New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,445 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This one has been introduced since 2008 - and not surprisingly, killed every year. I don't ever expect it to make it out of committee - especially after the whole Trayvon Martin brouhaha - but it's good to know we got a few good eggs in Albany.

Sen. George Maziarz defends 'stand your ground' bill | Democrat and Chronicle | democratandchronicle.com

S281-2011 - NY Senate Open Legislation - Authorizes a person to use physical force, including deadly physical force in defense of a person, in defense of a premises or in defense of a dwelling, residence or vehicle; repealer - New York State Senate
 

·
I wish I were an Oscar Meyer Weiner
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
Funny thing is from what I can tell without delving deep into at this moment is that the bill proposed basically says the same thing as whats on the books. Its very similar and I doubt it would really change the outcome of any future cases much if at all when deadly force was used.

I guess I dont understand the real purpose in fighting it besides political games in which the people are always the ones that lose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,238 Posts
No law can go against natural law and if it does it would be totally ineffective..
...hold on criminal, I am going to let you kill me so I can be in compliance of the modafvking laws. Shoot me if you want, I will not shoot back I promise!
LOL!

...politicians...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Not being a legal scholar, I'm not entirely certain, but I think the "Stand Your Ground" bill is the exact opposite of what we currently have in New York. I believe we still operate under the "duty to retreat" mindset. Even in your own home, you're supposed to head out the back door if the bad guy is coming in the front door, unless you have a reason why you can't abandon your position - like unarmed family members under your protection. I could be completely wrong about this though, so I'll be glad to hear what others have to say.
 

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
Not being a legal scholar, I'm not entirely certain, but I think the "Stand Your Ground" bill is the exact opposite of what we currently have in New York. I believe we still operate under the "duty to retreat" mindset. Even in your own home, you're supposed to head out the back door if the bad guy is coming in the front door, unless you have a reason why you can't abandon your position - like unarmed family members under your protection. I could be completely wrong about this though, so I'll be glad to hear what others have to say.
That is incorrect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Funny thing is from what I can tell without delving deep into at this moment is that the bill proposed basically says the same thing as whats on the books. Its very similar and I doubt it would really change the outcome of any future cases much if at all when deadly force was used.
Maybe it's this presumption language that's new?

1. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT
DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR ANOTHER WHEN USING
DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE IF:

(A) THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED WAS IN
THE PROCESS OF UNLAWFULLY AND FORCEFULLY ENTERING, OR HAD UNLAWFULLY AND
FORCIBLY ENTERED A DWELLING, RESIDENCE, OR OCCUPIED VEHICLE, OR IF THAT
PERSON HAD REMOVED OR WAS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE ANOTHER AGAINST THAT
PERSON'S WILL FROM THE DWELLING, RESIDENCE, OR OCCUPIED VEHICLE; AND
(B) THE ACTOR WHO USES DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE KNEW OR HAD REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT AN UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ACT
WAS OCCURRING OR HAD OCCURRED.

As I understand it now, even though there is no obligation to retreat in your home, the burden is still on you to establish that you had a reasonable fear of imminent death, great bodily harm, etc. to justify deadly force. The presumption in the proposal would/could significantly change that. At least that's my take on it... I seem to recall another thread where this "presumptive" language was a key difference in the strength of various Castle Doctrines from state to state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,952 Posts
Not being a legal scholar, I'm not entirely certain, but I think the "Stand Your Ground" bill is the exact opposite of what we currently have in New York. I believe we still operate under the "duty to retreat" mindset. Even in your own home, you're supposed to head out the back door if the bad guy is coming in the front door, unless you have a reason why you can't abandon your position - like unarmed family members under your protection. I could be completely wrong about this though, so I'll be glad to hear what others have to say.
NY does have a castle doctrine. Read through Article 35.

"Stand Your Ground" is really a redundant concept, isn't it? If someone pulls out a knife and comes at you (in or outside your home), it doesn't matter whether or not a Stand Your Ground law applies in your State, the law does not forbid the use of deadly force when your life is in grave danger. Stand Your Ground laws come under fire because some claim that they needlessly encourage the use of deadly force, in cases where it does not apply. Definitely debatable either way.
 

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
Gotta love how politics works. I man in Florida chases down another man and that his somehow "Standing Your Ground" and therefor the Stand Your Ground law needs to be examined. What's next? Speeding tickets in parking lots for parked cars!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Well, I've read over Article 35 and it seems pretty timid to me. Most of the defense of premises language is "other than deadly" physical force. And further, the justification language in the proposed bill describes the duty to retreat in quite strong terms.


JUSTIFICATION: Current New York state Penal Law states that a person acting in self-defense may use force, but has a "duty to retreat," even when he or she "reasonably believes that such other person intruder, attacker. etc. is using or about to use deadly physical force."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
nessman, to your larger point; I completely agree. It's nice to see that some of our representatives are looking out for our second amendment rights and our more fundamental human right of self defense.

It's particularly sad that a bunch of Democrat lawmakers in New York are using the Trayvon Martin tragedy to attack Sen. Maziarz. From everything that I've seen, that case really had nothing to do with "Stand Your Ground" laws at all. Ann Coulter did a pretty good job of explaining this on ABC:
Ann Coulter | Stand Your Ground | Not an option | The Daily Caller
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
In NYS you never have a duty to retreat if you are inside your home. Outside your home you have the duty to retreat if you can do so safely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
regardless of what the law states in NYS, if you kick my door down it's gonna suck for the both of us, as you die and I ponder whether or not I'm going to prison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
OK. No one has actually copied the actual law here so I will do it....note the bold and italicised part.....namely 35.15-2(a)

Section 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or

(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or

(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

There you go. Basically, you may not use deadly force if you can retreat -with complete personal safety to ones-self and others. So, if by trying to get out f the situation, you have a good chance of getting hurt by the aggressor, then that would not mean you can retreat with complete personal safety...

So, how is that determined you ask? It's what you articulate in your statement through your lawyer afterwards.

"I had no other choice. I could not get away without getting hurt. My life was in danger."

NY's Castle Doctrine is basically what it was meant to be originally - defense of your home without having to retreat.

Expanded Castle Doctrine is what states like PA, FLA and 30 other states have enacted or allowed. You are not required to retreat from a place where you 'have license or privilege to be' or 'have a legal right to occupy'. The term "Stand Your Ground Law" was coined by the media in the wake of a number of states, including Florida, having passed that allowance in to law.

Will it happen in NY? Doubtful, especially i the wake of the Florida shooting. Bad timing on the introduction....

Let's just get focused on the nationwide carry bill......:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
My favorite part:

except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or

(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
I think the whole Stand Your Ground / Make My Day / Castle Doctrine comes down to Burden of Proof / Reasonable Doubt, and protection from liabilities.
In NY, if you justifiably use force:
* you have to prove it was justified. That means you have to waste time and money to hire a lawyer to prove your innocence.
* even if use of force was justified, you are still liable for damages, and can be sued in civil court

Stand Your Ground puts the burden of proof on the police. They have to prove use of force was not justified. If they can't, you're innocent (until proven guilty), and you are protected from a civil lawsuit.
 

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
I think the whole Stand Your Ground / Make My Day / Castle Doctrine comes down to Burden of Proof / Reasonable Doubt, and protection from liabilities.
In NY, if you justifiably use force:
* you have to prove it was justified. That means you have to waste time and money to hire a lawyer to prove your innocence.
* even if use of force was justified, you are still liable for damages, and can be sued in civil court
Vs. "You die", I will take it. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
Funny thing is from what I can tell without delving deep into at this moment is that the bill proposed basically says the same thing as whats on the books. Its very similar and I doubt it would really change the outcome of any future cases much if at all when deadly force was used.

I guess I dont understand the real purpose in fighting it besides political games in which the people are always the ones that lose.
The proposed bill removes the "duty to retreat" language altogether and even explicitly states that we would have no such duty. It also removes the qualification of "dwelling" for not having a duty to retreat - meaning the castle doctrine would extend to our vehicles and to our person.

Put together, that would eliminate a huge gray area: that of a jury later deciding whether or not you could have retreated with "complete personal safety." It completely eliminates that debate. That's HUGE, don't disregard it.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top