Iowa: Stand Your Ground Legislation Passes in the House Public Safety Committee

[shadowrider]

--snip--

As amended, this important legislation would remove a persons “duty to retreat” from an attacker, allowing law-abiding citizens to stand their ground and protect themselves or their family anywhere they are lawfully present. It would create a presumption that an individual who unlawfully or forcefully enters your dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle is there to cause serious bodily injury or death, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person. This same presumption would apply for an attacker trying to remove you or another person from the specified locations.

HF 7 also would expressly allow an individual to use force, including deadly force, to prevent a violent felony. And it would enhance the protections against criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits when justifiable force is used.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6343

[jpak]

1. So if someone open carries a gun & someone feels intimidated by them, they can just start shooting?

judge, jury and executioner?

fucking insanity

yup

[GreenStormCloud]

2. No. The same self defense rules as always apply.

The threat has to be credible. The only change is that you don't have to retreat if you are there legally. Numerous states have that law and it hasn't been a problem in any of them, despite the overblown worries of antis such as yourself.

If you are in your residence and someone breaks in unlawfully you can shoot without warning.

[jpak]

3. Who determines "credible"? What statutes define "credible"? There are none - insanity

No problem?

What about that asshole in Texas that shot those 2 guys because he "thought" they were burglars?

Legalized murder

yup

[GreenStormCloud]

5. I used the word "credible" as a shorthand for the standard legal definition.

For the shooting to be self-defense the defender must show that the attacker had:

MEANS, the attacker had the ability inflicting death or grievous bodily harm

OPPORTUNITY The attacker had an immediate chance to inflict death or grievous bodily harm

MOTIVE The attacker had a desire to inflict death or grievous bodily harm

DEMONSTRATION OF INTENT The attacker did something to indicate that a violent attack was imminent.

All of the above is subject to the "reasonable man" standard. The District Attorney, Judge, Grand Jury, and possible a regular jury decide if it was reasonable.

BTW - Horn did not merely think the two guys were burglars. He observed them in the act.

[speltwon]

9. Actually no

I've testified in shooting inquests btw and looked at the law too. The defender need not show (as one example) motive. He certainly CAN try to demonstrate it existed, but the reality is that a victim of violence often has no knowledge of motive, and in many crimes there is no motive known even to investigators after the fact, let alone a person at the scene responding to an imminent deadly force situation.

You said he MUST show motive. That's simply ridiculous.

I suggest this idea that motive is an element that must be proved I suggest may be a side-effect of "Law and Order" syndrome. It's a result of too much tv and not enough law.

With that said, Castle Doctrine laws are a good thing imo. In some state under the common law or past case law they are largely redundant, in others far more necessary but they are certainly generally a good thing.

I like my state's law that says
1) Self defense must be DISproved by the state, not proved by the defendant
2) IF a defendant is found not guilty, the jury is tasked with saying whether they thought the case WAS in fact self defense
3) If 2 is the case, then the state must pay lawyer fees for the defendant and lost wages.

This disincentivizes prosecuting people with legit self defense claims and puts the burden where it belongs - on the state.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. OK. Thanks for the post.

You are right. It can be real hard to guess the motive if you have just kiilled your attacker.

[speltwon]

11. Thx. otoh to quote Dirty Harry on intent

Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.
The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?
Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!

The Mayor: He's got a point.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. It is a judgment call that can be second guessed, and if the people doing it are anti rights

the person defending themselves can find the full weight of the state brought to bear against them. This kills the "you should have retreated" meme and restricts the evaluation to "was there a credible threat".

The other key part about many such laws is that if there is no prosecution there can be no civil recovery. Very important point.

[jpak]

12. So after the Monday Morning QBs decide on what is 'credible" the dead victims get ther lives back?

Maybe the NRA can chant GOP Gun Luv Hymns to the Holy 2A and raise them up.

Sorry that won't work

Dead is dead

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. You mean perps, not victims

I someone is killed while illegally attacking someone else, they are a perp not a victim.

[PavePusher]

8. Being intentionally disingenuous on the internet is a very old game...

and you suck at it.

[sharesunited]

4. Emboldened with a gun and an attitude is no way to go through life son.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Neither is being anti working man and anti civil rights