[Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law

Tue Oct 1 13:20:40 PDT 2013

I had found that already, but thank you anyway.  I was looking for the text of the 2006 law.  I found it here:  http://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2006/S1441.html

This law it appears makes a person who defended themselves in accordance with the section you posted and couple of others immune from civil action for the same offense.  If I'm reading it correctly.

Here is the statement of purpose copied from the bill:

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE RS 16170 The purpose of this legislation is to give a person immunity from
civil action for using force to defend his life, family or
property from those who would seek to harm them or for coming to
the aid of another who is threatened.  This in no way is intended
to apply to if such force is used against law enforcement
officers.  It would also allow award of reasonable attorney's
fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income and all
expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of civil action if
the court finds that the defendant is immune from such an action. 

Paul

________________________________
 From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law

Courtesy of Title 18 (Crimes and Punishments), Chapter 40 (Homicides), Section 18-4009 (Justifiable Homicide By Any Person) of the Idaho Statutes at:

http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH40SECT18-4009.htm

---------------------------------
TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 40
HOMICIDE
 18-4009. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY ANY PERSON. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:

1.  When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

2.  When committed in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,

3.  When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mortal combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,

4.  When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

---------------------------------

Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"There's room at the top they are telling you still But first you must learn how to smile as you kill 
If you want to be like the folks on the hill."

- John Lennon

On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

I was under the impression that Idaho had a "castle doctrine" law, not a "stand your ground" law per se.  The difference being that you can stand your ground in your home, but not elsewhere.  A quick search failed to turn up the text of this law, but it appears to have been passed in 2006.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
>To: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 10:24 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law
> 
>
>
>No takers on Idaho 'stand your ground' jury instructions that I posed below?  I'm disappointed. It's mighty white of most of you to have concern for Florida's laws and not Idaho's laws on 'stand your ground'.  And note that Zimmerman's defense invoked 'self defense' and not 'stand your ground' probably because Zimmerman wasn't standing.  He'd been jumped, was laid out flat with has back on the ground, and being struck repeatedly by Trayvon Martin.
>
>Tom Hansen wrote:
><It's Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law that I furiously believe should be repealed before the next "Trayvon Martin".>
>http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2013-August/092859.html
>
>-Scott
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com; sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
>Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:43:09 -0600
>Subject: [Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law
>
> 
>Tom wrote on Fri Jul 19 13:11:26 2013:
><The way I interpret the Idaho [stand your ground] law is similar to Texas' law, that the 
perpetrator must be either on your property or attempting to enter your 
property.>
>
>This took me a while to get back to and I talked to one of my UI dorm mates who was an Idaho prosecutor for many years.  Maybe Sunil who is also a former prosecutor can confirm, but this is what I've been informed are the current Idaho jury instructions regarding 'stand your ground':
>
>The jury instruction currently approved by the Idaho Supreme Court, 
based on Idaho's common law, is this: "In the exercise of the right of 
[self defense] [defense of another], one need not retreat.  One may 
stand one's ground and defend [oneself] [the other person] by the use of
 all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable 
person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge[; and a person 
may pursue the attacker until [the person] [the other person] has been 
secured from danger if that course likewise appears reasonably 
necessary].  This law applies even though the person being [attacked] 
[defended] might more easily have gained safety by flight or by 
withdrawing from the scene."
>
>-Scott
>
>From thansen at moscow.com  Fri Jul 19 13:11:26 2013
>Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:11:26 -0700
>Subject: [Vision2020] Vision2020 Digest, Vol 85, Issue 95
>
>The way I interpret the Idaho law is similar to Texas' law, that the perpetrator must be either on your property or attempting to enter your property.
>
>Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
>"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>http://www.MoscowCares.com
>  
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
>
>"There's room at the top they are telling you still 
>But first you must learn how to smile as you kill 
>If you want to
 be like the folks on the hill."
>
>- John Lennon
> 
>
>
>On Jul 19, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Dan Carscallen <areaman530 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom et al,
>> 
>> While Idaho's law isn't necessarily "stand your ground", I don't think you have to be on your own property, but I believe you *do* have to prove that you were in imminent danger of losing your life. 
>> 
>> DC
>> 
>> On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:56, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Exactly, Joe.
>>> 
>>> The state of Florida has become the venue where the shoot-out at the OK Corral would be considered legal, provided that each side is in fear for their lives when they
 initially meet.  There is no requirement for anybody to seek alternate actions to "ready-aim(optional)-fire".
>>> 
>>> At least Idaho requires the threat to take place on your property when younpull the trigger.
>>> 
>>> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>> 
>>> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>   
>>> Tom Hansen
>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>> 
>>> "There's room at the top they are telling you still 
>>> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill 
>>> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>> 
>>> - John Lennon
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Gary,
>>>> 
>>>> I don't want to pick on Zimmerman. Other than some superficial understanding of the case, I know nothing about Mr. Zimmerman, no reason to think he's racist or whatever. I also think that, were I a juror, I might have found him innocent since -- as you note below -- there were no eyewitnesses and thus reasonable doubt about his guilt. Again, I have only a superficial understanding of the case.
>>>> 
>>>> But the real story seems different than the one you tell below and based on my understanding of the story I would say it sounds as if Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of negligence leading to the death of a
 young man, at the very least. Again, given the stand-your-ground law it is unlikely he can be charged with anything.
>>>> 
>>>> But that is what is so disturbing to me about the case. Likely Zimmerman violated no laws. Maybe Zimmerman is not a racist but of course there are a lot of racists. Maybe he didn't think Martin was suspicious because he was black but if you listen to the black men talking to Chris Matthews about their experiences in the link I posted yesterday stories of black men being suspected of wrongdoing merely because they are black are all too common. 
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/chris-matthews-apologizes-black-colleagues-behalf-white-people_n_3622703.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So here is the situation we have now, given the Zimmerman result. A white
 man in Florida, armed with a gun, can get into a car and follow any black kid he wants. If the black kid objects in a threatening way he can shoot and kill him. Your tendency to disagree with anything that progressives and liberals say must be pretty strong for you to look at this story and not think that something is seriously wrong. Zimmerman is guilty of something, maybe not in the eyes of crazy Florida law but at least in some common sense moral way.
>
>=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
>
>=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net
>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20131001/55b23f3f/attachment-0001.html>