No Retreat Law in Montana and Florida
There has been a sudden interest in a post I have on the Arizona No Retreat Law. This is a law that allows an individual to defend himself without first having to expend all possibility of escape for those who would rob, injure or kill them.
For too long, jurisdictions have prosecuted citizens who defended their home by attacking an intruder because the law required the victim to reach a dead end in retreat from the criminal before lethal force could be justified. The result being some criminals wining lawsuits against their victims for causing the criminal injury while trying to protect their property from being carried off. So the people eventually found politicians who returned the law to a more common understanding of justice, i.e. that defense of one's self and property is a fundamental right.
This interest could be spurred by the state of Montana passing into law House Bill 228.
House Bill 228 is a broad piece of legislation that provides a number of specific protections for law-abiding citizens. This new law clarifies the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in plain view and to present the firearm for defensive purposes when threatened. Additionally, the law puts clearly into statute existing Montana case law providing that, when threatened, a law-abiding citizen has no duty to retreat if the person is in any place he or she has a legal right to be. Other provisions include expanding existing law to allow the use of force in defense of an occupied structure and preventing landlords and hotel operators from restricting self-defense rights.
Or, it could be the report from Florida of a farmer killing one of two people who were engaged in stealing his land cruiser.
Tony Curtis Phillips, 29, didn't fire a single shot. He didn't even know his girlfriend, Nikki McCormick, was dead until police showed him an online news story.
Police said McCormick accompanied Phillips as he attempted to steal the SUV from a barn in an orange grove near Wahneta, Florida, before daylight Tuesday.
Grove owner Ladon "Jamie" Jones opened fire as the SUV approached him, according to an affidavit released by the Polk County Sheriff's Office. Phillips fled; McCormick was shot in the head and later died.
Authorities said Jones is protected by Florida's "no retreat" law, which gives him the right to use lethal force if he reasonably believes his life is in danger. Phillips, however, faces charges because police allege he was committing felony grand theft auto at the time of McCormick's death.
"Because his conduct caused her death, he gets charged with a felony," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said.
This is as it should be. Unfortunate that someone had to lose her life for the main perpetrator to learn his lesson but it may serve as an example to others who would otherwise be inclined to do their neighbor ill. The real danger now however is against a thief from whom we have little defense.
Obama said Thursday that Chrysler was forced into bankruptcy because a small group of investors and hedge funds would not go along with a deal to save the iconic automaker.
He said the small group was "hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none. Some demanded twice the returns that other investors were getting.
"I don't stand with them," he said.
The government in the person of Barack Obama seems to think that it is OK to demonize the bondholders in Chrysler because they refuse to be bullied into a plan to take the company away from the legitimate owners and transfer it to the unions and the government. There are clear laws regarding the order of distribution when a company seeks protection from it's debtors. Obama seems to believe that these laws need not be upheld simply because the government has "loaned" tax money to the company in a futile effort to save it. While the taxpayer's interest in the company has been lost, Obama has required the original investors to give up their rights so the government can justify it's poor decisions.
While states are passing self defense protection laws the citizens need some kind of protection from the looters of their future wealth. A common thief can only steal what one has. The government can steal not only what wealth we have but also that which we have yet to earn.
Politics, Constitution, Taxes, TeaParty, Chrysler,