dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
You could actually be labeled the initial aggressor in this situation, believe it or not.
Attorney: NY's 'Castle Doctrine' allows homeowners to use deadly force against intruder
- Thread starter Edwardteach72
- Start date
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Unlikely. You clearly did not invite them into your house and they entered by force.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
This right here is correct since it’s the law in NYS. Also as stated no duty to retreat inside your home or if you are an invited guest inside some one else’s home.Article 35 NY Penal Law - Defense of Justification | NY Laws
Justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal whenypdcrime.com
S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or
she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate
what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.
Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly
physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be
necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to
be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a
criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of
physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she
reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly
physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in
the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in
subdivision three.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.
4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following
meanings:
(a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the meanings
prescribed in section 140.00;
(b) Persons "licensed or privileged" to be in buildings or upon other
premises include, but are not limited to:
(i) police officers or peace officers acting in the performance of
their duties; and
(ii) security personnel or employees of nuclear powered electric
generating facilities located within the state who are employed as part
of any security plan approved by the federal operating license agencies
acting in the performance of their duties at such generating facilities.
For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "nuclear powered electric
generating facility" shall mean a facility that generates electricity
using nuclear power for sale, directly or indirectly, to the public,
including the land upon which the facility is located and the safety and
security zones as defined under federal regulations.
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Remember Dr Barks. B is for burglary. Remember a burglary is an occupied dwelling and not a vacant or closed business.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
As stated likely no. NYS has a big bad scary definition. I’d shoot someone through my door as they were kicking it in since that’s attempted burglary. In my case if someone is down stairs since we all sleep upstairs I will call the police and warn said intruder while on the phone with the police that I am armed, police are on the way, and do not come upstairs or I will take it as a direct threat to my life. Of course this is if I have time. If they come up I will take action to neutralize the threat.
C3D
.338 Win Mag
As posted above, it is 100% incorrect to say there is never duty to retreat if you are an invited guest inside someone else’s home. Just plain wrong. That rule only applies in your own dwelling.
I always love that lie.bUt NeW yOrK iS A dUtY To rEtReAt sTatE
Attorney: NY's 'Castle Doctrine' allows homeowners to use deadly force against intruder
The incident has raised questions about what a New York homeowner's legal rights are if an intruder breaks inlongisland.news12.com
BMF JK
.44 mag
A home invasion is seriously some next level shit ! Unlike a burglary of an empty home an invasion is a much more aggressive act . More than likely the intruder is armed and have intentions to do some violent shit . You would rightfully be in fear for your life and you should be .
I don't understand any of that. I get completely lost in the "ifs" and "excepts"Article 35 NY Penal Law - Defense of Justification | NY Laws
Justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when
S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or
she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate
what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.
Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly
physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be
necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to
be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a
criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of
physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she
reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly
physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in
the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in
subdivision three.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.
4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following
meanings:
(a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the meanings
prescribed in section 140.00;
(b) Persons "licensed or privileged" to be in buildings or upon other
premises include, but are not limited to:
(i) police officers or peace officers acting in the performance of
their duties; and
(ii) security personnel or employees of nuclear powered electric
generating facilities located within the state who are employed as part
of any security plan approved by the federal operating license agencies
acting in the performance of their duties at such generating facilities.
For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "nuclear powered electric
generating facility" shall mean a facility that generates electricity
using nuclear power for sale, directly or indirectly, to the public,
including the land upon which the facility is located and the safety and
security zones as defined under federal regulations.
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Make sure your story is the only story.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Where does it say that? Only mine and my wife’s name is on the deed what if my son shoots some one? What if I’m away and my mother-in-law is staying at my house?
Also read this from article 35 and let me know why you think guests to homes aren’t covered?
If you think I’m wrong that’s fine, but not as I understand it.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.
ManualF150
.308 Win
I know of two people that blasted intruders right here in my local area in the past few years.
Process:
1. Get handcuffed and slapped into a police car.
2. Spend a night or two in jail.
3. Your attorney asks you what happened, you tell them, they relay it to a DA.
4. If all checks out, you are released.
5. Weapons and anything else still get held until a formal trial.
6. If the intruder fit the castle doctrine to the court, then you're all set, you get your weapons back.
Yes, simplistic in words, in reality no. There are also things I'm not including here, along with an extended timeline.
Personally, if I can find a way to escape, I would. I don't feel like dealing with the crap mentioned above... They can have any of the crap in my house, that's why I got top notch insurance. Soon as they lay a finger on me or use a weapon against me while I'm in my house, they're done.
Process:
1. Get handcuffed and slapped into a police car.
2. Spend a night or two in jail.
3. Your attorney asks you what happened, you tell them, they relay it to a DA.
4. If all checks out, you are released.
5. Weapons and anything else still get held until a formal trial.
6. If the intruder fit the castle doctrine to the court, then you're all set, you get your weapons back.
Yes, simplistic in words, in reality no. There are also things I'm not including here, along with an extended timeline.
Personally, if I can find a way to escape, I would. I don't feel like dealing with the crap mentioned above... They can have any of the crap in my house, that's why I got top notch insurance. Soon as they lay a finger on me or use a weapon against me while I'm in my house, they're done.
C3D
.338 Win Mag
See the post I made on the previous page, it walks through the misconceptions about this issue.
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
I've had this argument with gun owners and actual cops who never actually read penal 35. Same rule applies to homes or hotel rooms.
OwnTheRide
.223 Rem
Right. They were here for my kitchen cutlery. That's obvious, because it's the very first thing they stole!
spat
.700 Nitro Express
You are legally allowed to "repel boarders" in such a scenerio.
If you ever have to use deadly force expect to spend a lot of time and money defending it. If you get lucky with a decent DA that recognizes your right without a fight, consider it a stroke of luck.
Even with a good DA it will cost you thousands and many hours. No matter how justified your actions your second phone call should be your lawyer, and he'll start billing the minute he picks up the phone.
But, when you consider the alternative consequences there's really not much choice.
OwnTheRide
.223 Rem
Sure, but houses often contain things much more important than possessions. Such as wives and children. Escape isn't an easy option once they're added to the equation.
That said, anyone intruding into your house deserves to take the room temperature challenge.
Glenn B
.308 Win
As I understand it, and it may have change din the 3 years or so since I last received training relative to this law, you do not need to attempt to retreat or to retreat if such an attempt would likely lead to you or another innocent being seriously harmed or killed.
That has not changed