Maine law differs from 'stand your ground'

[Maine CWP Training]

Maine law differs from 'stand your ground' | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
Part 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Chapter 5: DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; JUSTIFICATION

2. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
A. When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is:
(1) About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person; or
(2) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping, robbery or a violation of section 253, subsection 1, paragraph A, against the person or a 3rd person; or [1989, c. 878, Pt. B, §15 (AMD).]

 

[NavyLCDR]

Maine law differs from 'stand your ground' | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
Part 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Chapter 5: DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; JUSTIFICATION

2. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
A. When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is:
(1) About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person; or
(2) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping, robbery or a violation of section 253, subsection 1, paragraph A, against the person or a 3rd person; or [1989, c. 878, Pt. B, §15 (AMD).]

Unless there is a duty to retreat in Maine, I just do see any difference....

"Stand your ground" laws in no way turn self-defense into a sword from a shield.

 

[nraynes]

Maine has a castle doctrine. Not a stand your ground law.

 

[Maine CWP Training]

Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
Part 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Chapter 5: DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; JUSTIFICATION


C. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force as provided in paragraph A if:
(1) With the intent to cause physical harm to another, the person provokes such other person to use unlawful deadly force against anyone;

(2) The person knows that the person against whom the unlawful deadly force is directed intentionally and unlawfully provoked the use of such force; or

(3) The person knows that the person or a 3rd person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreatfrom the encounter, except that the person or the 3rd person is not required to retreat if the person or the 3rd person is in the person's dwelling place and was not the initial aggressor;
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a colorable claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that the person abstain from performing an act that the person is not obliged to perform. [2007, c. 173, §24 (AMD).]

 

[NavyLCDR]

That law sucks. For example, parking lot at night. Guy with an illegal switchblade knife comes up behind a woman getting into a car, woman is carrying a gun. He clicks open the knife and says, "Get out, I'm taking your car. Give me the car, I'll let you go." According to Maine law she has NO CHOICE but to keep her gun holstered and let the criminal with the knife drive off with her car. Maine law says that she must trust the criminal not to harm her.

 

[Maine CWP Training]

No that is a shoot situation as defined by statute.

 

[NavyLCDR]

No that is a shoot situation as defined by statute.

How do you figure? I'm the prosecutor and I've got a stacked anti-gun jury. The victim of the shooting (notice the criminal is the victim in this case) was armed with only a knife. He never got within arm's reach of the shooter. He told the shooter that if she left, he would not hurt her. All she had to do was step away from the vehicle and retreat into the safety of the store. Instead the shooter decides that she will be judge and jury and execute the victim on the spot and she used a huge disparity of force to do so - a gun against a knife. She had plenty of opportunity to simply run from the victim, who was armed with only a knife, but instead she chose to shoot and kill the victim when he could not even reach her with the knife. She had the DUTY to retreat, but she chose instead to kill the victim in cold blooded vengence.

 

[Flanmedic51]

That law sucks. For example, parking lot at night. Guy with an illegal switchblade knife comes up behind a woman getting into a car, woman is carrying a gun. He clicks open the knife and says, "Get out, I'm taking your car. Give me the car, I'll let you go." According to Maine law she has NO CHOICE but to keep her gun holstered and let the criminal with the knife drive off with her car. Maine law says that she must trust the criminal not to harm her.

You can meet force with force...reasonably. I would NOT keep my gun holstered and I would give the BG the one and only chance to leave before I started letting lead fly. I would just have to prove that my life or a 3rd persons life was in imminent danger if I fired. The other side of it too is, how can you prove the BGs true intent regardless of what they say to you....especially when they are already threatening you with a deadly weapon.

 

[Flanmedic51]

Maine law is pretty good actually. Because if someone has to shoot and kill someone in self defense, per law, their life or someone else's was in immediate danger and therefore should be relatively easy to justify. The stand your ground law allows a bit more gray area for justification and we are seeing that fiasco play out in FL.

 

[jcdrake1988]

No that is a shoot situation as defined by statute.

How do you figure? I'm the prosecutor and I've got a stacked anti-gun jury. The victim of the shooting (notice the criminal is the victim in this case) was armed with only a knife. He never got within arm's reach of the shooter. He told the shooter that if she left, he would not hurt her. All she had to do was step away from the vehicle and retreat into the safety of the store. Instead the shooter decides that she will be judge and jury and execute the victim on the spot and she used a huge disparity of force to do so - a gun against a knife. She had plenty of opportunity to simply run from the victim, who was armed with only a knife, but instead she chose to shoot and kill the victim when he could not even reach her with the knife. She had the DUTY to retreat, but she chose instead to kill the victim in cold blooded vengence.

When he displayed the knife he is showing intent to use deadly force so she would be well within her rights to let him have it. And if she's a good enough shot no one will be around to say "well i said ill let you live"

 

[Flanmedic51]

How do you figure? I'm the prosecutor and I've got a stacked anti-gun jury. The victim of the shooting (notice the criminal is the victim in this case) was armed with only a knife. He never got within arm's reach of the shooter. He told the shooter that if she left, he would not hurt her. All she had to do was step away from the vehicle and retreat into the safety of the store. Instead the shooter decides that she will be judge and jury and execute the victim on the spot and she used a huge disparity of force to do so - a gun against a knife. She had plenty of opportunity to simply run from the victim, who was armed with only a knife, but instead she chose to shoot and kill the victim when he could not even reach her with the knife. She had the DUTY to retreat, but she chose instead to kill the victim in cold blooded vengence.

2.* *A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
A. When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is:
(1) About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person; or
(2) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping, robbery or a violation of section 253, subsection 1, paragraph A, against the person or a 3rd person; or [1989, c. 878, Pt. B, §15 (AMD).]

Your scenario involves armed robbery...bang bang.

 

[cmhbob]

Given the general history of "Do what I want and I'll let you live," and the Tueller/21-foot rule, I'd not be taking my chances that he's honest. He's already established that he doesn't believe in following the rule of law. Why should I trust him when he promises something?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Maine law is pretty good actually. Because if someone has to shoot and kill someone in self defense, per law, their life or someone else's was in immediate danger and therefore should be relatively easy to justify. The stand your ground law allows a bit more gray area for justification and we are seeing that fiasco play out in FL.

Just curious.... has anyone actually read the REAL Florida "stand your ground" law? The justification for using deadly force is exactly the same. The Florida statute removes the gray area question of, "could the defender have fled in safety". In Maine's law, for example, two elements must be met to be justified: the defendant was faced with an imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death AND they could not escape said threat in safety. The second element is a huge grey that simply should not exist. Florida's statute reduces the justification to only one element: the defendant was faced with an imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death. Florida's stand your ground law creates no additional justifications and creates no new circumstances where deadly force is allowed:

Florida statute:
[SIZE=-1]

776.012 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 such 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:(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 is the "castle doctrine" law which says that if a person is attempting to unlawfully or forcibly or has unlawfully or forcibly entered your home or vehicle that you are occupying you can automatically assume that the person's intent is to do you grave bodily harm or death.

No person when they are defending their life, or the life of another, should be required by law to pause and evaluate if there is a safe escape route available or not.
[/SIZE]

 

[Wilber]

I would not give a person threatning me with a knife the benefit of the doubt...Even if they say " I will let you go". After you notice them with the knife and tell them to leave...and they continue to advance on you with the knife directed at you they are in effect threatening you with serious bodily harm or death. Self defense is justified at this point.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I would not give a person threatning me with a knife the benefit of the doubt...Even if they say " I will let you go". After you notice them with the knife and tell them to leave...and they continue to advance on you with the knife directed at you they are in effect threatening you with serious bodily harm or death. Self defense is justified at this point.

Unfortunately, statutes like Maine's leave the jury to decide whether or not you could have retreated. A jury in Florida, and a lot of other states, do not have to consider that question, they are left with only the question of whether or not a reasonably feel that someone's life was in danger.

 

[Flanmedic51]

I would not give a person threatning me with a knife the benefit of the doubt...Even if they say " I will let you go". After you notice them with the knife and tell them to leave...and they continue to advance on you with the knife directed at you they are in effect threatening you with serious bodily harm or death. Self defense is justified at this point.

Unfortunately, statutes like Maine's leave the jury to decide whether or not you could have retreated. A jury in Florida, and a lot of other states, do not have to consider that question, they are left with only the question of whether or not a reasonably feel that someone's life was in danger.

Your life being in imminent danger over rules the need to retreat thus justifies the shoot. It's the principle of any justified shooting no matter what the State.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Your life being in imminent danger over rules the need to retreat thus justifies the shoot. It's the principle of any justified shooting no matter what the State.

So, then, there is no difference in Maine law and Florida law.

 

[Flanmedic51]

Your life being in imminent danger over rules the need to retreat thus justifies the shoot. It's the principle of any justified shooting no matter what the State.

So, then, there is no difference in Maine law and Florida law.

That's not what I said. In any State you still have to prove that your life was in jeopardy. In FL, there are elements of the law that make it difficult because it makes it hard to distinguish sometimes a distinct line of who the aggressor may be. That's always been the argument for stand your ground laws.

 

[Maine CWP Training]

Your life does not have to be in jeopardy in Maine: 8. "Deadly force" means physical force that a person uses with the intent of causing, or that a person knows to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury. Except as provided in section 101, subsection 5, intentionally, knowingly or recklessly discharging a firearm in the direction of another person or at a moving vehicle constitutes deadly force.

 

[NavyLCDR]

That's not what I said. In any State you still have to prove that your life was in jeopardy. In FL, there are elements of the law that make it difficult because it makes it hard to distinguish sometimes a distinct line of who the aggressor may be. That's always been the argument for stand your ground laws.

How does the stand your ground law make it harder to distinguish a distinct line of who the aggressor may be?

Here's a true story: Got off work at 11:00pm on evening shift. On the way home there is an intersection where two lanes turn right at the stop light. There is a sign before the interection that says "Right turn on red permitted from right lane only". So, I am sitting in the second right turn lane, not the right-most lane at the red light. Car comes up behind. No traffic at all. He starts honking his horn and flashing his lights. He gets out of his car and comes up to mine. Being young and dumb at the time I rolled down my window. He starts yelling and scraming, "What the blank is wrong with you, why don't you go, blank you, blah, blah, blah".

Now, THEORHETICAALY, at this point (and this is not what happened), let's say that I yelled back, "Why don't you go back there and read that blanking sign you blanking moron and try to figure out what it says!" Mr. Rager pulls out a knife and pushes it part way inside my window and says, "Why don't you try and make me do it so I can kill you!" I pull out my gun and kill him.

So, according to you, I am justified according to Maine law. Here is a person who has made a verbal threat to kill me, he possess a deadly weapon in close proximity to me. Certainly all of the elements of imminent danger of grave bodily harm or death exist. According to you, Maine's duty to retreat law does not raise any grey areas at all, but a stand your ground law would because it would be questioned if I was the agressor or not? How is that?

Now, let's put your wife or daughter in that car instead of me. She pulls her gun and kills the guy when he puts the knife in her face. Which state's law would you rather have applied? Maine's state law, where the prosecutor can say to the jury, "She is guilty of manslaughter/homicide because all she had to do was step on the gas and drive away from the encounter." or would you rather have her tried under Florida's law?