Posted on 08/11/2005 9:41:10 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Bill to justify deadly force
By Chasity Brown The Daily Sentinel Published August 10, 2005
Rep. Albert Hall and Sen. Jeff Enfinger are sponsoring a bill that would expand citizens’ rights to use self defense in the state of Alabama.
The bill has been pre-filed for the upcoming 2006 regular session of the legislature. Hall said that 60 co-sponsors have joined him in support of this bill.
“Your home is the family castle and refuge; this bill will give the citizens a right to protect and defend their home from intruders and themselves from possible subsequent litigation,” Hall stated.
Hall said if the governor calls another special session prior to the regular session, he plans to ask the governor to include this bill in the call.
The bill would expand the circumstances under which a person may use force, including deadly force, to defend himself or herself or another person against an aggressor. The bill would make legal presumptions that a person is justified in using deadly force against an aggressor and would not require a person to retreat from an aggressor intruding into an dwelling, residence or vehicle.
Also, the bill would provide immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for persons justified in using defensive force against an aggressor and would allow the court to award certain fees and expenses to persons immune from civil action if they were sued.
According to the bill, a person would be justified “in using physical force to defend himself or herself or another person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person and may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary or the purpose.”
The bill states that a person is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or in defense of another person if they believe the aggressor is:
“•Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force;
•Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
•Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape or forcible sodomy;
•In the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering or has unlawfully and forcefully entered a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle, or is attempting to remove or has forcefully removed a person against his or her will from any dwelling residence or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there and provided that the person using the deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.”
The legal assumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified does not apply if the person against whom the action was taken has a legal right to be in the dwelling, is under the lawful custody of the person against whom action was taken, is engaged in an illegal act or the person against whom action was taken is a law enforcement officer acting in his official duties.
A person is also not justified in using physical force if it could reasonably have been avoided by retreating. A person is not required to retreat if they are in their own dwelling or place of work and were not the original aggressor, is a peace officer or is defending against an unlawful forcible entry.
A person is not justified in using physical force if they provoke unlawful physical force in the other person or the physical force was a product of a combat by agreement by the participants.
The bill would also allow the court to award “reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a defendant of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from civil action.”
The bill is set to become effective on Oct. 1, 2006 following its passage and approval by the governor or its otherwise becoming law.
BTTT
I admire their efforts, but the Constitution already gives us that right..too bad we have to keep passing bills so judges understand the difference between a criminal and a peacful citizen defending his or her self
All in all, though, I'm really unsure of how much of a change this really is in Alabama law.
This is the weakness that every perps lawyer will use in the civil case against the homeowner that uses deadly force against an intruder. Even if the homeowner is justified from the criminal perspective, the civil suit that follows will allege that retreat was possible and damages are due to the perp.
hrm.. SCOTUS says police don't have to protect, adn al the sudden states are saying that its ok to protect yourself, and that the state will protect you from civil suit if you need to.
constitution gives us the means to defend ourselves, but doesn't protect us from civil suit, but these types of bills will.
I don't have a clue what you are saying.
i'm saying i like seeing these bills.
i like seeing that people are being protected from civil suit if they have to defend themselves or their property.
the constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms. it doesn't say that we are protected from being sued by assailants. even if its ridiculous, it happens.
people need to feel free from the fear that they may have suit brought against them if they are defending themselves. if they are defending themselves, they have enough to be afraid of already.
Something is really wrong with that line of reasoning. The first judge getting a wiff of such a lawsuit should toss it and charge the lawyer with contempt.
should throw it out but don't. just like we never should have heard of the hot coffee lawsuit, or the obesity, or the smoker one, or gun manufacture one.
but people want to blame their problems on someone else and get paid for it. so they blame it on a totally unrelated person, that has lots of it.
Yep. The "reasonable man" standard got tossed.
The Democrats will oppose the bill just based on this language.
So. Do you have a self defence weapon at home?
couple of them, why do you ask?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.