Interpreting the Law, whats your thoughts????

[businessajm]

The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:


Does this mean if someone is asserting a claim to a possession of yours (wallet, car, etc) that you must give it up if it will grant you the option to not have to use deadly force? 

I am guessing that the second part means if the concealed carry holder is doing something illegal that they are not allow to use deadly force if questioned by another person!  Am I correct in this assertion?

[oldgraygeek]

"The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety..."

If someone is trying to take your car or wallet by force, how do you know that giving it up will avoid anything "with complete safety?"

In any such situation, there are two commandments:
-Defend your family, yourself, and your possessions (in that order).
-SHUT THE F*** UP, let the police arrest you, and wait for your attorney.

[fdegree]

.
.
It appears this is the code that you are quoting:

TITLE 11

Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Delaware Criminal Code

CHAPTER 4. DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY

§ 464. Justification -- Use of force in self-protection.

Then skipping down to this section:

(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:

(1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or

(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:

a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and

b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and

c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.

Here is my interpretation...of course I am not a lawyer, nor am I pretending to be one.  A lawyer, judge or jury could interpret it much differently:

I can not use deadly force if I started the confrontation.
I can not use deadly force if I can retreat safely or give up my possessions safely or safely comply with someone's command.
Although, if I am in my home, or place of employment, I do not have to retreat...therefore deadly force would be warranted.

As OldGray eluded...safely retreating, relinquishing or complying is a judgement call.  There is no way of knowing for sure that your safety is guaranteed by doing this.  Every situation is different, and you need to be prepared to deal, and live, with the outcome of your decision.

[ESPMan]

The way I was told is like this :

If someone walks up to you and says "Hey, nice car. Mine now." You CANNOT use deadly force because there was no threat from the big 4 (severe bodily injury, death, kidnapping, unlawful sexual contact.) If they address it as "Gimme your car or i'll f****** kill you," there is now a credible threat to your life and well-being. However, if scenario one is presented, and they try to drive off in your car with your child in it, that constitutes kidnapping, at which point I would draw. I think old OGG said it best with his commandments. This is how I see it, and how we were taught at our class.

[Cbmarine]

The way I was told is like this :

If someone walks up to you and says "Hey, nice car. Mine now." You CANNOT use deadly force because there was no threat from the big 4 (severe bodily injury, death, kidnapping, unlawful sexual contact.) If they address it as "Gimme your car or i'll f****** kill you," there is now a credible threat to your life and well-being. However, if scenario one is presented, and they try to drive off in your car with your child in it, that constitutes kidnapping, at which point I would draw. I think old OGG said it best with his commandments. This is how I see it, and how we were taught at our class.

There appears to be a step missing here. The assumption appears to be that you you would meekly hand over your car keys. The situation is likely to escalate to a threat on the big 4.

From my UT course, the key was that the perp was committing a felony.  Here's a piece of the DE Code that is interesting, especially to the geriatric set in this forum.

11 Del C § 612. Assault in the second degree; class D felony.

(a) A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:

(1) The person recklessly or intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person; or

(2) The person recklessly or intentionally causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or
...
(5) The person recklessly or intentionally causes physical injury to another person who is 62 years of age or older; or

[Condition 1]

My take on it, regardless how the law can be interpreted, is that my possession is not worth my life or freedom. If my life, nor the life of any of my family members, is in danger I would rather surrender my possession. Insurance will cover my car, credit cards....

[Adrenolin]

I'll protect my Family, Myself and my Property in that order. Somewhere between myself and property I'll include 'Others' who could possibly suffer serious physical injury or worse without my assistance.. but only knowing my Family was safe. Just the way I am. I consider myself a 'nice' guy and would have a very hard time knowing someone was injured if I could have prevented it. Yeah I know.. Nice guys finish last.. don't care. I've found myself defending others twice before and would do so again.

I'll deal with any arrests or legal issues later and keeping quiet until a lawyer is present.

I believe that my property and your property is worth fighting for and not simply turned over willing (but grudgingly) to any old thug whose threatening or not. If they have the audacity to steal or demand my property I'm going to feel threatened as anyone should.

No one should be able to take your property without your consent and you should be allowed to defend that property.. period. Whomever is attempting to take your property has made their choice and, knowingly acting against the law, should also have to deal with the consequences. Not be protected by the BS politics and laws that protect their sorry behinds.

It is sad that this is even a required discussion. It is also sad that it's questionable in the law.

[Radnor]

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c004/index.shtml

§ 466. Justification -- Use of force for the protection of property.

(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary:

(1) To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or

(2) To prevent entry upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or

(3) To prevent theft, criminal mischief or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts.

(b) The defendant may in the circumstances named in subsection (a) of this section use such force as the defendant believes is necessary to protect the threatened property, provided that the defendant first requests the person against whom force is used to desist from interference with the property, unless the defendant believes that:

(1) Such a request would be useless; or

(2) It would be dangerous to the defendant or another person to make the request; or

(3) Substantial harm would be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request could effectively be made.

(c) The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that:

(1) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the defendant of the defendant's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(2) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and either:

a. Had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant; or

b. Under the circumstances existing at the time, the defendant believed the use of force other than deadly force would expose the defendant, or another person in the defendant's presence, to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury.

(d) Where a person has used force for the protection of property and has not been convicted for any crime or offense connected with that use of force, such person shall not be liable for damages or be otherwise civilly liable to the one against whom such force was used.

[Bullpup]

It's frightening to think that a jury of our "peers" might one day have to interpret these laws with the fate of one of us in their hands. 

[Capnball]

Basically it comes down to this - If you use a firearm to defend yourself, your family, your neighbor or your property from theft or serious harm by another:
1. You are guilty of assault and/or murder until proven innocent, and will be treated as such by the system, without mercy.
2. If you are not politically connected, it is unlikely that the Delaware AGs office won't attempt prosecute you to score points with his anti-gun, anti freedom supporters
3. The media, if they get the story, will make you out to be a gun-slinging monster regardless of the facts of the case.
4. It is possible to get out of jail but not out of a grave.
Given the above, the outcome in any given confrontation is not in your favor but one scenario seems to be far more permanent in its outcome then the other.

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:


Does this mean if someone is asserting a claim to a possession of yours (wallet, car, etc) that you must give it up if it will grant you the option to not have to use deadly force? 

I am guessing that the second part means if the concealed carry holder is doing something illegal that they are not allow to use deadly force if questioned by another person!  Am I correct in this assertion?

If the answer is yes we live in a really messed up world. I believe the state constitution says that we can use deadly force to protect ourselves, property and the state

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

We are supposed to have a right to property under the constitution but it has been challenged and taken away by the government before with Eminent domain being non-controversial example, so I could see a heavy blue state like De making a anti-deadly force argument for deadly force in property.

I am not a lawyer, but speaking just of delaware.
1, don't shoot someone fleeing. Just seems like it wont end well
2, if it involved property they probably will be less likely to charge you if the person is having a weapons or acts like they do ( like give me your money while holding a knife)