Gunpowder justice, American style: burglar dies by gun shot.
Makes me think of the castle doctrine. It's not in New Hampshire? I wish it would be, for the sake of simplicity and putting potential criminals on notice. The burden should never be on the innocent victim when he or she has a reasonable fear for their person or loved ones.
Well, it's been debated in the NH House, including what attendees think was disingenuous statements by Anne Rice representing the state's attoney general's office. Is she the head of the all-female Laconia law firm? And a police representative spoke out against it. And that waste of ACLU space, Claire Ebel, spoke out against "testosterone" and "young men." (She refused to lift a finger when I was persecuted at UNH in 1991 for something I said, but that's for another day. I was found guilty of sexual harassment for the throw-away line to a scandalously dressed co-ed, "Gee, may I touch your leg?" [No, I didn't touch it or attempt to do so.] Defending myself at pretrial hearings at the Stafford Country Courthouse in front of Judge Joseph P. Nadeau, I made the university furiously backpedal.)
These statements were later brilliantly shot down. Here Penny Dean is seen on video doing so. G-d, she makes such good points. Do yourself a favor and listen to it. It's just seven minutes long.
Here in the Granite State we have to be prepared to retreat from places where we have a legal right to be, whenever possible of course. Luckily that doesn't have to be in one's home or "its cutilage," whatever that means, according to Part III, A.
Why did I have to read the fine print to figure that out? What about somewhere else? I have to retreat from an aggressor?
Here's what we've got as law. But I don't like it much. We can meet non-deadly force with non-deadly force, and deadly force with deadly force. My thought is that we shouldn't be required to wait to find out. Assuming the worst of an attacker is prudential family security, whether I'm at home or in the car or out on the sidewalk.
Pulling out a gun at men who are about to attack at a parking lot, for example, would I guess be against the law, though it's an effective and proven method of deterring crime. NH's Massad Ayoub writes about doing just that in his book In the Gravest Extreme.
The horrific home invasion and murder in Mont Vernon caused a bill to be lodged to expand NH's feeble list of capital crimes offenses. Why isn't a murderous home invasion on the list? I think it should be, but ultimately it was suppressed on party vote. I guess there's a panel looking at the possibility of expanding the death penalty. They're sure taking their sweet time.
We aren't allowed to stand our ground from a place we have a legal right to be. That doesn't seem to be very American. It's about self-defense, man.
Come on, NH, pass the law that's good enough for all those other states like Michigan, Tennessee, and Florida, where it began when a guy was purposively run down when walking.
Expand to read NH's law about defending the person:
Makes me think of the castle doctrine. It's not in New Hampshire? I wish it would be, for the sake of simplicity and putting potential criminals on notice. The burden should never be on the innocent victim when he or she has a reasonable fear for their person or loved ones.
Well, it's been debated in the NH House, including what attendees think was disingenuous statements by Anne Rice representing the state's attoney general's office. Is she the head of the all-female Laconia law firm? And a police representative spoke out against it. And that waste of ACLU space, Claire Ebel, spoke out against "testosterone" and "young men." (She refused to lift a finger when I was persecuted at UNH in 1991 for something I said, but that's for another day. I was found guilty of sexual harassment for the throw-away line to a scandalously dressed co-ed, "Gee, may I touch your leg?" [No, I didn't touch it or attempt to do so.] Defending myself at pretrial hearings at the Stafford Country Courthouse in front of Judge Joseph P. Nadeau, I made the university furiously backpedal.)
These statements were later brilliantly shot down. Here Penny Dean is seen on video doing so. G-d, she makes such good points. Do yourself a favor and listen to it. It's just seven minutes long.
Here in the Granite State we have to be prepared to retreat from places where we have a legal right to be, whenever possible of course. Luckily that doesn't have to be in one's home or "its cutilage," whatever that means, according to Part III, A.
Why did I have to read the fine print to figure that out? What about somewhere else? I have to retreat from an aggressor?
Here's what we've got as law. But I don't like it much. We can meet non-deadly force with non-deadly force, and deadly force with deadly force. My thought is that we shouldn't be required to wait to find out. Assuming the worst of an attacker is prudential family security, whether I'm at home or in the car or out on the sidewalk.
Pulling out a gun at men who are about to attack at a parking lot, for example, would I guess be against the law, though it's an effective and proven method of deterring crime. NH's Massad Ayoub writes about doing just that in his book In the Gravest Extreme.
The horrific home invasion and murder in Mont Vernon caused a bill to be lodged to expand NH's feeble list of capital crimes offenses. Why isn't a murderous home invasion on the list? I think it should be, but ultimately it was suppressed on party vote. I guess there's a panel looking at the possibility of expanding the death penalty. They're sure taking their sweet time.
We aren't allowed to stand our ground from a place we have a legal right to be. That doesn't seem to be very American. It's about self-defense, man.
Come on, NH, pass the law that's good enough for all those other states like Michigan, Tennessee, and Florida, where it began when a guy was purposively run down when walking.
Expand to read NH's law about defending the person:
627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. -
I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.
III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter.
(d) If he is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting him at his direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, he need not retreat.
I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.
III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter.
(d) If he is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting him at his direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, he need not retreat.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 1981, 347:1, 2, eff. Aug. 16, 1981.
Leave a comment