House OKs deadly force in public (NH)

Nashua Telegraph ^ | April 27, 2006 | Kevin Landrigan

[b2stealth]

I think this only makes sense. If not for guns we will be living under big brother right now.

[catholicfreeper]

Ok the above is the bill. There does seem to be a qualification from what I am reading that the person assaulted must be in probally some realistic fear of a felony. Now I have no idea what the felonies are in New Hampshire. However it appears that something more than a simple assault or battery that would be required. Usually that requires some sort of battery with a firearm or deadly weapon or to protect oneself against a an attack thats purpose is to cause death or great bodily harm. Also there are laws against hitting pregnant woman in the manner you describe. Those often have a felony component So at least that clears up some issues I have. As a side note, discussion here is always nicer when people don't jump to assumptions about folks.
By looking up the bill that was all handled nicely. It puts it all in context a little.

[Durus]

"The idea that people should use deadly force only to defend their lives is rooted in English common law"

Someone can die from being punched once if the right spot, even if it's pure bad luck and not skill. While you may be willing to risk it I don't think you should advocate that everyone takes that risk. Further while you state that "Duty to retreat" is a common law principle that dates back to whenever I can think of many historical accounts that directly conflict with that theory.

The only people served by "duty to retreat" laws are criminals.

[Durus]

I would imagine if you shot someone in the back after they decided to flee the scene of the assault you would face prosecution.

[inquest]

I'm thinking more along the lines of he hit you, you pull out a gun, he freezes in fear - then what?

[Durus]

If the criminal freezes in fear you back away to a reasonable distance and call the police. If the criminal runs away then great.

[Little Bill]

The yute was a banger. I am retiring to NH and helped out in the last election, to establish my credentials so to speak, in the small town that I shall live in.

This place is armed to the teeth, one of the surest ways to guess that the property owner would display the Republican signs we were setting up was to look for a gun owners of NH sticker.

The mentality in NH, about guns, is so different from Mass that it takes awhile to get used to it. In the booners where I am going to be living the major crimes are DUI and wife beating. NH is a user friendly State, but the laws that they have are enforced, which is not a bad idea.

[Southack]

Castle laws are winning in state after state...and Concealed Carry laws have already won in 47 states.

These are conservative, pro-gun, national trends that the Beltway Pundits can't see from their lofty perches in Washington, D.C.

[JamesP81]

This bill is unnecessary and creates the potential for people to use deadly force when they otherwise would not use deadly force or would have retreated from the incident

This may sound like chest pounding on my part, but I got a problem with this statement. Retreating from an "incident" for an American, especially an American male, when it isn't necessary is a pansy french kind of thing to do. It's a symptom of some of the inner problems we face as a culture in this nation.

When criminals start getting shot for screwing around with people they'll quit doing it and all will be better for it.

A man with a gun citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.

[SauronOfMordor]

I just hope something horrible doesn't come out of this. I am sure some of us remember how stupid and invincible we felt we were 18 0r 19. I am just saying one day someone's son here could get in a stupid fight over a girl in a parking lot throw the first punch and get killed over it.

Looking at the actual Bill's Text clarifies things

III. A person who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat and shall have the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself, herself, or another.

Under the proposed law, I DO NOT have the right to shoot you in response to you punching me in the face, or threatening to. I DO have the right to shoot you if you come at me with a knife. The law does not authorize the use of deadly force in a common fight

[Shooter 2.5]

If you're a member of the NRA, then I'm Santa Claus.

[SauronOfMordor]

OK, I do have a question about these laws. If someone hits you, and you draw your gun, are you ever obligated not to fire if it's clear that the sight of your gun has caused him to desist?

Even under the new law, you may only use deadly force to protect your life, or the life of an innocent. So, in just about any locality, a simple punch is not justification to draw a deadly weapon (one exception is if there is a gross disparity of strength, eg man versus muscular young man, sufficient that the defender is in reasonable fear of being beaten to death). And once the attacker retreats, you are no longer in deadly danger, and thus have no right to use deadly force.

An exception to the above is if you see the attacker is moving away to grab a weapon, or to get to cover where he can shoot you while being safe from return fire

[SauronOfMordor]

on last post I meant to put "elderly man vs muscular young man"

[RevCon]

"The common law doctrine of self defense has developed over the centuries for a reason."

The common law doctrine of slavery also developed over the centuries for a reason - did that make slavery OK??? NO. Repressive law is repressive law, whether it is born of legislation or from a history of bad judicial decisions (i.e. common law).

"I am sure some of us remember how stupid and invincible we felt we were 18 0r 19. I am just saying one day someone's son here could get in a stupid fight over a girl in a parking lot throw the first punch and get killed over it."

First of all, you can not carry a weapon in NH (or in most states) unless your over the ager 21 for exactly this reason. Secondly, if you throw the first punch (or initiate any violence against another person, for any reason) then you get what you deserve. It's just a cleansing of the gene pool.

[RevCon]

" LOVE it in NH
moved here from Mass in 03 :)
too bad we will be stuck with Lynch as Governor for the foreseeable future"

Yes, I love NH too.
Moved here from RI in 04 :)

[RevCon]

"I'm thinking more along the lines of he hit you, you pull out a gun, he freezes in fear - then what?"

BANG - that's what, and now he's no longer a problem to anyone ever again (he should have thought of this before starting the assault). Now you don't have to worry about facing a room full of idiot (jury) who will deliberate, discuss, and try to second guess how you could have / should have acted :-(

Besides, how do you know he was frozen in fear. Perhaps he is just catching his breath before resuming the attack. I way again - BANG. If you don't want to get shot, don't pick me as a target (especially if I am out with my 5 children).

[archy]

Related Portsmouth Herald story FReepposted here:

House reverses course, supports expanded use of deadly force (NH)

[mvpel]

First of all, you can not carry a weapon in NH (or in most states) unless your over the ager 21...

In New Hampshire, there is no lower age limit for issuance of a concealed-carry license, open carry is a constitutional right, and the principal restriction on 18-21 year-old second-class citizens is the federal prohibition against purchasing a handgun from a federally-licensed dealer.