Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 7/23/2013 4:23:15 AM EST
Boys, we need to get back on the defense! They are at it again already!!

http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Speaker-wants-to-review-Conn-self-defense-laws-4679657.php

About 20 clergy members gathered at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on Monday to urge action in the wake of the Florida shooting, arguing that the Florida shooting shows racism still exists in the U.S. and steps need to be taken to ensure the lives of young black men are valued in society.
"Trayvon Martin was a child of God and did not have to die," said Rev. Anthony Bennett ofMount Aery Baptist Church in Bridgeport.
A rally and march was held Monday evening in Hartford by Mothers United Against Violence and various community leaders. The event drew about 300 people and was described as a march against injustice and racism.
Link Posted: 7/23/2013 4:34:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By Milspec99:
Boys, we need to get back on the defense! They are at it again already!!

http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Speaker-wants-to-review-Conn-self-defense-laws-4679657.php

About 20 clergy members gathered at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on Monday to urge action in the wake of the Florida shooting, arguing that the Florida shooting shows racism still exists in the U.S. and steps need to be taken to ensure the lives of young black men are valued in society.
"Trayvon Martin was a child of God and did not have to die," said Rev. Anthony Bennett ofMount Aery Baptist Church in Bridgeport.
A rally and march was held Monday evening in Hartford by Mothers United Against Violence and various community leaders. The event drew about 300 people and was described as a march against injustice and racism.
View Quote

Link made hot.
Link Posted: 7/23/2013 5:00:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By Milspec99:
Boys, we need to get back on the defense! They are at it again already!!

http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Speaker-wants-to-review-Conn-self-defense-laws-4679657.php

About 20 clergy members gathered at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on Monday to urge action in the wake of the Florida shooting, arguing that the Florida shooting shows racism still exists in the U.S. and steps need to be taken to ensure the lives of young black men are valued in society.
"Trayvon Martin was a child of God and did not have to die," said Rev. Anthony Bennett ofMount Aery Baptist Church in Bridgeport.
A rally and march was held Monday evening in Hartford by Mothers United Against Violence and various community leaders. The event drew about 300 people and was described as a march against injustice and racism.
View Quote


Unless Malloy pulls another "it's an emergency!" stunt again, whatever additional abominations the legislators might come up with in response to this will necessarily need to go through the public safety committee, which means there will be a public hearing where we can have our say. In the meantime, protests in front of the Capitol building are a dime a dozen so I don't know why it's worth our time picking a fight with the latest bunch of idiots picketing over the latest fashionable crisis.

Personally I don't think it will go anywhere, namely. because liberals have the attention span of a moth and this time next month the media will be telling them to get stirred up over some whole other issue.

Link Posted: 7/23/2013 6:12:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 6:28:31 AM EST by gardenWeasel]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:

Unless Malloy pulls another "it's an emergency!" stunt again, whatever additional abominations the legislators might come up with in response to this will necessarily need to go through the public safety committee, which means there will be a public hearing where we can have our say.
View Quote


Well, not necessarily
The amendments that banned .22s went through public safety looking like this:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-01094-R00-SB.htm
Referred to Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY


Introduced by:


(PS)


AN ACT CONCERNING EMERGENCY SERVICES AND PUBLIC PROTECTION.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. Subsection (b) of section 19a-491c of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(b) (1) On or before July 1, 2012, the Department of Public Health shall create and implement a criminal history and patient abuse background search program, within available appropriations, in order to facilitate the performance, processing and analysis of the criminal history and patient abuse background search of individuals who have direct access.

(2) The Department of Public Health shall develop a plan to implement the criminal history and patient abuse background search program, in accordance with this section. In developing such plan, the department shall (A) consult with the Commissioners of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Developmental Services, Mental Health and Addiction Services, Social Services and Consumer Protection, or their designees, the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, or a designee, the chairperson for the Board of Pardons and Paroles, or a designee, a representative of each category of long-term care facility and representatives from any other agency or organization the Commissioner of Public Health deems appropriate, (B) evaluate factors including, but not limited to, the administrative and fiscal impact of components of the program on state agencies and long-term care facilities, background check procedures currently used by long-term care facilities, federal requirements pursuant to Section 6201 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111-148, as amended from time to time, and the effect of full and provisional pardons on employment, and (C) outline (i) an integrated process with the Department of [Public Safety] Emergency Services and Public Protection to cross-check and periodically update criminal information collected in criminal databases, (ii) a process by which individuals with disqualifying offenses can apply for a waiver, and (iii) the structure of an Internet-based portal to streamline the criminal history and patient abuse background search program. The Department of Public Health shall submit such plan, including a recommendation as to whether homemaker-companion agencies should be included in the scope of the background search program, to the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to aging, appropriations and the budgets of state agencies, and public health, in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a, not later than February 1, 2012.

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:

Section 1

from passage

19a-491c(b)


Nothing about firearms in that

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Public+Act&bill_num=220&which_year=2013&SUBMIT1.x=9&SUBMIT1.y=13


6/18/2013Signed by the Governor
6/14/2013Transmitted by Secretary of the State to Governor
6/13/2013Transmitted to the Secretary of State
6/11/2013(LCO)Public Act 13-220
6/3/2013In Concurrence
6/3/2013House Passed as Amended by Senate Amendment Schedule A,B
6/3/2013House Adopted Senate Amendment Schedule B
6/3/2013House Adopted Senate Amendment Schedule A
6/3/2013Rules Suspended
6/3/2013House Calendar Number 683
6/3/2013Favorable Report, Tabled for the Calendar, House
6/3/2013Transmitted Pursuant To Joint Rule 17
6/3/2013Senate Passed as Amended by Senate Amendment Schedule A,B
6/3/2013Senate Rejected Senate Amendment Schedule C 8608
6/3/2013Senate Adopted Senate Amendment Schedule B 8619
6/3/2013Senate Adopted Senate Amendment Schedule A 8513
4/3/2013(LCO)File Number 319
4/3/2013Senate Calendar Number 244
4/3/2013Favorable Report, Tabled for the Calendar, Senate
4/3/2013(LCO)Reported Out of Legislative Commissioners' Office
3/26/2013(LCO)Referred to Office of Legislative Research and Office of Fiscal Analysis 04/02/13 5:00 PM
3/21/2013(LCO)Filed with Legislative Commissioners' Office
3/21/2013(PS)Joint Favorable
3/14/2013Public Hearing 03/18
3/7/2013Referred to Joint Committee on Public Safety and Security



The new bans were added to a bill that had nothing to do with banning firearms about three months after the public hearing .


TL;DR


It looks like An act concerning emergency services and public protection was changed to An act concerning revisions to the gun violence prevention and children's safety act after the original bill passed public safety.
Link Posted: 7/23/2013 6:23:07 AM EST
House Speaker Brendan Sharkey wants to take a closer look at the state's existing self-defense laws to make sure that a situation like the deadly shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin can't happen in Connecticut.
View Quote


So they want to make sure that no one can defend themselves against a violent attacker? Makes perfect fucking sense.

Link Posted: 7/23/2013 6:52:20 AM EST
Right. If you are armed, you should try your best to run away.

If you are not armed, and your attacker is, the mag limit will give you plenty of time to tackle him during the reload.
Link Posted: 7/23/2013 7:04:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 7:05:47 AM EST by emsjeep]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BYork_Infantry:


So they want to make sure that no one can defend themselves against a violent attacker? Makes perfect fucking sense.

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/5f1/c9a/ca5/resized/rod-serling-meme-generator-it-makes-perfect-sense-in-the-twilight-zone-495e9a.jpg
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BYork_Infantry:
House Speaker Brendan Sharkey wants to take a closer look at the state's existing self-defense laws to make sure that a situation like the deadly shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin can't happen in Connecticut.


So they want to make sure that no one can defend themselves against a violent attacker? Makes perfect fucking sense.

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/5f1/c9a/ca5/resized/rod-serling-meme-generator-it-makes-perfect-sense-in-the-twilight-zone-495e9a.jpg

Sounds great when you or your family members are the violent attackers. And it makes sense if you believe that the violent attackers really would probably never kill their victims or that it's better to have a seriously injured innocent victim than a dead bad guy.


I say, let it burn. If they take away basic self-defense we'll be in line for a nice swift back-swing.
Link Posted: 7/23/2013 7:53:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 7:54:18 AM EST by cjt1972]
It is my understanding of CT law, and the lawyer types here, correct me if I'm wrong, that CT does not have a "stand your ground law", only a "castle doctrine", which means you can use deadly force inside of your home or business. For circumstances outside the home, I believe it is in the statues that you have a duty to retreat first and use deadly force only after all other options have been exhausted, which you should probably do anyway.

OK lawyers, flame suit on!

Having said the above, what more could they take away?
Link Posted: 7/23/2013 9:03:34 AM EST
Just when you think the pandering could get any worse or the media whoring couldn't get worse, a CT politician once again sinks to new lows. One again a CT politician becomes an embarrassment.

The Office of Legal Research put out a document last year about SYG, Castle and CT.

The Castle Doctrine And Stand-your-Ground Law 2012-R-0172

Location: CRIMINAL LAW;
Scope: Connecticut laws/regulations; Other States laws/regulations; Court Cases;
OLR Research Report

April 24, 2012

2012-R-0172

THE CASTLE DOCTRINE AND STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAW

By: Mark Randall, Research Fellow

Hendrik DeBoer, Research Fellow

This report provides background information on the Castle Doctrine and stand-your-ground laws.

SUMMARY

The Castle Doctrine and “stand-your-ground” laws are affirmative defenses for individuals charged with criminal homicide. The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that an individual has no duty to retreat when in his or her home, or “castle,” and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend his or her property, person, or another. Outside of the “castle,” however, an individual has a duty to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force. Stand-your-ground laws, by comparison, remove the common law requirement to retreat outside of one's “castle,” allowing an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat. Deadly force is reasonable under stand-your-ground laws in certain circumstances, such as imminent great bodily harm or death.

Forty-six states, including Connecticut, have incorporated the Castle Doctrine into law. Connecticut law justifies the use of reasonable physical force, including deadly force, in defense of premises. Connecticut courts have recognized the common law privilege to challenge an unlawful entry into one's home, to the extent that a person's conduct does not rise to the level of a crime. Deadly force is justified in defense of one's property by a person who is privileged to be on the premises and who reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent an attempt by the criminal trespasser to commit any crime of violence.

Twenty states have stand-your-ground laws. Generally, these laws allow an individual to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first if the individual (1) has a legal right to be at the location and (2) is not engaged in an unlawful activity. Connecticut does not have a stand-your-ground law. Connecticut law specifically requires an individual to retreat, if able to do so, before using reasonable force.

CASTLE DOCTRINE

The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and allows such a person in certain circumstances, to attack an intruder instead of retreating. Typically, deadly force is considered justified homicide only in cases when the actor reasonably feared imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to oneself or another. The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but is a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states. Forty-six states, including Connecticut, have incorporated the Castle Doctrine into law.

Connecticut

The Castle Doctrine is incorporated into Connecticut law governing the use of physical force in defense of premises. This law states that a person who possesses or controls a premises, or is licensed or privileged to be on such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or stop someone from criminally trespassing. Deadly force is reasonable only (1) to defend oneself or another; (2) when one reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any violent crime; or (3) to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary and only to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his or her dwelling or place of work (CGS § 53a-20).

In the last five years, two bills have been introduced seeking to expand the Castle Doctrine, but none have made it past the Judiciary Committee.

Connecticut courts have recognized the common law privilege to challenge an unlawful entry into one's home, to the extent that a person's conduct does not rise to the level of a crime (State v. Brocuglio, 264 Conn. 778, 794 (2003)). In finding for the defendants in homicide cases, courts have interpreted CGS §53a-20 as permitting the use of deadly force by a person who is privileged to be on the premises and who “reasonably believes [such force] is necessary to prevent an attempt by the [criminal] trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence” (State v. Garrison, 203 Conn. 466, 472, (1987)).

STAND-YOUR-GROUND

Stand-your-ground laws allow someone to use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. Twenty states, excluding Connecticut, have stand-your-ground laws. Generally, these laws require the person to (1) have a legal right to be at the location and (2) not be engaged in an unlawful activity.

Connecticut

Connecticut does not have a stand-your-ground law, but instead requires an individual to retreat when able to do so. Under state law, the use of deadly force that might otherwise have been justifiable is not warranted if someone “knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety...by retreating...” (CGS § 53a-19(b)); State v. Garrison, 203 Conn. 466, 472, (1987)). The state's Castle Doctrine law is an exception to this requirement to retreat. In 2007, a bill was introduced to enact stand-your-ground legislation, but did not pass the Judiciary Committee.

Florida

Florida's stand-your-ground law has come into the national spotlight following the shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman. Florida law states that a person has the right to stand his or her ground if he or she (1) reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm, (2) is not engaged in an unlawful activity and (3) is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be (FSA § 776.013(3)).

Florida courts have interpreted the legislature's creation of a stand-your-ground law as creating an affirmative defense, expanding the right of self-defense and abolishing the common law “duty to retreat” when a person uses deadly force in self-defense to prevent imminent great bodily harm or death. But in cases where a defendant is engaged in an unlawful activity or was in a place where he did not have a right to be at the time he was attacked, the common law duty to retreat still applies (Dorsey v. State, 74 So.3d 521 (2011)).

MR:dy
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/23/2013 9:15:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 9:19:06 AM EST by GoodOlDave]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gardenWeasel:


Well, not necessarily
The amendments that banned .22s went through public safety looking like this:
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gardenWeasel:
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:

Unless Malloy pulls another "it's an emergency!" stunt again, whatever additional abominations the legislators might come up with in response to this will necessarily need to go through the public safety committee, which means there will be a public hearing where we can have our say.


Well, not necessarily
The amendments that banned .22s went through public safety looking like this:


Not sure if that's really the same thing. What they wound up doing was changing something that was already a law. That's what an amendment is. For them to make it illegal for anyone to shoot an attacker if he's black...or whatever the hell it is these lemmings are rooting for...they will either need to write a whole new law to make it illegal for anyone to shoot an attacker if he's black, or, find something where making it illegal for anyone to shoot an attacker if he's black would be a reasonable amendment.

Then there's the other reason why this won't go anywhere. Making it illegal to shoot an attacker if he's black will gain the black vote but it will disenfranchise the white and Hispanic vote. Zimmerman 's family came from Peru so we can pretty well guess which side the Hispanic vote is taking.
Link Posted: 7/23/2013 2:13:48 PM EST
We need to have the first "stand and take it" law. Let's be the first state to require you to stay and let the criminal finish what he started. This way all criminals can finish what they accomplish and become more proficient. Also shouldn't criminals be allowed large capacity magazines? They need them because their profession requires them to be well armed.

Link Posted: 7/23/2013 6:27:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By edgephoto:
We need to have the first "stand and take it" law. Let's be the first state to require you to stay and let the criminal finish what he started. This way all criminals can finish what they accomplish and become more proficient. Also shouldn't criminals be allowed large capacity magazines? They need them because their profession requires them to be well armed.

View Quote


they should be exempt from federal NFA laws too; criminals should be allowed to legally buy/sell/trade machine guns of any caliber with other criminals, because in a shootout there are way more cops than criminals and the criminals need to be able to fire more bullets per second to keep up with the incoming cop fire. this also would help them, because if it became legal, they would no longer be criminals, they would be law abiding citizens, which is what liberals want all criminals to become at the stroke of a pen
Link Posted: 7/23/2013 7:18:43 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By motoxmann:


they should be exempt from federal NFA laws too; criminals should be allowed to legally buy/sell/trade machine guns of any caliber with other criminals, because in a shootout there are way more cops than criminals and the criminals need to be able to fire more bullets per second to keep up with the incoming cop fire. this also would help them, because if it became legal, they would no longer be criminals, they would be law abiding citizens, which is what liberals want all criminals to become at the stroke of a pen
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By motoxmann:
Originally Posted By edgephoto:
We need to have the first "stand and take it" law. Let's be the first state to require you to stay and let the criminal finish what he started. This way all criminals can finish what they accomplish and become more proficient. Also shouldn't criminals be allowed large capacity magazines? They need them because their profession requires them to be well armed.



they should be exempt from federal NFA laws too; criminals should be allowed to legally buy/sell/trade machine guns of any caliber with other criminals, because in a shootout there are way more cops than criminals and the criminals need to be able to fire more bullets per second to keep up with the incoming cop fire. this also would help them, because if it became legal, they would no longer be criminals, they would be law abiding citizens, which is what liberals want all criminals to become at the stroke of a pen

No way, they want more criminals. Criminals you can control. Law-abiding citizens have a disturbing and distressing amount of freedom.
Link Posted: 7/24/2013 4:00:39 AM EST
Perhaps these 20 Clergy members need a crash course reminder a/o education of the historically significant facts on religious persecution and what happens when tyranny is allowed to take away a man, woman's right, in fact an entire society a/o race of people to defend themselves, their families, homes, businesses and yes...their churches and synagogues...those ignorant fools.

IGNORANCE; The LACK of knowledge, education and awareness

If I had the doe I'd send them each a copy of Eric Mataxas book Bonhoeffer; pt 1; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kK1ZK9u7xw , pt 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3HOstgH5L4 , pt 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZZ4Y7ZW-kE

And if there were any Jews in with this crowd of sheep they call clergy at the Capital, they might want to review http://jpfo.org/

Trailer; http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m2/movieplay-nogunsforjews-trailer.php

HISTORICAL GENOCIDE CHART; http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

And if not the Jews, what about them disarming law abiding Blacks? http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm

This is a great PDF read! http://jpfo.org/pdf03/gun-control-fact-and-fantasy-1.30.13.pdf

THIS is what we need to drill into our law makers and clergy! Arm yourself with truth, facts, knowledge, honor and integrity...stand our ground

Link Posted: 7/24/2013 4:20:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2013 12:42:47 PM EST by LibertyUberAlles]
As usual, sbhaven did a great job above giving a complete description of the law. Here is my short version for you TL;DR types:

- CT's Castle doctrine: You do not have a duty to retreat in your own home before using deadly force so long as you reasonably believe that the attacker is: (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

- CT's general self-defense law outside of the home says the same thing but requires that you retreat if you know that you can do so with complete safety and avoid the necessity of using such deadly force force.

A few points:
1 - The underlined word "reasonably" above is important. A jury will be told that they have to evaluate your actions from the standpoint of what a "reasonable" person would think and do in the same situation. That is supposed to be an objective standard.

2 - The self-defense law that covers incidents outside the home removes the justification for using deadly force only if you know that you can retreat to complete safety. There are court cases out there saysing that it does not matter what you actually could have done -- all that matters is what was in your mind at the time and whether you knew you could escape. [b]This[/span] is where I see the legislature changing the law by replacing "knew" with "knew or should have known" or "reasonably could have known" or something similarly weasly.

3 - CT's "castle doctrine" lacks an important thing that other states have -- a presumption that you feared for your life from the attacker. Under CT law, the justification is carved out of your reasonable apprehension of the situation. In other states that have that presumption in the law, a presecutor would have to prove that you did [span style='text-decoration: underline;']not[/span] fear for your life. CT flips that burden on its head and puts it on you.
Link Posted: 7/24/2013 5:27:57 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/24/2013 3:41:21 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Andrapos:

You can also use deadly force if someone is trying to commit arson.


That kid with a molotov cocktail?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxnoqunBm11qid18mo1_250.gif

View Quote


you can also use deadly force if you are being raped or about to be raped.
Link Posted: 7/24/2013 5:02:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By motoxmann:


you can also use deadly force if you are being raped or about to be raped.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By motoxmann:
Originally Posted By Andrapos:

You can also use deadly force if someone is trying to commit arson.


That kid with a molotov cocktail?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxnoqunBm11qid18mo1_250.gif



you can also use deadly force if you are being raped or about to be raped.

So that means I can use .... Because I feel like I'm getting raped by the state.
Link Posted: 7/24/2013 6:51:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2013 6:51:59 PM EST by harlenm]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By motoxmann:


you can also use deadly force if you are being raped or about to be raped.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By motoxmann:
Originally Posted By Andrapos:

You can also use deadly force if someone is trying to commit arson.


That kid with a molotov cocktail?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxnoqunBm11qid18mo1_250.gif



you can also use deadly force if you are being raped or about to be raped.


You can also use deadly force to prevent an intruder from forcibly entering your house.

to the extent he reasonably believes it is necessary to stop someone from forcibly entering his home or workplace (and for the sole purpose of stopping the intruder)
Link Posted: 7/24/2013 7:43:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2013 7:47:28 PM EST by Thisright]
edit
Top Top