U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-23-2011, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
1,232 posts, read 1,179,649 times
Reputation: 1364

Advertisements

I'd much rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-23-2011, 03:00 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,227 posts, read 7,210,533 times
Reputation: 2558
You dont shoot to wound anyway. Shooting at someone is viewed as useing "deadly force" If you shoot them in the leg you will still be treated as if you were trying to kill them. Additionally, if you say you were just trying to hurt them it will be tough for you to maintain that you thought they were trying to kill or do you great bodily harm, which are the only acceptable reasons to shoot someone in this state. Even more additionally if you shoot him in the leg & cripple him, after you are done defending yourself from the state you will probably be sued by the guy you shot or his family in civil court.
I know it sounds absurd, but like so many things in this backwards state the honest are at the mercy of the dishonest. We should have real castle doctrine where there is never a duty to retreat ANYPLACE you can legally be. But we dont. We have a liberal legislature & population that would rather you be afraid to defend your family than maybe hurt one of our poor underprivileged criminals. Personally I think death & violent injury should be simply viewed as occupational hazards to criminals. If it scares them they should buy insurance to cover their occupational hazards just like the rest of us do, if its too expensive maybe they will find better work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2011, 04:24 PM
 
1,183 posts, read 1,258,724 times
Reputation: 558
For all this "omgz you'll get sued" and "criminals have more rights" I actually cannot find a case were the intruder wounded sued and won. A lot of it is hearsay that these cases exist (and I'm sure they do, but in incredibly small quantities) but I find it hard that a lawyer will take the case, a judge won't throw it out, and then a jury (civil or criminal) will convict. There is one glowing exception where I would see a case going through is if the intruder was already on the way out and the homeowner shot at the assailants back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2011, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
15,290 posts, read 21,411,780 times
Reputation: 5073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211 View Post
For all this "omgz you'll get sued" and "criminals have more rights" I actually cannot find a case were the intruder wounded sued and won. A lot of it is hearsay that these cases exist (and I'm sure they do, but in incredibly small quantities) but I find it hard that a lawyer will take the case, a judge won't throw it out, and then a jury (civil or criminal) will convict. There is one glowing exception where I would see a case going through is if the intruder was already on the way out and the homeowner shot at the assailants back.
I agree with this. Generally, criminals don't have MORE rights, but sometimes they have rights that allow them to do things I disagree with; but if you remove those rights from them, then it adversely affects someone who it shouldn't. I think what we have on the books now is pretty fair, including the death penalty.

You're also right when it comes to intruders. Suing the homeowner just doesn't happen (or if it does, it won't hold up in court), unless it's the "glowing exception" you mentioned. One thing I do want to mention is that there will always be lawyers who will defend anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2011, 05:55 PM
 
Location: CT
1,918 posts, read 3,115,849 times
Reputation: 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
One thing I do want to mention is that there will always be lawyers who will defend anyone.
No kidding, just look at OJ Simpson, the two Cheshire dirtbags.....etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2011, 06:05 PM
 
5,065 posts, read 13,009,978 times
Reputation: 3488
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello View Post
The issue is for those of us who have no intention to shoot to kill unless forced. I would shoot to disable by taking out a leg.
I remember a few years ago someone shot his own daughter during the night in his house in Stratford---good thing he wasn't going for the "shoot to kill". I think he might even have been a police officer, from what I remember.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 09:42 PM
 
1 posts, read 525 times
Reputation: 10
Default your dwelling

Looks to me like if you(actor) are in your home or work place you may use deadly force.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2015, 02:03 PM
 
Location: CT
2,122 posts, read 1,688,039 times
Reputation: 1643
Quote:
Originally Posted by unhappyboy View Post
Looks to me like if you(actor) are in your home or work place you may use deadly force.

Unsure of what your post means. Actor? huh?

To answer the question: no there is no castle doctrine in CT.

If you own a firearm and that firearm is a part of your home security plan then you MUST....MUST read and be familiar with the "use of deadly force".

***I am not a lawyer***

The basic synopsis is: you can only use lethal force if you or someone else are in SERIOUS danger. Like, threat of life danger.

ALWAYS RETREAT. If a situation develops while your downstairs (and armed), then move up stairs. Lock the door. hide. Do everything you can to convince a jury and a team of lawyers that you made EVERY effort to AVOID CONFRONTATION and preserve the life of yourself and the intruder. If this intruder then followed you upstairs, kicked in your door and start to charge you, I think you have a pretty damn good case of proper use of lethal force. It's unfortunate that you have no legal right to be on the offense in your own home and a mistake could cost your own life.

Did I mention I;m not a lawyer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2015, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
1,232 posts, read 1,179,649 times
Reputation: 1364
I HIGHLY recommend any CCW holder obtain legal insurance that will pay for legal representation in in a "use of force" incident.

This company will provide such services for CCW holders involved in criminal, civil and administrative matters for just $100 a year.

No reason NOT to have this.

CCW Safe defends those who carry concealed against criminal, civil and administrative actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top