Thanks.
As for helping my friend, I wouldn't dream of shooting his attacker unless, upon my yelling to my friend to ask if I should phone the Bobbies, his assailant suddenly turned his murderous attention toward myself.
Thanks.
As for helping my friend, I wouldn't dream of shooting his attacker unless, upon my yelling to my friend to ask if I should phone the Bobbies, his assailant suddenly turned his murderous attention toward myself.
Read the case law at the bottom here:
https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=69324&date=
https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=69324&date=
Yes, it's all part of the body of statutes that is commonly referred to as the SDA, but which is actually the sum of the Firearms Act of 71 (1289), the SDA (1290) and other Chapters/Titles. Stand your ground, make my day, castle doctrine etc....all just parts of/changes to the various parts of Title 21.
In this case we are talking about the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971, 1289.25 Physical or Deadly Force against an Intruder (Castle Doctrine) which was ammended with Paragraph D to include what is referred to as the Stand Your Ground law and references defense of "another".
We'll need a legal scholar to explain the conflict between Title 21 Chapter 24 section 733 that Lightning Crash cited...it deals with Justifiable Homicide and references family members, masters, mistress and servants....so it's obviously outdated but still in play.
In the end, that long winded diatribe just highlights how murky the waters can be and how we better be damn sure we know what is really happening before we intervene with deadly force.
This discrepancy between the the definition for justifiable homicide and the SDA had bothered me for a while.
The instructor at the CCW class I attended stressed that you can only protect yourself, spouse, parents, children, employees, & employers. (Justifiable homicide definition)
Friends who've gone to other classes have told me they're instructors told them they could protect anyone who had a legal right to be in place. (SDA definition)
This may be clear to a criminal lawyer, but it seems like a contradiction to me and it would be nice to have some clarification.
The instructor at the CCW class I attended stressed that you can only protect yourself, spouse, parents, children, employees, & employers. (Justifiable homicide definition)
Friends who've gone to other classes have told me they're instructors told them they could protect anyone who had a legal right to be in place. (SDA definition)
This may be clear to a criminal lawyer, but it seems like a contradiction to me and it would be nice to have some clarification.
This one is very interesting to me:
The Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently interpreted this provision of section 733(1) as extending the right to use deadly force in defense of one's habitation only where the person defending has reason to fear that one who entered unlawfully, a trespasser, intended to perpetrate a felony therein, or to inflict harm upon him or some other person. The position espoused by the court with respect to defense of one's domicile may be summarized as follows:
A person may resist a trespass on real property in his possession, where such trespass does not amount to a felony, and may eject the trespasser therefrom by the use of any reasonable force short of taking or endangering human life; but if he is unable to prevent a trespass, where no felony is attempted, by any means short of taking or endangering human life, he must suffer the trespass and seek redress at the hands of the law rather than commit homicide.
I interpret this to mean someone can come on your property, but if they are not committing a felony you cannot shoot them. I suppose if they break in to gain access that is a felony, but if you are on your property and they just walk in you can't shoot them until they threaten bodily harm in some way?
This sure is murky stuff.
B
The Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently interpreted this provision of section 733(1) as extending the right to use deadly force in defense of one's habitation only where the person defending has reason to fear that one who entered unlawfully, a trespasser, intended to perpetrate a felony therein, or to inflict harm upon him or some other person. The position espoused by the court with respect to defense of one's domicile may be summarized as follows:
A person may resist a trespass on real property in his possession, where such trespass does not amount to a felony, and may eject the trespasser therefrom by the use of any reasonable force short of taking or endangering human life; but if he is unable to prevent a trespass, where no felony is attempted, by any means short of taking or endangering human life, he must suffer the trespass and seek redress at the hands of the law rather than commit homicide.
I interpret this to mean someone can come on your property, but if they are not committing a felony you cannot shoot them. I suppose if they break in to gain access that is a felony, but if you are on your property and they just walk in you can't shoot them until they threaten bodily harm in some way?
This sure is murky stuff.
B
I hear what you are saying. To me, I think what the law is trying to differentiate is a, say, a situation where I'm trying to go to a party and I walk up to a house with their door open. If I go in thinking I'm at the party but I'm at the wrong house, they don't have the right to just shoot me dead. However, if I'm breaking and entering, then obviously I'm there with bad intentions and the homeowner has every right to use any amount of force necessary to put me down. Of course that's just me trying to make it simple and logical. Obviously the lawyers could have a field day with it.
In a nutshell this is a condensed story that was told in my SDA class.
A dude and his wife are at a gas station getting gas. The wife is sitting in the car and the dude is pumping gas. A black, tinted windowed, all "rimmed out and slammed" SUV pulls up to them and 4 dudes with guns get out. These dudes are obvious thugsters decked out in "crips or bloods" type garb. They are pointing their hardware at the dude pumping gas. Joe SDA/CCW citizen is exiting the store and sees all of this go down. He draws his weapon and intervenes on behalf of the dude pumping gas. Lucky for this guy that the thugsters were pretty highly trained and he didn't actually fire his weapon in the intervention. They were all DEA and U.S. Marshals making a bust.
It's just not a good idea in almost ALL cases.
A dude and his wife are at a gas station getting gas. The wife is sitting in the car and the dude is pumping gas. A black, tinted windowed, all "rimmed out and slammed" SUV pulls up to them and 4 dudes with guns get out. These dudes are obvious thugsters decked out in "crips or bloods" type garb. They are pointing their hardware at the dude pumping gas. Joe SDA/CCW citizen is exiting the store and sees all of this go down. He draws his weapon and intervenes on behalf of the dude pumping gas. Lucky for this guy that the thugsters were pretty highly trained and he didn't actually fire his weapon in the intervention. They were all DEA and U.S. Marshals making a bust.
It's just not a good idea in almost ALL cases.
My 2 cents:
While I didn't find it in the SDA regulation book, the handout you should've received from the instructor when you took the certification class, is in regards to defense of another and mentions using deadly force only in defense of a spouse, parent, child, employer or employees.
It mentions nothing about using deadly force to defend anyone else. IMO, it forbids it. Non-deadly force would be ok I guess.
Now in defense of home, that's all off. IMO, you have a legal right to defend any legal occupant of your dwelling, but as in any defense catagory; (self, another or home) you cannot use deadly force legally against a non-deadly threat. Comes down to threat assessment and what is reasonable and necessary. I guess one could intervene and if/when the deadly threat was directed towards you, take action as needed.
Also as stated in the manual, none of this is intended as legal advice.
Just my 2 cents.
While I didn't find it in the SDA regulation book, the handout you should've received from the instructor when you took the certification class, is in regards to defense of another and mentions using deadly force only in defense of a spouse, parent, child, employer or employees.
It mentions nothing about using deadly force to defend anyone else. IMO, it forbids it. Non-deadly force would be ok I guess.
Now in defense of home, that's all off. IMO, you have a legal right to defend any legal occupant of your dwelling, but as in any defense catagory; (self, another or home) you cannot use deadly force legally against a non-deadly threat. Comes down to threat assessment and what is reasonable and necessary. I guess one could intervene and if/when the deadly threat was directed towards you, take action as needed.
Also as stated in the manual, none of this is intended as legal advice.
Just my 2 cents.
Go back and read the rest of the thread, and the body of law referenced...it clearly mentions more than family and employees and does not "forbid" defense of another...in fact it specifically includes it.
The discussion has evolved past that point.
Similar threads
