PDA

View Full Version : Castle Doctrine in the Natural State


wbb
19th April 2009, 18:58
"Stand Your Ground" Law

Some info about the defeat of the castle doctrine in Arkansas, from the www.arkansascca.org turns out we did'nt need it anyway. Ex-Governor Mike Huckabee did support the castle doctrine but was out of office before it was up for a vote. : Two years ago, the Stand Your Ground bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Mike Burris and supported by ARCCA and many others. This bill did not pass, and in hindsight, it is very good that it did not. ARCCA has spent the past two years in exhaustive research on the Castle Doctine laws and cases here in Arkansas, and have come to the unequivocal conclusion that our current laws are outstanding and require no changes. We have spoken with dozens of Arkansas prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, and looked at the bulk of case law to identify any vicious prosecutions criminalizing individuals claiming self-defense. The results are explained below...

The Castle Doctrine has two parts, the ability to defend yourself inside your home (Castle Doctrine) and the ability to defend yourself outside your home (Stand Your Ground). Arkansas criminal statute 5-2-620 codifies our Castle Doctrine and it's very straightforward and easy to read...after doing so you will see that it offers tremendous protection and gives an unprecedented benefit-of-the-doubt to the home owner. It speaks for itself and there is no other state in the union that can boast a better Castle Doctrine than Arkansas.

The Stand Your Ground protection is primarily codified in Arkansas criminal statute 5-2-607. Much of the push two years ago was to remove the duty to retreat of a citizen who is attacked. Let us first look at the exact duty retreat requirement in this statute. Our duty to retreat has two very important caveats. The first is that the individual must know that he can retreat, and the second is that he must know he can retreat with complete safety... not some or a predominate amount of, but complete safety. These two caveats provide exceptional legal protection for the individual using deadly force in their self-defense because the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person claiming self defense knew he could retreat and knew he could retreat with complete safety. This is almost an unsurmountable burden for the prosecution to overcome, and we have seen this in fact played out in the courts with few cases where individuals were found guilty for a failure to retreat. The few cases that exist are primarily with gang members killing each other...no loss there.

After this thorough review, ARCCA feels very confident that our laws and case law supports a phenomenal protection for individuals using self-defense for themselves and others and feels that any changes to the current laws (that have been on the books for over thirty years) would undermine this protection.



blog | about | bylaws | legistature | license | officers | calendar | stand your ground | insurance | donate | get involved | links | contact us | join

©2007, Arkansas Concealed Carry Association, All Rights Reserved

Rich-D
20th April 2009, 04:33
It appears that the people of Arkansas are better served with the law that has been on the books for 30 years.

Rich

Rekladan
20th April 2009, 08:59
That's the most straightforward legal bit of common sense I've heard in a long time...

wbb
20th April 2009, 21:11
We did give the world Bill and Hillary, which I sincerly apologize for.

Rekladan
21st April 2009, 02:35
Nobody's perfect...

Rich-D
21st April 2009, 02:56
Rekladan, Is your Avatar in support of the Castle Doctrine! :)

Rich

heidy
18th March 2010, 02:28
This is a revealing site, which have the most up-to-date news and links. The perks are endless of this handy site. Thanks for giving out this info; it’s really precious for me.

Aguila Blanca
18th March 2010, 10:21
It is refreshing to read about laws that make sense. While I am a bit ambivalent about the law telling me I have any duty whatsoever to retreat in the face of an assault, I can understand that some people hold the lives of even pond scum in some regard. Adding the proviso that retreat is required only when it can be accomplished in COMPLETE safety is an acceptable compromise, IMHO. Not quite perfect, but functionally tolerable.

Unfortunately, some states that require retreat don't have any such condition, or they may say something about "safety" but not "complete safety."

This points out (yet again) how important it is to read and understand the laws of the jurisdiction in which you find yourself.

Dial 1911 for Help
18th March 2010, 12:57
And not just that you can retreat in complete safety, but that you KNEW you could. Seems like a hard case for a prosecutor. How's he supposed to prove what you knew or didn't know. "Should have known" doesn't seem to apply.

DoubleTap45
18th March 2010, 21:43
One scenario that seems like a Catch-22 nightmare would be where some single gun owner finds himself in a situation where retreat is not feasible such as a blind alley or other restricted area.

Enter a group of thugs. Even if unarmed they can easily overpower and beat the man to death. If he does NOT draw they will kill him. If he DOES they will run to the cops and say he threatened them for no reason. An anti-gun DA will then tell the jury that HE introduced a deadly weapon for no reason.

In more sensible Western States I suppose he'd be in fair shape but in any large urban centers where they may have CCW but the authorities resent that fact it may go against you. Does anyone know of any real world cases to draw on?

-Ray

DoubleTap45
18th March 2010, 21:45
Forgot one other aspect. If he fails to draw and they beat him senseless they will TAKE his gun. Then some DA will try to trace the gun to HIM and hold him responsible the any crimes the thugs commit with the gun. Not to sound pessimistic but I can see it happening.

-Ray

Dial 1911 for Help
19th March 2010, 18:06
An anti-gun DA will then tell the jury that HE introduced a deadly weapon for no reason.

Thuggish looking guys follow a guy into a dangerous spot with no escape, they have him outnumbered, and he pulls a gun but doesn't fire unless they escalate further? I'd like to see your DA get an indictment out of any grand jury I was on.

Patriotic
20th March 2010, 09:21
Aah yes, Dial 1911, the victim will be charged with brandishing a weapon and escalating the situation. The thugs will be in the clear saying they only wanted to ask the victim to have a beer with them. The hand picked bleeding heart, anti-gun jury will suggest the victim be sentenced to death. Such a Liberal society we live in today.

DoubleTap45
20th March 2010, 10:39
NOT so farfetched considering the treatment of crime resisters in England. Deported for defending herself with a 1" penknife from a rapist? The rapist given immunity in order to testify against HER? This is a George Soros/IANSA dream.

-Ray

Dial 1911 for Help
20th March 2010, 12:25
Aah yes, Dial 1911, the victim will be charged with brandishing a weapon and escalating the situation. The thugs will be in the clear saying they only wanted to ask the victim to have a beer with them. The hand picked bleeding heart, anti-gun jury will suggest the victim be sentenced to death. Such a Liberal society we live in today.
Dude, you need to learn how to act more like a dumbed down goobermint-sucking drone during jury or grand jury selection! I got selected last time. ;-)

And don't forget, a grand jury in many jurisdictions can hand down any indictments it wants, not just the ones the state comes in to ask for. So not only could they no bill the guy with the gun, they could indict the DA for violating his civil rights under color of authority.

Rekladan
1st April 2010, 10:58
Rekladan, Is your Avatar in support of the Castle Doctrine!Don't know how I missed this for so long!

Well, I didn't know what a castle doctrine was when I chose it, so I'd be lying if I said yes!