Posted: 11/2/2008 11:43:25 PM EDT
| Does Alaska have any sort of Castle Doctrine on the books protecting someone from a justified shooting in their own home? Also, do we have any kind of law protecting us from a lawsuit in the event of said shooting? |
|
The think answer is in the Alaska state statues, specifically AS 11.81.335. Justification: Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Self.
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person may use deadly force upon another person when and to the extent
(1) the use of nondeadly force is justified under AS 11.81.330 ; and (2) the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree, or robbery in any degree. (b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating, except there is no duty to retreat if the person is (1) on premises which the person owns or leases and the person is not the initial aggressor; or (2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380. You have no duty to retreat if you are in your home (leased or owned) and you are being robbed. Burglary is a separate and different offense, however. Not exactly a Castle Doctrine but hope this helps. |
|
Camo_Ken,
AKMike had part of the answer, but read the next paragraphs. If I remember right these laws were changed in 2004 to an expanded castle doctrine. You can defend your property including your vehicle. You can also provide 3rd party defense. Paragraph headers bolded for reference Sec. 11.81.335. Justification: Use of deadly force in defense of self. (a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against (1) death; (2) serious physical injury; (3) kidnapping, except for what is described as custodial interference in the first degree in AS 11.41.320 ; (4) sexual assault in the first degree; (5) sexual assault in the second degree; (6) sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree; or (7) robbery in any degree. (b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others being defended, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area of the encounter, except there is no duty to leave the area if the person is (1) on premises (A) that the person owns or leases; (B) where the person resides, temporarily or permanently; or (C) as a guest or express or implied agent of the owner, lessor, or resident; (2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380; (3) in a building where the person works in the ordinary course of the person's employment; or (4) protecting a child or a member of the person's household. Sec. 11.81.340. Justification: Use of force in defense of a third person. A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend a third person when, under the circumstances as the person claiming defense of another reasonably believes them to be, the third person would be justified under AS 11.81.330 or 11.81.335 in using that degree of force for self-defense. Sec. 11.81.350. Justification: Use of force in defense of property and premises. (a) A person may use nondeadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other of an unlawful taking or damaging of property or services. (b) A person may use deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of arson upon a dwelling or occupied building. (c) A person in possession or control of any premises, or a guest or an express or implied agent of that person, may use (1) nondeadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other of criminal trespass in any degree upon the premises; (2) deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be a burglary in any degree occurring in an occupied dwelling or building. (d) [Repealed, Sec. 7 ch 68 SLA 2006]. (e) A person (1) in a vehicle, or forcibly removed from a vehicle, may use deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be a carjacking of that vehicle at or about the time the vehicle is carjacked; (2) outside of a vehicle may use deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the theft of that vehicle when another person, other than the perceived offender, is inside of the vehicle; this paragraph does not apply to a person outside of a vehicle who is involved in a dispute with a person inside of the vehicle who is a household member of that person; in this paragraph, "household member" has the meaning given in AS 18.66.990 . (f) A person justified in using force under this section does not have a duty to leave or attempt to leave the area of the encounter before using force. (g) In (e) of this section, (1) "carjacking" means a robbery involving the taking or attempted taking of a vehicle from a person in possession of the vehicle; (2) "vehicle" means a "motor vehicle" as defined in AS 28.40.100 , an aircraft, or a watercraft. |
|
That's great, but I am wondering if there is any protection from a lawsuit from the person that was stopped or their family. After reading what both AKMike and yourself posted I dont see anything stopping someone from suing the person that was justified to use deadly force.
I am asking this because I am thinking of persuing this kind of legislation next session and would like to get all of you guys in the Alaska forum to help me. |
|
Hmmm. If I understand you right, you are wondering whether the "defender" is subject to a civil suit for defending themselves? That rings a bell.
No lawyer here though. The civil suit would have to prove wrongdoing I think, which would reference to these paragraphs. Look around for the law suits filed against the pastor in Big Lake who shot fleeing invaders around 2004 or 2005 timeframe. He was vindicated, allow I disagreed with the ruling. He found 2 guys in his church at night, and they fled. He pursued shooting. One died of wounds and the other just wounded I think. The deceaseds family went after him. |
|
I was still living up here when that happend and I disagree as well. By the letter of the law he should've been convicted because there was no direct threat to him as they were running away.
A criminal trial bases the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, however a civil trial (Lawsuit) would be based on the preponderance of the evidence and requires a majority, not a unanimous decision. |
