fully written or its pork that they are trying to fill in something else with.  Either way it sucks.  I don't think it will go anywhere anyway.  The law is pretty specific as it is. I'm just thinking they don't want the title "castle law" on the books.  Then people might find it.

Got a quote for you about lawyers.  Yes this is a sore spot for me.  Enough time in court, and I was on the good side.

"How's a lawyer like a slinky??"
"They're both really not good for anything but their fun to watch as you push them down the stairs."

Well I liked it.

Sorry,  Been really busy.  Lots of wrecks recently.

Timing seems to be of import right now as it seems that the State of Delaware is trying to squash a new bill that would contain a "castle law".  I'm trying to get more specifics, but I don't think I'm supposed to know what I already know about it.  It's amazing what a lawyer talks about over lunch.  It seems the State gov't is looking with the same reluctance that I would.  A litttle worried about some "Dirty Harry" type incidents.  Problem is, if they read their own laws, its already too late.  Nothing about changing the laws on the books just trying to stop "castle law".  Maybe its just for the appearance.  I dunno.

I must admit, I stand corrected.  I was incorrect in my information.  Having spoken to an attorney of the Prosecutor's Office of my state.  I was directed to word of law for Delaware.  The information put forward in my prior training and experience it seems was something of a myth.  Self defense does in fact exist in Delaware as does the Delaware version of the "Castle Law".  Here is the code.  My only guess is that in the courts of this lovely state Self Defense as an affirmative defense to violence is frowned upon and therefore if you do not do your homework, which I did not, you will not get the true extent of your rights.

I decided that since the post was going pretty far and getting iinteresting, I needed to make sure of the validity of my side.  I was incorrect and apologize for being so.  It is interesting to note that everything that I had been taught and was trying to put forward seems to be mixed in to the law but I think reading the code in its entirety explains things quite well.
MM

§ 464. Justification -- Use of force in self-protection.

(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.

(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.

(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:

(1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or

(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:

a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and

b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and

c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 464; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 59 Del. Laws, c. 203, § 5; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 465. Justification -- Use of force for the protection of other persons.

(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

(1) The defendant would have been justified under § 464 of this title in using such force to protect the defendant against the injury the defendant believes to be threatened to the person whom the defendant seeks to protect; and

(2) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been justified in using such protective force; and

(3) The defendant believes that intervention is necessary for the protection of the other person.

(b) Although the defendant would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, there is no obligation to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the defendant knows that the defendant can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person.

(c) When the person whom the defendant seeks to protect would have been obliged under § 464 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing, the defendant is obliged to try to cause the person to do so before using force in the person's protection if the actor knows that complete safety can be secured in that way.

(d) Neither the defendant nor the person whom the defendant seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other's dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than in their own. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 465; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 466. Justification -- Use of force for the protection of property.

(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary:

(1) To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or

(2) To prevent entry upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or

(3) To prevent theft, criminal mischief or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts.

(b) The defendant may in the circumstances named in subsection (a) of this section use such force as the defendant believes is necessary to protect the threatened property, provided that the defendant first requests the person against whom force is used to desist from interference with the property, unless the defendant believes that:

(1) Such a request would be useless; or

(2) It would be dangerous to the defendant or another person to make the request; or

(3) Substantial harm would be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request could effectively be made.

(c) The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that:

(1) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the defendant of the defendant's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(2) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and either:

a. Had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant; or

b. Under the circumstances existing at the time, the defendant believed the use of force other than deadly force would expose the defendant, or another person in the defendant's presence, to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury.

(d) Where a person has used force for the protection of property and has not been convicted for any crime or offense connected with that use of force, such person shall not be liable for damages or be otherwise civilly liable to the one against whom such force was used. (11 Del. C. 1953, § 466; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1; 62 Del. Laws, c. 266, §§ 1, 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

Correct.  When the man found the people in his home and they challenged him, that is the threat.  Now if he had come downstairs and the people were not immediately there between him and an exit, or had run away when they heard him, there would be no threat.  The general presence of a person does not automatically create a threat.  (If that were the case then every unsavory person on a subway should be game for a beating just because they are standing close to you).  He could even shout warning to see if they would fight or flee.  (I believe this is what he did).  Not my first choice but still OK.  The problem is that the man went out of his way after the threat was gone to still do harm.  That I believe is the problem.  The presence of a person is not a direct threat that warrants force.  ( I don't want to stick with just lethal force).  If there is a safe exit, I believe that should be the first choice over violence.

I ask this question.  Would it matter if the people were in his home at the time and he shot them in the back?  Or even just kicked the hell out of them from behind?

For not being articulate you put things VERY well peregrine.  If I may I would like to answer the previous questions with your response. 

1.  You can't, just the same as you don't know how many, what age, what mental status or level of armament.  Get out and call PD.  If you or family are threatened at that point, fight.

2.  If you safely avoid the confrontation it won't matter.  If you can't safely avoid it then you are back at fighting anyway.

3.  I'm teaching my kids that property that can be bought again is not worth my or ANYONE's life.  Since I don't know all the answers to #1 and 2 then I will withdraw and deal with it.  If I am challenged then I will fight.  My wife is fine with it thanks.

4.  I can only answer for Delaware which is the state of my legal experience.  As LEO and Criminal Justice education in college.

As for the last part, I think that this is where the conversation came from.  Defense of property and the lack of Self Defense/Castle Law support in the tiny state of DE.

I think my point that might have gotten lost is that I have no issue with defense when challenged if you can ARTICULATE (thanks peregrine) the level of threat.  I just don't think the level of threat is the same for property as it is for the person. 

I have an example that might go to court very soon.  This is a man defending his home but taking that extra step.

Two males forcibly enter a home through the front door.  One male resident is home.  Male resident grabs his gun and runs down stairs.  Resident is challenged coming down the stairs.  Resident shoots one intruder and tries for other.  All this is fine.  The problem begins with the second intruder crapping himself and running away.  At this point in time the threat is gone and everything is over.  The resident proceeds to shoot the intruder in the back as he tried to jump over the hedges in the front yard.  This case when from perfectly fine to manslaughter.  The issue is that the threat was gone. 

I completely agree with the idea of personal responsibility.  Its hard to put in writing how much splitting hairs I am doing because I could probably disagree with myself on half the examples that could be brought up.  My only issue is that force, especially lethal force is a notion that many people have absolutley no idea what it really means until it's too late.  I will alway be on the side of the person who protects their own but I can't help to see the trend of people using this same logic for material possions. 

If my conversation gives you insight into a different way of thinking then I guess it's worth the breaking in of your day.  I'm at work right now, waiting for the next response.  Anyway.

My personal opinions have been cultivated by approximately 8 years of law enforcement until I got sick of it.  I worked in a max security prison for 4 years followed by another 4 years of Probation and Parole.  These years also put me in court on average about 2-3 times a week.  One of the things I noticed in all that is that people are people.  From what you would consider the lowest scumbag on earth to the saintly neighbor who you swear doesn't walk but floats.  They are all the same.  You can find good and bad.  I've met some of the nicest people in the world in prison and some of the worst in a Four Seasons.

In no way am I saying that you should not be able to defend yourself.  But without knowing what the whole story is, should you be able to severely injure or even kill a person who is possibly only after your property.  Especially if there is never a direct threat to you or your family.   The problem starts when a person forgets that it's a living thing in front of them and has no idea that that thing in there hand does a lot more than "put a hole in a target". 

I have the unfortunate joy of putting these people back together again as a Paramedic.  Speaking of which.  Time for another call.  I'll be back.

I can't say that it's the best feeling in the world to know that my state won't back me up if I'm in a confrontation on my own turf but I can see the reasoning.  Unfortunately, there had to be a line drawn for those shoot first and ask questions later personalities out there.  More and more you are starting to see burglars, robbers and generally assailing jerk weeds shot in the back because when someone stands up to them they run but the adrenaline gets the better of the defender.  The fact that everyone sues everyone these days, not withstanding, you can't shoot if there is no threat.  I personnally hate firearms and refuse to have one in my home.  That is not to say that I don't have bladed or impact weapons in the house.  But a firearm, especially a pistol is too much power in a small package and I don't want my children near one.  Firearms are instant courage.  Many, many a person becomes Dirty Harry because they CAN.

Is someone's life the same value as your TV??  That's a big jump and some states are putting the hammer down on what is essentially a kind of vigilanteism.

Sounds good but far away.  I'm pretty sure I'd be looking at a 5 hour drive. 

I'm out of the grappling game due to neck injury.  That's how I got interested in the weapons like stick and knife.  Multiple years in law enforcement.  Now I'm a Medic.  Trying to be as realistic as possible.  If you are on the Seminar circuit I might be able to pull off the hike up there.  Unfortunately, I think the wife would put her foot down if I wanted to travel that far for what she would consider "simple" training.  I appreciate the info though.