Question About Castle Doctrine

This is a discussion on Question About Castle Doctrine within the Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Why did he have the chance to speak before he "saw the light"?...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 46

Thread: Question About Castle Doctrine

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,469
    Why did he have the chance to speak before he "saw the light"?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ex Member Array JOHNSMITH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    1,726
    The purpose of castle doctrine is that a man's home (or his car) is his "castle," that is, he doesn't have to run away in his own home when someone forces their way in with criminal intent. You may use deadly force to protect yourself in that case without having to try to "run away" first.

    It doesn't give you a blank check to "shoot first and ask questions later." The law is based on personal responsibility. It is still up to you to make the correct judgement. Just as the previous laws were derided by those of us in the gun community for being too "nanny state" and trying to tell you exactly what to (not) do in certain situations, the new laws, based on returning freedom, should not be interpreted the same way. The law isn't supposed to be a bunch of instructions given to you by your mother; in this instance, it is more of a guideline telling you what you have the freedom to do, not what you must do.

    Deadly force is deadly force. You don't shoot for "revenge" or for "street justice." You shoot an intruder who forced his way inside because he is an immediate and deadly threat. No more, no less. Some folks here really concern me with their noir fantasies. They are the type that give the entire legitimate gun community a bad name.

    If someone forces their way into my home, my operating procedure is clear - I will use lethal force after identifying my target. They are an immediate threat and there really aren't any questions left at that point. If they were there to say hello, they should've tried the door bell.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array shockwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,015
    So is everyone clear on this? Castle Doctrine, which may have some slight variations depending on the state in question, essentially grants you the right to defend your home. You are not required to "retreat" to a bedroom or whatnot. You do not have to take a defensive posture.

    I think it's pretty unreasonable to assume that if someone breaks into an occupied home that the homeowner wouldn't have an automatic legitimate reason to fear for their safety.
    Right. The law recognizes that an intruder who is invading your home is ipso facto a deadly threat. You make the call.

    As in the case we discussed last week with the homeowner who shot the guy in the leg, you may determine that the intruder is mentally deranged, or drunk, or for whatever reason you determine, not a lethal threat. Or, you may determine otherwise. You make the call. This is very good law and if your state doesn't provide you with a castle doctrine, petition your legislators to enact it.
    "It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."

  5. #19
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,542
    Quote Originally Posted by mojust View Post
    Now, what if I discover a burglar in my house who says, "Don't shoot me, I'm only going to rob you."
    In my home, there will not be enough time for those words to be uttered.

    Check your state's Castle Doctrine carefully...in FL, the dirtbag's family will not find success in a lawsuit where your self-defense has been found to be lawful.
    Different states have Castle Doctrines that provide different protections.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  6. #20
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by shockwave View Post
    You are not required to "retreat" to a bedroom or whatnot. You do not have to take a defensive posture.

    The law recognizes that an intruder who is invading your home is ipso facto a deadly threat. You make the call.
    As you point out, and others have also pointed out, any intruder could have a gun and could be a "deadly threat". If I knew he had a gun or the possibility of having a gun I think it would be wise to take a defensive position until police arrive. Even though you don't have to "retreat" to a bedroom why wouldn't you take cover? I don't think it's good advice to suggest that anyone try to engage the BG or hunt him down even in their own house. As soon as you come out in the open you are at greater risk. But of course that is your call to make.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  7. #21
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

    * An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
    * The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
    * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
    * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
    * The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
    * The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

    The above statement is a generic combination and each state may have its own wording. The bottom line is the mere act of breaking into your house may not justify you to use deadly force against the individual. There may be specific criteria that has to be met. Look up your own law from your state to see what has to be met before using deadly force.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    The Arkansas statute is pretty clear.

    5-2-620. Use of force to defend persons and property within home.

    (a) The right of an individual to defend himself and the lives of persons or property in his home against harm, injury, or loss by persons unlawfully entering or attempting to enter or intrude thereupon is reaffirmed as a fundamental right to be preserved and promoted as a public policy in this state.
    (b) There shall be a legal presumption that any force or means used to accomplish such purpose was exercised in a lawful and necessary manner, unless that presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
    (c) The above-stated public policy shall be strictly complied with by the courts, and appropriate instructions thereof shall be given to juries sitting in trial of criminal charges brought in connection therewith.

    And we can't be held liable in the civil portion either.

    5-2-621. Attempting to protect persons during commission of a felony.
    No persons shall be civilly liable for actions or omissions intended to protect themselves or others from personal injuries during the commission of a felony
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  9. #23
    Distinguished Member Array INccwchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,786
    burglery and robbery in most places are felonys, at the point he says im not gonna hurt u, im just gonna rob you, he gets told, get the (insert any word here) out of my domicile, he refuses, and moves, he gets shot, then when the police came, officer i warned him he needed to leave, he refused and moved towards me and i was in fear for my life and the lives of my family, now i will cooperate fully with you but first i want to speak with my attorney and get seen by a medic as I am very shaken right now.
    "The value you put on the lost will be determined by the sacrifice you are willing to make to seek them until they are found."

  10. #24
    VIP Member
    Array SIGP250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    MO - Rock Ranch
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    The Arkansas statute is pretty clear.

    5-2-620. Use of force to defend persons and property within home.

    (a) The right of an individual to defend himself and the lives of persons or property in his home against harm, injury, or loss by persons unlawfully entering or attempting to enter or intrude thereupon is reaffirmed as a fundamental right to be preserved and promoted as a public policy in this state.
    (b) There shall be a legal presumption that any force or means used to accomplish such purpose was exercised in a lawful and necessary manner, unless that presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
    (c) The above-stated public policy shall be strictly complied with by the courts, and appropriate instructions thereof shall be given to juries sitting in trial of criminal charges brought in connection therewith.

    And we can't be held liable in the civil portion either.

    5-2-621. Attempting to protect persons during commission of a felony.
    No persons shall be civilly liable for actions or omissions intended to protect themselves or others from personal injuries during the commission of a felony
    Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with your point of view on this topic and other threads I have followed. Don't take it personal but I think your State's castle doctrine leaves much to be desired.

    Your Castle Doctrine is actually rather ambiguous. This is the reason why States with more modern castle doctrines have added additional verbiage.

    Your State's castle doctrine for example specifically only says home. Does this extend to the limits of your property or even your garage?
    Is a hotel/motel covered?
    Is your vehicle or workplace covered? It does not look like it is.
    Your castle doctrine does not seem to cover theft in any way.
    Item (b) seems to put the burden of proof on you.
    Item (c) is a joke unless you have completely studied and consider every possible penalty that can be prescribed by State law before you decide to use "force." Is there even a clear definition of the word "force" in your State statutes?
    If you understand, things are just as they are... If you do not understand, things are just as they are....
    - Zen Saying

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,177
    If he's in my house he's a deadly threat,what you gonna do stand there with a gun while he tells you it's all a big mistake and he just wants to walk up and shake your hand for not shooting him and then stabs you to death
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    If he's in my house he's a deadly threat,what you gonna do stand there with a gun while he tells you it's all a big mistake and he just wants to walk up and shake your hand for not shooting him and then stabs you to death
    By engaging with the bad guy in ANY way can put you at a serious tactical disadvantage especially if he has a gun. Engaging in conversation or shaking hands with the Bg was suggested by no one. However, I believe it would be best to retain your tactical advantage and stay covered. If he is in your house and you decide to hunt him down or confront him you could be making a very deadly mistake.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  13. #27
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Sig they looked at passing a more "detailed" castle doctrine and it was defeated but in researching they found that it was in fact ambiguous and that worked to there advantage. It is broken down in to two seperate parts. Instead of typing it all out will just paste it here.

    The Castle Doctrine has two parts, the ability to defend yourself inside your home (Castle Doctrine) and the ability to defend yourself outside your home (Stand Your Ground). Arkansas criminal statute 5-2-620 codifies our Castle Doctrine and it's very straightforward and easy to read...after doing so you will see that it offers tremendous protection and gives an unprecedented benefit-of-the-doubt to the home owner. It speaks for itself and there is no other state in the union that can boast a better Castle Doctrine than Arkansas.

    The Stand Your Ground protection is primarily codified in Arkansas criminal statute 5-2-607. Much of the push two years ago was to remove the duty to retreat of a citizen who is attacked. Let us first look at the exact duty retreat requirement in this statute. Our duty to retreat has two very important caveats. The first is that the individual must know that he can retreat, and the second is that he must know he can retreat with complete safety... not some or a predominate amount of, but complete safety. These two caveats provide exceptional legal protection for the individual using deadly force in their self-defense because the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person claiming self defense knew he could retreat and knew he could retreat with complete safety. This is almost an unsurmountable burden for the prosecution to overcome, and we have seen this in fact played out in the courts with few cases where individuals were found guilty for a failure to retreat. The few cases that exist are primarily with gang members killing each other...no loss there.

    I hope this helps sometimes being generic is a good thing.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  14. #28
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Almost forgot. Guys you are adding facts to the scenario. No one said he is armed with anything that changes things. If the person is armed and is a direct immediate threat do whatever is needed but in the OP the person has broken into your home period. He has now realized he screwed up and he is asking your permission to una** the AO. Depending on your state laws and your state of mind you have some choices to make.
    Yes you can blast away and give the only version left that he attacked you and so on or you can actually determine whether he is a threat or not before you blast away. Now whether you go looking for him or take up a defensive position and wait for the cavalry is up to you but you should not put all your faith in the castle doctrine to save you there may be things you have to do or criteria you have to meet before you pull a dirty harry.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  15. #29
    Member Array tqu9047's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    106
    In Texas, if you catch someone breaking into yur home or vehicle, they are open season. Whether or not I would shoot would depend on a lot of different circumstances. If they are already in my house, the are a threat and will be taken out. If they are breaking into my house or car, the will be given a chance to leave. Read Sec 1A, if they are breaking into or already inside of vehicle or house, it's on.
    Also, Texas has more lenient rules for self defense if such occurs "under the cover of darkness".

    relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

    SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

    (4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    (5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

  16. #30
    VIP Member
    Array SIGP250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    MO - Rock Ranch
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Sig they looked at passing a more "detailed" castle doctrine and it was defeated but in researching they found that it was in fact ambiguous and that worked to there advantage. It is broken down in to two seperate parts. Instead of typing it all out will just paste it here.

    The Castle Doctrine has two parts, the ability to defend yourself inside your home (Castle Doctrine) and the ability to defend yourself outside your home (Stand Your Ground). Arkansas criminal statute 5-2-620 codifies our Castle Doctrine and it's very straightforward and easy to read...after doing so you will see that it offers tremendous protection and gives an unprecedented benefit-of-the-doubt to the home owner. It speaks for itself and there is no other state in the union that can boast a better Castle Doctrine than Arkansas.

    The Stand Your Ground protection is primarily codified in Arkansas criminal statute 5-2-607. Much of the push two years ago was to remove the duty to retreat of a citizen who is attacked. Let us first look at the exact duty retreat requirement in this statute. Our duty to retreat has two very important caveats. The first is that the individual must know that he can retreat, and the second is that he must know he can retreat with complete safety... not some or a predominate amount of, but complete safety. These two caveats provide exceptional legal protection for the individual using deadly force in their self-defense because the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person claiming self defense knew he could retreat and knew he could retreat with complete safety. This is almost an unsurmountable burden for the prosecution to overcome, and we have seen this in fact played out in the courts with few cases where individuals were found guilty for a failure to retreat. The few cases that exist are primarily with gang members killing each other...no loss there.

    I hope this helps sometimes being generic is a good thing.
    I agree, being generic can be good sometimes. it can work equally well for the prosecution. I'll research it some more just for fun.

    If you and other gun owners in your State are satisfied with it, that is really all that counts.
    If you understand, things are just as they are... If you do not understand, things are just as they are....
    - Zen Saying

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Castle Doctrine
    By kapnketel in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 20th, 2010, 09:52 AM
  2. NY castle doctrine
    By bgcole in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: July 28th, 2009, 01:37 PM
  3. Castle Doctrine - NC
    By hardlivin in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: March 14th, 2009, 03:45 PM
  4. castle doctrine
    By python2 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2007, 09:19 AM
  5. NRA - MD need for castle doctrine
    By P95Carry in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 10th, 2006, 08:04 PM

Search tags for this page

castle doctrine connecticut

,
castle doctrine ct
,

castle doctrine rhode island

,
castle doctrine ri
,

connecticut castle doctrine

,
connecticut castle law
,

ct castle doctrine

,
georgia castle doctrine
,

rhode island castle doctrine

,
rhode island castle law
,

ri castle doctrine

,
ri castle law
Click on a term to search for related topics.