TexasCHLforum.com

AP wrote: JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A pregnant woman would be allowed to use deadly force if she thinks her unborn child is in danger, under a measure approved by the Missouri House.

House members gave the bill initial approval on a 133-20 vote Tuesday after little discussion. The House must vote on the measure one more time before it can go to the Senate.

Missouri already allows people to use deadly force if they think their lives or the life of another person is in danger.

Sponsoring Rep. Jeanie Riddle of Mokane said the bill stems from the case of a pregnant Michigan woman who was convicted of manslaughter after killing her boyfriend.

Oklahoma passed a similar law last year.
–––––––
Deadly force is HB2081
On the Net: Legislature: http:// http://www.moga.mo.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is a good deal. It is basically a 'no retreat' law for a pregnant woman. Guess you could call it a Castle Doctrine for the womb. Note: the bill does not allow others to prevent someone from harming the unborn, so you as a CHL could not take action unless you were protecting the life of the woman and not just unborn child.

Here is a summary http://house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/ ... B2081I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the bill text http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bi ... B2081I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is scarily close to the "your honor he needed killin" defense allowed for wives that She Who Must Be Obeyed assured me was still valid in Texas. You mean she made that up?

I don't want to "go there" and if this starts a debate on the core subject I ask the mods to PLEASE delete this post. But this will surely come up in the debate from both sides of the political spectrum: Does this push Missouri closer to sanctioning killing of abortion docs in "defense of the unborn". When I first read the thread title I was afraid this is what the bill aimed to do.

Note: I am making no statement for or against abortion in any way and hope other forum members can be adult enough to restrain themselves from sending this spiraling down into an abortion debate that will surely get the thread locked. I just feel it's a valid question that ties into the larger debate of deadly force to protect the unborn.

EDIT: Similar to above post, but his was far less snide I'll stay out of trouble.

austinrealtor wrote:I don't want to "go there" and if this starts a debate on the core subject I ask the mods to PLEASE delete this post. But this will surely come up in the debate from both sides of the political spectrum: Does this push Missouri closer to sanctioning killing of abortion docs in "defense of the unborn". When I first read the thread title I was afraid this is what the bill aimed to do.

Note: I am making no statement for or against abortion in any way and hope other forum members can be adult enough to restrain themselves from sending this spiraling down into an abortion debate that will surely get the thread locked. I just feel it's a valid question that ties into the larger debate of deadly force to protect the unborn.

No, and I will squelch this discussion right here. As I stated above, this bill allows the pregnant woman ONLY to protect her unborn child. No one else can do it. I cannot see any legislation that would ever go to that point as it is a choice of the woman who is getting the abortion (not gonna get into the morals or legalities, right or wrong) and no one else can have a say in the protection with the way this bill is written.

End of the abortion discussion and back on topic of the pregnant woman to right to defend her unborn.

frazzled wrote:This is scarily close to the "your honor he needed killin" defense allowed for wives that She Who Must Be Obeyed assured me was still valid in Texas. You mean she made that up?

I am pretty sure that is still on the books. At least MY book.

Crossfire wrote:

frazzled wrote:This is scarily close to the "your honor he needed killin" defense allowed for wives that She Who Must Be Obeyed assured me was still valid in Texas. You mean she made that up?

I am pretty sure that is still on the books. At least MY book.

Yes, the wife says she checked and its still on, then mentioned something about me not getting uppity...

Is this law needed? How would a woman be defending her unborn child while not also defending herself?


If she tries to hang herself, could she also shoot herself to defend the child?

Grog wrote:Is this law needed? How would a woman be defending her unborn child while not also defending herself?


If she tries to hang herself, could she also shoot herself to defend the child?

I was thinking the same thing...if MO already has a castle doctrine, how is this not fall under it?

Texas Size 11 wrote:

Grog wrote:Is this law needed? How would a woman be defending her unborn child while not also defending herself?


If she tries to hang herself, could she also shoot herself to defend the child?

I was thinking the same thing...if MO already has a castle doctrine, how is this not fall under it?

Check out the second link for the bill text. This is the Castle Doctrine statute. Section (3) paragraph 3 states a person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

The bill adds paragraph 4 which states a pregnant woman does not have a duty to retreat before using physical force or deadly force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that her retreat would secure the complete safety of her unborn child and such retreat does not in and of itself create a threat to her unborn child.

Basically, this states the pregnant woman doesn't have to retreat no matter where she is, unless she is 100% sure the retreat would get her to safety and not hurt her unborn child.

That is the difference. Subtle, but could mean a big difference. Especially since a woman who is in late term pregnancy might have more trouble being able to escape from danger due to not being able to run or physically maneuver as well.

Keith B wrote:Check out the second link for the bill text. This is the Castle Doctrine statute. Section (3) paragraph 3 states a person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

The bill adds paragraph 4 which states a pregnant woman does not have a duty to retreat before using physical force or deadly force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that her retreat would secure the complete safety of her unborn child and such retreat does not in and of itself create a threat to her unborn child.

Basically, this states the pregnant woman doesn't have to retreat no matter where she is, unless she is 100% sure the retreat would get her to safety and not hurt her unborn child.

That is the difference. Subtle, but could mean a big difference. Especially since a woman who is in late term pregnancy might have more trouble being able to escape from danger due to not being able to run or physically maneuver as well.

Wouldn't a CHL come in to play then? Or even with the license, is there some duty to retreat if you are not in one of the three situations listed above? If a pregnant woman does not have to retreat no matter where she is, can she always carry under Castle Doctrine all the time?

I'm corn-fused.

pbwalker wrote:

Keith B wrote:Check out the second link for the bill text. This is the Castle Doctrine statute. Section (3) paragraph 3 states a person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

The bill adds paragraph 4 which states a pregnant woman does not have a duty to retreat before using physical force or deadly force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that her retreat would secure the complete safety of her unborn child and such retreat does not in and of itself create a threat to her unborn child.

Basically, this states the pregnant woman doesn't have to retreat no matter where she is, unless she is 100% sure the retreat would get her to safety and not hurt her unborn child.

That is the difference. Subtle, but could mean a big difference. Especially since a woman who is in late term pregnancy might have more trouble being able to escape from danger due to not being able to run or physically maneuver as well.

Wouldn't a CHL come in to play then? Or even with the license, is there some duty to retreat if you are not in one of the three situations listed above? If a pregnant woman does not have to retreat no matter where she is, can she always carry under Castle Doctrine all the time?

I'm corn-fused.

Missouri is an open carry state (though you rarely see it and it is not permitted in some cities). Also, is states physical or deadly force. And, deadly force is not just from a gun; knives, baseball bats, tire-irons, etc, can kill you.

EDIT TO ADD: A CHL doesn't exempt you from duty to retreat when not in a vehicle, dwelling or residence.