Slowly but surely things are getting better, except in Ma.

[Pilgrim]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...B?OpenDocument

New Missouri law protects killing of intruders
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
07/04/2007

JEFFERSON CITY — Gov. Matt Blunt signed legislation on Tuesday allowing Missourians to fatally shoot intruders without fear of prosecution or lawsuits.

The measure spells out that people are not required to retreat from an intruder and can use deadly force once the person illegally enters their home, vehicle or other dwelling, including a tent. The bill provides an absolute defense against being charged or sued for using such force.

"It ensures law-abiding Missourians will not be punished when they use force to defend themselves and their family from attacks in their own home or vehicle," Blunt said in a written statement.

Under the old law, deadly force was justified only if people believed it necessary to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury.

The bill generally makes an intruder's presence justification to shoot, or use other force, knowing the intruder could be seriously injured or kill. It does not apply in some circumstances, such as when the intruder is a police officer or when the resident was committing certain felonies, including murder, robbery, kidnapping or sexual crimes.

The new law takes effect Aug. 28.

The bill includes a response to the Virginia Tech slayings. It allows court records ordering people to get mental health treatment, either outpatient or in a facility, to be sent to the national system gun dealers use to complete background checks before making a sale.

Previously, Missouri did not transmit mental health records to the database, adding only those with criminal convictions to the system.

The measure also gets rid of a state law requiring people to obtain permits from their local sheriffs before they can get a handgun.

Blunt signed the bill in Joplin and planned to promote the law in Cape Girardeau and Kirksville.

Later Tuesday, Blunt planned to visit Chesterfield and sign separate legislation intended to protect hunting on flood plains.

That bill creates "hunting heritage protection areas" on 100-year flood plains of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Under the new law, tax increment financing, a redevelopment tool that diverts tax collections to help pay for private projects, generally could not be used in those areas.

The measure still allows the tax tool to be used for flood control and renewable energy plants, such as ethanol and biodiesel. The flood-plain hunting areas also would not include urban areas, ports or land within half a mile of interstate highways.

 

[Gabe]

Except for the part about abolishing the handgun permit requirement, isn't this already the law in MA? On this point, I think we are actually well served by our laws (protection from prosecution and litigation when using deadly force against an illegal intruder).

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Except for the part about abolishing the handgun permit requirement, isn't this already the law in MA? On this point, I think we are actually well served by our laws (protection from prosecution and litigation when using deadly force against an illegal intruder).

Under what rock have you been living?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Except for the part about abolishing the handgun permit requirement, isn't this already the law in MA? On this point, I think we are actually well served by our laws (protection from prosecution and litigation when using deadly force against an illegal intruder).

 

[Fooped]

Except for the part about abolishing the handgun permit requirement, isn't this already the law in MA? On this point, I think we are actually well served by our laws (protection from prosecution and litigation when using deadly force against an illegal intruder).

WHAT? You've simply GOT to be kidding, right?

 

[Gabe]

I was referring to our castle doctrine. No, it doesn't protect us when assailed in our vehicle or (ahem) tent, but it does protect us when our home is invaded. What's the problem?

 

[Scrivener]

It might be news in Missouri - and to some people on this forum - but it's been the law in Massachusetts for about a quarter century.

Read it yourself:

G.L.c. 278, § 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense.

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

G.L.c. 231, § 85U. Death or injury to unlawful dwelling occupants; liability of lawful occupants.

Section 85U. No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

NOTE the limitation to unlawful intruders.

 

[Gabe]

So Rob, Len and Fooped,

No response?

 

[Fooped]

You try to test this law and see what happens.

 

[Gabe]

Why do I bother

 

[Garys]

It might be news in Missouri - and to some people on this forum - but it's been the law in Massachusetts for about a quarter century.

Read it yourself:

G.L.c. 278, § 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense.

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

By only reading the news article it's not possible to tell for sure, but it looks like the MO law is an absolute defense. I've heard the MA law described as an "affirmative defense". Can someone explain if there is a difference between the two and what that difference might mean in the real world?

Thanks,

Gary

 

[Neptune Cat]

acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling

Herein lies the problem. Simply put .... prove it. to a jury of bleeding hearts.
and remember there hearts only bleed for the misunderstood bad guy.

In the Missouri bill assuming the article is correct.

The bill generally makes an intruder's presence justification to shoot, or use other force, knowing the intruder could be seriously injured or kill.

 

[Pilgrim]

The OP was not posted to compare what Mo has vs what MA has. It was a comment to show that some states are making gun rights progress while we are not.

 

[Scrivener]

The OP was not posted to compare what Mo has vs what MA has. It was a comment to show that some states are making gun rights progress while we are not.

If it took 25 years for MO to catch up, it's a poor example of progress. On the other hand, I'll bet MO has no "list" or imitation AWB.

 

[Admin]

If it took 25 years for MO to catch up, it's a poor example of progress. On the other hand, I'll bet MO has no "list" or imitation AWB.

That have some nice rib shacks too!!!!

 

[Len-2A Training]

As Fooped and Neptune Cat so nicely put it, MA law is NOWHERE near as "air tight" as what the article reported (which may or may not be correct)!

Read the HIGHLIGHTED parts of this (copied from Scriv's post):

G.L.c. 278, § 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense.

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

G.L.c. 231, § 85U. Death or injury to unlawful dwelling occupants; liability of lawful occupants.

Section 85U. No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

In MA, you get arrested, charged, and then you get to defend yourself. It's up to you to PROVE that what you did qualifies as an "exemption" as noted in the law.

Good luck!!

Oh yes, you may well win, but you'll probably be looking for a bed at Rosie's Place after paying off your legal fees (after losing your house, savings, job/career, etc.) some 2-4 years after the incident.

In civilized states, they "no bill" you (refuse to prosecute) from the get-go, so your legal fees are minimal after a justifiable shoot.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So Rob, Len and Fooped,

No response?

I was offline for a few hours .

The MA statutes require that the occupant prove that (s)he had a reasonable belief that the intruder was about to inflict harm. This is very much different from the castle statutes in which the fact that someone has broken into your home is, in and of itself, considered sufficient cause for the reasonable person to assume that the person poses an immediate danger of grave bodily harm.

MA can still prosecute even if the illegal entry via breaking and entering is stipulated by all parties - the state merely has to argue that you did not have a "reasonable belief." Ditto for contingency fee counsel in a civil case.

 

[Fooped]

I was offline for a few hours .

The MA statutes require that the occupant prove that (s)he had a reasonable belief that the intruder was about to inflict harm. This is very much different from the castle statutes in which the fact that someone has broken into your home is, in and of itself, considered sufficient cause for the reasonable person to assume that the person poses an immediate danger of grave bodily harm.

MA can still prosecute even if the illegal entry via breaking and entering is stipulated by all parties - the state merely has to argue that you did not have a "reasonable belief." Ditto for contingency fee counsel in a civil case.

Thank you.

 

[9000S]

weapon?

So lets say you see that the intruder has a weapon, I think that would be reasonable enough belief... But yea the fact that the state, AUTOMATICALLY takes the side of the criminal that has committed a felony and defends them (in their corpse like or near it, state) first I think is simply outrageous.

On this same line, a good link http://www.corneredcat.com/Legal/AOJ.aspx

That whole site is good I read it all top to bottom good stuff, also IANAL and nor is the author to the best of my knowledge. In any case great site raises awareness of lots of thing about responsible gun ownership and such.

 

[JonJ]

God forbid anyone has to use deadly force but if you do you do not need to be thinking about MA General Laws or case law. You do what you have to do to protect yourself, your family or another. If you clutter your mind with "Oh, I may be arrested" or "Am I going to be indicted", you will be slow to react and possibly pay the ultimate price.
The key is survival and as long as you can justify what you do and you feel righteous in what you've done, the hell with all the other BS.

 

[RKG]

Except for the part about abolishing the handgun permit requirement, isn't this already the law in MA? On this point, I think we are actually well served by our laws (protection from prosecution and litigation when using deadly force against an illegal intruder).

No, I do not believe so. The so-called "Castle Law" removes the obligation to retreat if possible from one's own home, but does not eliminate the prerequisite objectively reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury as a prerequisite to the use of deadly force for self-defense, and self-defense remains an affirmative defense in a criminal prosecution.