If you were to write a self defense law,

[gejohnston]

How would you do it? This is Wyoming's. Outside of the home it is common law with civil immunity.
What is the common law? Have not found that yet, and I have no desire to go find out first hand. I will say this source says it is duty to retreat
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/

ARTICLE 6 - JUSTIFICATION

6-2-601. Applicability of article.
The common law shall govern in all cases not governed by this article.

6-2-602. Use of force in self defense.
(a) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to himself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to another if:
(i) The intruder against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, another's home or habitation or, if that intruder had removed or was attempting to remove another against his will from his home or habitation; and
(ii) 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.

(b) The presumption set forth in subsection (a) of this section does not apply if:
(i) The person against whom the defensive force is used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home or habitation, such as an owner, lessee or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
(ii) The person sought to be removed 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; or
(iii) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer who enters or attempts to enter another's home or habitation in the performance of his official duties.

(c) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another's home or habitation is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(d) As used in this section:
(i) "Habitation" means any structure which is designed or adapted for overnight accommodation, including, but not limited to, buildings, modular units, trailers, campers and tents;
(ii) "Home" means any occupied residential dwelling place.

Question for lawyers: On Wind River Reservation, would federal common law SYG apply or Wyoming law? Or would a law passed by the Northern Arapaho and Shoshone nations?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. I am not a lawyer but, I think that the Shoshone and the Northern Arapaho should be able

to have jurisdiction.

[gejohnston]

2. I think they should to,

but I don't know what the actual law is. Maybe we could push for more NA self rule if needed?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. It would be nice to hear from an actual lawyer at this point --

even if they only play one on the internet

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. An "actual lawyer"? Both Jefferson and Patrick Henry were "actual lawyers." But only one could be

recognized for knowing the law. The other read the law for five weeks before deciding to hang out his single and win cases by being a bombast.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Obligation to retreat was the common law standard for centuries.

It is sensible. It worked.

[gejohnston]

6. Until you get lunitic DAs

and "what about the door you didn't know about" Angela Corey comes to mind.
US common law varies by state. California is SYG that allows some degree of counter attack, AFAIK the only one that does. Washington State is also SYG by common law. The federal level has been SYG since about 1920.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. Your post is interesting for the fact that it is EXACTLY OPPOSITE to what is posted in Wikipedia

"A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend against an intruder -- free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used. Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another". The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states."

"The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic. The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle." This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628. The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "English" from the phrase, making it "a man's home is his castle", which thereby became simply the Castle Doctrine. The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from his home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

[gejohnston]

10. In all fairness

I think he was referring to SYG not CD.
The question never answered when asked about DTR is "duty to whom"?

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Castle doctrine refers to your home, not to public space.

Other than that you make a valid point.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. The duty to retreat is not limited to public space.

In homes, whether modest or not, the castle doctrine was the common law.

Some states changed that by imposing a duty to retreat if possible.

If some uninvited person makes it into my house (or castle), neither they nor I are going to have the time to research the latest state law.

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. Duty to retreat is a good ethical guideline, but horrible law.

No such law could possibly accommodate the vast range of possible scenarios in which a person might find themselves under attack, and therefore invariably include some variation of "when reasonable to do so." Subjective components like that lead to uneven enforcement of the law and some spectacularly stupid decisions by juries and judges alike. There will always be subjectivity in the judicial findings in cases like this, but I think it's better to have the default responsibility for proof to lie on the side of demonstrating that the person using deadly force was not justified. Duty-to-retreat effectively reversed this, and is unacceptable for that reason.

[Eleanors38]

17. You explained this better than I can...

I believe much of the revulsion people have against SYG laws (or the equivalent no duty to retreat) stems from opposition to ANYONE using violence againsy Anyone in Any situation, so they want to put the "burden of proof" on those using violence. Either legal/ethical outlook can be abused, but the burden should not be on a person who us defending him/her self.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. IMHO...

...there is also a revulsion against those who practice and prepare to make such a defense in public. The objectionable characteristic most common is the idea of concealed carry. I get the feeling from some folks that their low regard for anyone CCing is analogous to feelings some have/had toward snipers. I suppose it is the idea of training to take a life without warning, with a hidden weapon.

[Eleanors38]

19. I think so. Perhaps why a few advocate open-carry?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. From the U.S. Dept of Interior, Indian Affairs:

On federal Indian reservations, ...only federal and tribal laws apply to members of the tribe, unless Congress provides otherwise.

http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/

Unless it can be shown that Congress provided that Wyoming law would also apply to the Wind River Reservation, and unless it can otherwise be shown that there is a Federal common law for self-defense in a court proceeding in which a Federal court had jurisdiction, only the laws of the Northern Arapaho and Shoshone nations should apply.

An electronic version of Kappler's treatise, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, can be found here:
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Kappler/

[gejohnston]

7. Right on.

[oneshooter]

13. Which law does a non tribal person hold to?

[gejohnston]

14. I'm guessing federal law

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. Most Americans are taught from childhood that there are 50 states (or 48 or whatever).

But there are those who actually think that there are Nations within the 50 states called reservations.

When on tribal land, the tribal police can enforce tribal laws against non-tribal persons. If a speed sign says, 35 mph, 35 mph it is. If a sign says "No shooting," but there are Native Americans shooting at a hillside anyway, consider obeying the sign.