As you likely know, I am not an attorney and have had no education in law.
If you need clarification on any of this information, seek out a qualified attorney for a legal opinion.
Any of my personal opinions below will be parenthesized, italicized, and in a different color or shade.
OKLAHOMA STATUTES
TITLE 21 § 1289.25 -
PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or places of business.
B. A person or a owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business; and
(From what I understand, entry into my place of business, dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, without my permission, constitutes "unlawful entry")
(It's also my understanding that in Oklahoma, breaking the plane of entry into my place of business, dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, is considered "forcible entry". So if I had my doors open, with flies flying in and out of the house, and someone walked in, that could be considered "forcible entry". )
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(It seems to me, that #2, above, indicates that I don't need to have to actually see them unlawfully, and forcibly, entering. I just have to have a reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry had occurred. What do you think?)
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business to further an unlawful activity.
(So, the way I see it (per # 3 above), if I'm cooking meth in my kitchen, or selling stolen car parts, or engaged in any other unlawful activity in my dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business, I can't use this law. It doesn't apply to me.)
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has 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 great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(To me, the above section "D." is where the statute addresses folks who may have to use deadly force and may have a concealed carry license. I notice two things right away:
1. I can't be engaged in an unlawful activity
2. I have to have a right to be there. So even if I'm a licensed CCW holder, carrying in a business which has a "No Concealed Guns" sign, of some sort, means...I am engaged in an unlawful activity and this statute wont necessarily protect me.
One thing that bothers me on this paragraph is where it says the part about "meeting force with force, including deadly force...to prevent the commission of a forcible felony". I am careful about interpreting this too widely. Using deadly force when it is not reasonable or necessary, such as a property crime, might set me up for a bad day in court!
One other thing:
It seems that "D" may apply to someone without a concealed carry license who has to use deadly force to protect themselves or another. But...they can't be involved in an unlawful activity, so they can't be carrying unlawfully. The deadly force instrument must be lawful.
What other instrument may constitute lawful deadly force? I don't know...maybe an improvised deadly force instrument, such as: The bad guy's gun or weapon, or a stick or rock which is laying around and available.)
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(My impression of "E." is... the law "presumes" that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business, is there to commit a crime. Not just any crime, but a crime involving force or violence.
If there were an attorney handy I might ask, "If the law presumes such a thing, doesn't it mean that I can presume that as well?" It seems that way to me. If so, I think this tells me I have the legal right to come to the conclusion that the intruder is there illegally and intending to use force or violence.)
F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
("Immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force". I'm thinking here that if I meet the presumptions in "B" and "D" I can't be charged with a crime and the law won't allow a successful civil suit being adjudicated against me.
You and I know, just about anybody can sue just about anyone else for just about anything. It's my understanding that if this happens, and it is found that I meet the presumptions in "B" and "D", I can't be found "guilty",
And... (according to "H", below) if such a thing should happen, the folks who brought the suit against me can be made to pay my attorney fees and any reasonable expenses incurred in my defense! Yippee!)
G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney 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 F of this section.
I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense 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.
(When I read this, I think they are saying to me, that I don't necessarily need a concealed carry license to use deadly force. I believe they are saying that this statutes regulates the "use" of deadly force, not the carrying of concealed handguns.)
J. As used in this section:
1. "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;
2. "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and
3. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
(If a "dwelling" is not necessarily a "residence" that means it can be other things. In particular, it seems to me, it is a building or conveyance of any kind. A building of any kind describes all buildings, does it not? So, it seems to me that that a dwelling is any building that is designed to be occupied by people. It is not a residence because residence is defined differently.)
No comments:
Post a Comment