Source: https://onlygunsandmoney.com/2011/02/10/second-castle-doctrine-bill-introduced.html
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 17:21:39
Document Index: 244226307

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14']

Second Castle Doctrine Bill Introduced In North Carolina -
February 10, 2011 by John Richardson 1 Comment
A second (and stronger) Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced in the North Carolina General Assembly. This bill expands the castle doctrine to include your vehicle. More importantly, it introduces a “stand your ground” provision if one is attacked in any location where you have the right to be.
According to correspondence with Paul Valone, head of Grass Roots North Carolina, this bill was modeled on the State of Florida’s Castle Doctrine bill.
AN ACT to provide when the use of force or the use of deadly force is justifiable in defense of self, others, or one’s home or vehicle, or in preventing the commission of a forcible felony, and to provide immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action in those circumstances.
“Justifiable Use of Force.
“§ 14‑470. Definitions.
(6) Less‑lethal munition. – A projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
“§ 14‑471. Use of force in defense of person.
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
“§ 14‑472. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly 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.
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
“§ 14‑473. Use of force in defense of others.
A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
“§ 14‑474. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
(c) The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (a) of this section.
“§ 14‑475. Use of force by aggressor.
“§ 14‑476. Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
(2) The court shall award a reasonable attorneys’ fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this subdivision, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(d) A law enforcement officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less‑lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.”
UPDATE: Grass Roots North Carolina sent out an alert this evening regarding this bill – HB 74 – and the other one – SB 34 – which was introduced a few days earlier.
* Better definitions, including defense against “forcible felonies;”
* “Stand your ground” protection: No duty to retreat when attacked outside the home; and
Tags: castle doctrine Grass Roots North Carolina North Carolina
← Stratfor On The 90% Myth
HR 591 – McCarthy’s Latest Gun Control Bill →
Ruger SR1911 – The Gunblast.com Video Review
One thought on “Second Castle Doctrine Bill Introduced In North Carolina”