Hacker News Reader

Comment by rocqua | Hacker News Reader

As I recall, stand your ground laws, based on castle doctrine, means that "but you could have fled your own home" does not invalidate self-defence. I think you are still required to retreat when on the street.

As for people running away, the only way I see self defence working is when they still pose an 'imminent threat to life' which seems rather hard to argue.

View on HN

The castle doctrine is distinct from "standing your ground", though it is to some extent subsumed because most stand-your-ground laws say that you have no duty to retreat from a place that you have a legal right to be, which naturally includes your home.

Florida [1], for example, says:

> ... A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

In section 0776.013, the castle doctrine is also noted, but is more expansive, and includes the use of deadly force even if there is no threat of imminent harm.

[1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

Your last line is the bit I've never been able to understand. If someone is running from you, do you have any legal argument for killing them?

What if they have stolen your property. Do you not have the right to get it back by force? Does the value of the property matter? If so, who gets to decide that in the moment?

If you live in Texas you can use deadly force if "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means". Source: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42.html

I've read but couldn't find again the story of someone shooting a tief to get back his VHS player and walk free.

You have zero right to kill someone for stealing.

In Texas you may make use of your weapon to stop the execution of a crime if you yourself are not also engaged in criminal activity. It's far larger than castle doctrine because it applies anywhere.

I'm not arguing for actually using the law to shoot people: I don't ever want to be in that situation myself, but I'm saying depending on the situation you do in fact have the law on your side.

The value of the property does not matter. They do not pose a lethal threat and therefor cannot be shot. At least, that's how it should be, I don't know legally.

It gets much harder to argue, but you'd have a case if they were, for example, running back to their car to get weapons. I'm sure you can think of a hundred other scenarios as well.

That isn't normal, though. It's likely that you were already feuding, and so the law will look askance at you for not bringing authorities into it much earlier.

what if they stole your laptop that contains a new branch you havent pushed to a remote yet.

No jury would convict.

Never say never, but it would be very rare for a fleeing person to pose immediate threat. Examples would be people running for a gun, running to get help, running to kill someone else, or running for cover.

I think all of those cases are covered by any imminent threat clause, and thus do not need special exemptions. Just like there isn't an exemption that you are not allowed to shoot a retreating person. It simply follows because (with exceptions) retreating people aren't imminent threats.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com