New Blog Post: Understanding North Carolina Self-Defense Law

I read it, pretty good IMO. 3 things:
1) Intent of Unlawful Entry is a great section Most do not fully understand this I don't think.
2) No mention of age when it comes to disparity of force. 85 woman punching some in the face has different metric than 25 year old fit male punching someone in the face.
3) Maybe stress the fact that your right to use deadly force exists only in a specific moment in time- meaning with very second the threat is over(bad dude turns and starts to run), your right to shoot him no longer exists.
 
yellolab said:
I read it, pretty good IMO. 3 things:
1) Intent of Unlawful Entry is a great section Most do not fully understand this I don't think.
2) No mention of age when it comes to disparity of force. 85 woman punching some in the face has different metric than 25 year old fit male punching someone in the face.
3) Maybe stress the fact that your right to use deadly force exists only in a specific moment in time- meaning with very second the threat is over(bad dude turns and starts to run), your right to shoot him no longer exists.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback.
I enjoy hearing from people like you and your point of view
 
If I understood it correctly, the presumption of fear of death does not apply when an unlawful intruder is under the age of 18. This is something I didn't know, and is quite sobering since many perpetrators are under 18. I guess I should post signs that you must be 18 years of age to unlawfully enter my house!
 
Red Marley said:
If I understood it correctly, the presumption of fear of death does not apply when an unlawful intruder is under the age of 18. This is something I didn't know, and is quite sobering since many perpetrators are under 18. I guess I should post signs that you must be 18 years of age to unlawfully enter my house!
Click to expand...
No sir,
That was an error on my part. The law states:

The person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.

My editing did not catch what you did, thanks for that.
 
JBoyette said:
No sir,
That was an error on my part. The law states:

The person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.

My editing did not catch what you did, thanks for that.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up!
 
Red Marley said:
If I understood it correctly, the presumption of fear of death does not apply when an unlawful intruder is under the age of 18. This is something I didn't know, and is quite sobering since many perpetrators are under 18. I guess I should post signs that you must be 18 years of age to unlawfully enter my house!
Click to expand...
That’s how I read it also. I’m definitely not asking how old an intruder is before acting 🤣
 
John,

I did a cursory read of the article. Overall good, but I think the section on "duty to retreat" is confusing.

It states "the duty to retreat is waived only in situations where the lawful occupant reasonably fears imminent death or serious bodily harm. If the occupant could safely retreat without risking harm to themselves or others, this provision does not apply."

The way that is worded implies that there is a duty to retreat if you can safely do so. Even under the old "duty to retreat" standard, you would not have a duty to retreat if you could not do so safely, i.e. you are facing a bad guy with a gun pointed at you vs. a bad guy with a baseball bat 50 ft away. In some states the fact that you can retreat can not even be considered or brought up in trial. In others, the prosecutor can bring up that you not retreating was not "reasonable" under the circumstances. For example, if you are in your living room at home, under the castle doctrine, if someone is forcibly enters your front door, you have the presumption that you are facing a imminent threat and do not have to retreat to another area of the house even if you could do so safely.

Not a lawyer, but I have been an avid listener of Andrew Branca's and CCW Safe's podcast and have taken a couple of Andrew's courses online.
 
blewis3 said:
John,

I did a cursory read of the article. Overall good, but I think the section on "duty to retreat" is confusing.

It states "the duty to retreat is waived only in situations where the lawful occupant reasonably fears imminent death or serious bodily harm. If the occupant could safely retreat without risking harm to themselves or others, this provision does not apply."

The way that is worded implies that there is a duty to retreat if you can safely do so. Even under the old "duty to retreat" standard, you would not have a duty to retreat if you could not do so safely, i.e. you are facing a bad guy with a gun pointed at you vs. a bad guy with a baseball bat 50 ft away. In some states the fact that you can retreat can not even be considered or brought up in trial. In others, the prosecutor can bring up that you not retreating was not "reasonable" under the circumstances. For example, if you are in your living room at home, under the castle doctrine, if someone is forcibly enters your front door, you have the presumption that you are facing a imminent threat and do not have to retreat to another area of the house even if you could do so safely.

Not a lawyer, but I have been an avid listener of Andrew Branca's and CCW Safe's podcast and have taken a couple of Andrew's courses online.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback.

My intent and I will rewrite to be more clear is:
If you do not have imminent death or serious bodily harm then disengagement is a great way to avoid escalation.

I find that some people think that "no duty to retreat" is a blessing for escalation.

I see the "no duty to retreat" as one does not have to make a choice of action or in-action. You are instead in a defensive posture of reaction that's driven by the adversaries choices.

Thanks again for the reply
 
Last edited:
JBoyette said:
Thanks for the feedback.

My intent and I will rewrite to be more clear is:
If you do not have imminent death or serious bodily harm then disengagement is a great way to avoid escalation.

I find that some people think that "no duty to retreat" is a blessing for escalation.

I see the "no duty to retreat" as one does not have to make a choice of action or in-action. You are instead in a defensive posture of reaction that's driven by the adversaries choices.

That's again for the reply
Click to expand...
That goes without saying and I would agree that walking away is always better than shooting someone unless there is no other choice. But I am glad that retreating isn't a legal requirement anymore since it would most likely be very hard to do in actuality.
 
Stogies said:
That goes without saying and I would agree that walking away is always better than shooting someone unless there is no other choice. But I am glad that retreating isn't a legal requirement anymore since it would most likely be very hard to do in actuality.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your statement that:
"That goes without saying"

Because not every gun owner has thought through these situations like you have.

you are 1000% correct that it's obvious once one thinks the process out.

but not everyone has done that and my blog posts I hope helps people in that journey of enlightenment.

John
 
JBoyette said:
I disagree with your statement that:
"That goes without saying"

Because not every gun owner has thought through these situations like you have.

you are 1000% correct that it's obvious once one thinks the process out.

but not everyone has done that and my blog posts I hope helps people in that journey of enlightenment.

John
Click to expand...
I suspect that most people know this on one intuitive level or another but my biggest worry is that actual self defense situations tend to be very fluid and a lot of people make wrong choices in the heat of the moment and under stress. I am in no way claiming that could not happen to me. Practically all cases if road rage shootings (there seem to be a lot recently) fall under that.
 
Stogies said:
I suspect that most people know this on one intuitive level or another but my biggest worry is that actual self defense situations tend to be very fluid and a lot of people make wrong choices in the heat of the moment and under stress. I am in no way claiming that could not happen to me. Practically all cases if road rage shootings (there seem to be a lot recently) fall under that.
Click to expand...

Oh 100%

Since we are on this topic, I wrote blog articles that directly speak to your concerns.

First is: Principles of Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy This conversation is about learning how to get to a justified perfect self-defense.
The second is Mastering the OODA Loop. This article talks about how to react to a threat quickly and at the appropriate level of response.
Third is IAD Immediate Action Drills, Pre-trained reactions to enhance one's response.

These three articles are the basis of all of my learning and professional life

Love the conversation.
 
I admit to being a little confused. Your blog post describes section (b) as saying:
  • Secondly, the person using defensive force must have a reasonable belief that an intruder or attacker intends to inflict death or serious bodily harm upon them or others present in the exact location. This condition underscores the importance of having a genuine and reasonable fear for personal safety when resorting to defensive actions.
But the current law section (b) reads:

(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply 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 home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.(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.

Section (f) reads:
(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

So, section (b) reads the lawful occupant...is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Therefore under (f) one has no duty to retreat.

What am I missing that you are trying to explain?
 
Last edited:
dmarbell said:
I admit to being a little confused. Your blog post describes section (b) as saying:
  • Secondly, the person using defensive force must have a reasonable belief that an intruder or attacker intends to inflict death or serious bodily harm upon them or others present in the exact location. This condition underscores the importance of having a genuine and reasonable fear for personal safety when resorting to defensive actions.
But the current law section (b) reads:

(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply 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 home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.(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.

Section (f) reads:
(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

So, section (b) reads the lawful occupant...is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Therefore under (f) one has no duty to retreat.

What am I missing that you are trying to explain?
Click to expand...
Not sure I am following you on this one. In order to have "a reasonable belief" that makes the mindset of the victim as "presumed"
 
Stogies said:
I suspect that most people know this on one intuitive level or another but my biggest worry is that actual self defense situations tend to be very fluid and a lot of people make wrong choices in the heat of the moment and under stress. I am in no way claiming that could not happen to me. Practically all cases if road rage shootings (there seem to be a lot recently) fall under that.
Click to expand...
I've encountered enough people who got the REO Speedwagon version of self-defense law (they heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who...) that yes, it needs to be said out loud and spelled out in unambiguous/idiotproof terms. I'm not sure if they are "most", but I've seen it often enough that it's worrisome.
 
Great post, thank you.

It reiterates many key points from "Law of Self-Defense in North Carolina" by John Rubin with all new updates. I highly recommend the book because it explains the process and logic of using the self-defense clause in court.

The only thing that comes to mind is there are three cases where there are presumptions of fear of death - a case of forcible entry into the lawfully occupied residence, vehicle, and place of work, an attempt of arson of an occupied structure, and an attempt of forcible rape.
 
Last edited:
JBoyette said:
Not sure I am following you on this one. In order to have "a reasonable belief" that makes the mindset of the victim as "presumed"
Click to expand...

There is nothing in North Carolina General Statute § 14-51.2 regarding the language "a reasonable belief." If I missed it, show me. The only instance of the word "reasonable" in North Carolina General Statute § 14-51.2 is here: (b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:

One using deadly force in the circumstances following (b) is presumed to have a reasonable fear. No other reasonable belief has to be shown. Show me otherwise, please.

The current language shift the burden to the prosecutor to prove there was no reasonable belief. In practice, I someone breaks into your home, say, and you are presume to have held a reasonable fear, how could a prosecutor prove otherwise? Only under Section (c), including:

(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

(5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle, or workplace and (ii) has exited the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.

Your language seems to be saying the "person using defensive force must have a reasonable belief that an intruder or attacker intends to inflict death or serious bodily harm upon them or others..." That belief is reasonable on its face under the new statute.
 
Last edited:
dmarbell said:
There is nothing in North Carolina General Statute § 14-51.2 regarding the language "a reasonable belief." If I missed it, show me. The only instance of the word "reasonable" in North Carolina General Statute § 14-51.2 is here: (b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:

One using deadly force in the circumstances following (b) is presumed to have a reasonable fear. No other reasonable belief has to be shown. Show me otherwise, please.

The current language shift the burden to the prosecutor to prove there was no reasonable belief. In practice, I someone breaks into your home, say, and you are presume to have held a reasonable fear, how could a prosecutor prove otherwise? Only under Section (c), including:

(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

(5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle, or workplace and (ii) has exited the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.

Your language seems to be saying the "person using defensive force must have a reasonable belief that an intruder or attacker intends to inflict death or serious bodily harm upon them or others..." That belief is reasonable on its face under the new statute.
Click to expand...
Correct.

An attack on ones home is the same as an attack on ones person. Same is true for a vehicle, tent etc. a person can not separate the difference in the moment.

John
 
JBoyette said:
Correct.

An attack on ones home is the same as an attack on ones person. Same is true for a vehicle, tent etc. a person can not separate the difference in the moment.

John
Click to expand...

But again, the link above says this, which is not correct. The "must have a reasonable belief" portion of the law is replaced by the presumption that one has a reasonable belief. The language is, in my opinion, misleading.

  • Secondly, the person using defensive force must have a reasonable belief that an intruder or attacker intends to inflict death or serious bodily harm upon them or others present in the exact location. This condition underscores the importance of having a genuine and reasonable fear for personal safety when resorting to defensive actions.
 
Last edited:
JBoyette said:

Understanding North Carolina Self-Defense Law​

The above link is covered by North Carolina General Statute § 14-51.2.

I would love to read your feedback on this topic. Alot of people seem to get this confused with the states older laws on self defense.

John
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing this article. We need more discussions like this with explanations that average people can understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom