Check out these Crime Video Clips from nydailynews.com

Tuesday, October 4, 2011@ 9:38 PM
posted by Jamie Arute

 

 

Click image below to register for this event!
CTPMA Pistol Safety Course November 19th

CONNECTICUT LAW on SELF DEFENSE

Under Connecticut law, a person may use physical force (self defense): to protect himself or a third person, his home or office, or his property; to make an arrest or prevent an escape; or to perform certain duties (for example, a corrections officer may use force to maintain order and discipline, a teacher to protect a minor, and a parent to discipline a child). A person cannot use physical force to resist arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, whether the arrest is legal or not (CGS § 53a-23).

Self defense or justification is a defense in any prosecution (CGS § 53a-16). The person claiming justification has the initial burden of producing sufficient evidence to assert self-defense. When raised as a defense at a trial, the state has the burden of disproving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt (CGS § 53a-12).

Physical Force in Defense of Person

A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:

1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he a peace officer, special policeman, or a private individual assisting a peace officer or special policeman at the officer’s directions regarding an arrest or preventing an escape;

2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or

3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.

Lastly, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the person to use physical force, (2) use of such force was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law, or (3) he is the initial aggressor (unless he withdraws from the encounter, effectively communicates this intent to the other person, and the other person continues to or threatens to use physical force) (CGS § 53a-19).

Physical Force in Defense of Premises

A person who possesses or controls property or has a license or privilege to be in or on it is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it to be necessary to stop another from trespassing or attempting to trespass in or upon it. The owner can use deadly physical force only (1) to defend a person as described above, (2) when he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the trespasser from attempting to commit arson or any violent crime, or (3) to the extent he reasonably believes it is necessary to stop someone from forcibly entering his home or workplace (and for the sole purpose of stopping the intruder) (CGS § 53a-20).

Physical Force in Defense of Property

A person is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it necessary to (1) prevent attempted larceny or criminal mischief involving property or (2) regain property that he reasonably believes was stolen shortly before.

When defending property, deadly force may be used only when it is necessary to defend a person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or infliction or imminent infliction of great bodily harm as described above (CGS § 53a-21).

Supreme Court Decision on Self Defense

In 1984, the Connecticut Supreme Court articulated the test for determining the degree of force warranted in a given case. Whether or not a person was justified in using force to protect his person or property is a question of fact that focuses on what the person asserting the defense reasonably believed under the circumstances (State v. DeJesus, 194 Conn. 376, 389 (1984)). The test for the degree of force in self-defense is a subjective-objective one. The jury must view the situation from the defendant’s perspective; this is the subjective component. The jury must then decide whether the defendant’s belief was reasonable (DeJesus at 389 n. 13).

In memory, respect & honor of the events & lives lost on Sept. 11th 2001 & the continued loss of life of those who have become ill from being in proximity or working in the vicinity of the WTC during and afterwards, we ask that our fans please keep ALL of these people in their thoughts, prayers and mind.

Whether you light a candle, say a prayer or simply make a conscious effort to consider all who lost their lives that day, in between and those who will continue to do so.. It all matters ..

All Gave Some..
Some Gave All..
God Bless all of us and God Bless the United States of America!

PMA BBE September Anger Management

NEW GAME FOR KIDS 8 TO 12 TEACHES THEM
HOW TO STAY SAFE ON THE INTERNET

 Game Featured on  www.NSTeens.org, a Site From the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children That Teaches Online Safety to Kids Ages 8 to 12

Alexandria, VA – June 14, 2011 – A new game is now available for kids between the ages of 8 and 12 that is not only fun but also teaches them how to stay safer while on the Internet.  The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children® (NCMEC) and Sprint (NYSE:S) announced today that in honor of Internet Safety month, the popular child-focused Internet safety website www.NSTeens.org has been expanded to include a new educational game created for the “in-between” tween audience of 8 to 12 year olds.  The new game, Tad’s Profile Panic,” teaches kids about what information should not be included in their online profiles.  Players help Tad clean up his messy profile by collecting the information that should be kept private while avoiding others who would dispense Tad’s personal information all over school.

The FBI’s Child ID App
Putting Safety in Your Hands

08/05/11

You’re shopping at the mall with your children when one of them suddenly disappears. A quick search of the nearby area is unsuccessful. What do you do?
Now there’s a new tool from the FBI that can help. Our just launched Child ID app—the first mobile application created by the FBI—provides a convenient place to electronically store photos and vital information about your children so that it’s literally right at hand if you need it. You can show the pictures and provide physical identifiers such as height and weight to security or police officers on the spot. Using a special tab on the app, you can also quickly and easily e-mail the information to authorities with a few clicks. There is no charge for the app.
The app also includes tips on keeping children safe as well as specific guidance on what to do in those first few crucial hours after a child goes missing.
child id app in hand 300

Bomb-Sniffing Dogs, Guards At The Post-9/11 Mall by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A janitor spots an abandoned diaper bag lying on a table in the sprawling food court at the Mall of America. A bomb-sniffing dog and a security officer are there within minutes, examining the package while nearby shoppers are held a safe distance away.

No bomb. Case closed. But that scene is repeated at the nation’s largest shopping center 150 times a month.

Years ago, lost purses or shopping bags would just go to the lost and found. But after the Sept. 11 attacks and a series of terror threats against malls, “we realized that bad guys don’t write `explosives’ on the side of packages,” said Maj. Douglas Reynolds.  He heads a 150-officer security force trained in Krav Maga, the official self-defense system of Israeli security forces. A plainclothes unit is solely devoted to behavioral profiling. 

By The Edgefield Daily, Jillian Benfield  Published: July 25, 2011

An accused kidnapper is behind bars. Deputies say Mike Maxwell tried to abduct a woman at the Augusta mall, then tried to kidnap another woman in Columbia county. When he was unsuccessful, deputies say he went to Edgefield County and attacked a man and kidnapped his wife there. 

I know what I have seen, and what I have looked in the face in this world here, where I find myself. And I tell you this, my friend, that there are people (men and women both, unfortunately) who have no good in them–none. That there are people whom it is necessary to detest without compromise. That there are people who must be dealt with as enemies of the human race. That there are people who have no human heart, and who must be crushed like savage beasts and cleared out of the way.” Charles Dickens