Skip to comments.Lawyers agree that residents have rights on lethal force(NH)
Posted on 12/10/2012 5:43:21 AM PST by marktwain
At a community meeting in Bedford Thursday, a resident asked the police chief under what circumstances a resident could use lethal force against a burglar.
"Say you're asleep, you hear a noise, glass breaks, you hear somebody in there, you know they don't belong," said the resident, who didn't provide his name. "Are you expected to ascertain whether they're armed if you have the ability to take them out legally?"
Joking that he's not a lawyer but has been accused of being one, Chief John Bryfonski sidestepped the question, saying it's inappropriate for him to provide a legal opinion.
"The RSA is there," Bryfonski said. "I think that folks should read it. Understand it. If they don't fully understand the aspects of the use of force or deadly physical force by a civilian . . . then you should seek your own legal guidance."
The meeting was called a week and a half after an assault at an upscale Bedford home. Dr. Eduardo Quesada and his wife, Sonia, were both hurt in the attack, which occurred after they entered their home. Quesada, an anesthesiologist at Elliot Hospital in Manchester, was in critical condition and remains hospitalized. His wife was released last week.
Citing crime data, Bryfonski said Bedford is the second-safest town in the state. But the home invasion has some residents on edge. A Wallace Road resident who lives a stone's throw from the Quesada house expressed fears on Monday.
"The only thing I got is my right to bear arms," said the man, who asked that his name not be used, "and I've been sticking to that heavily."
(Excerpt) Read more at newhampshire.com ...
There must be too many recent arrivals from Massachusetts in Bedford, NH. New Hampshire state law is very clear on when lethal force can be used. For the benefit of anyone who doesn't already know New Hampshire Law:
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.
II-a. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act.
III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling, its curtilage, or anywhere he or she has a right to be, 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 or she abstain from performing an act which he or she 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 person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter; or
(d) If he or she is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting the officer at the officer's direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, the person need not retreat.
I am so glad that some wonderful attorney(s) outlined exactly what I can and cannot do to protect my family in the event a person(s) enters my home that has not earthly or implied right to do so.
not = no
To me it all the boilerplate comes down to this; Hear - See - SHOOT!......clean up.
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.