TexasCHLforum.com

WOW,


A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.

C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable use of such force.

D. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1 through 25 of this act, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.

niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

Specifically SubSection C

man, that's a nicely-worded statute.

Tell me about it, defense to prosecution, hell, I doubt they could even bring charges on you...

I like that.

Dan

Don't get too excited about that defense.

As I stated in another thread, this is an "affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution" and not a bar to prosecution.

In law school, it was explained this way. The defendant has the burden to plead an affirmative defense, the burden to present evidence of the affirmative defense and the burden of persuading the judge and/or the jury. If all three things are completed successfully, the defense wins. If any one of the three is insufficient, the defense loses.

What I want to see is a bar to prosecution which prevents any charges from going to the grand jury or the filing of any information. That is a much better position to be in.

As an attorney, I put people in jail all of the time for failing to meet their burdens on their affirmative defenses. If they can meet the burdens in negotiations with me, I settle the case. If not, I take it straight to the judge.

Just FYI and definitely IMO.

Nazrat wrote:Don't get too excited about that defense.

As I stated in another thread, this is an "affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution" and not a bar to prosecution.

In law school, it was explained this way. The defendant has the burden to plead an affirmative defense, the burden to present evidence of the affirmative defense and the burden of persuading the judge and/or the jury. If all three things are completed successfully, the defense wins. If any one of the three is insufficient, the defense loses.

What I want to see is a bar to prosecution which prevents any charges from going to the grand jury or the filing of any information. That is a much better position to be in.

As an attorney, I put people in jail all of the time for failing to meet their burdens on their affirmative defenses. If they can meet the burdens in negotiations with me, I settle the case. If not, I take it straight to the judge.

Just FYI and definitely IMO.

The presumption of a reasonable belief that deadly force was immediately necessary contained in the Texas version of the "Castle Doctrine" (SB378) provides better protection for a person using deadly force in self-defense, in their home, business or car.

Chas.

The civil protection is still nice :-D