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; Originally Posted by tacman605 Almost forgot. Guys you are adding facts to the scenario. No one said he is armed with anything that changes things. ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Question About Castle Doctrine

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array SIGP250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    MO - Rock Ranch
    Posts
    2,245
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    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.
    I discover a burglar in my house who says, "Don't shoot me, I'm only going to rob you." This would mean that I'd have to stand there and watch myself being robbed and as long as he didn't try to inflict "great bodily harm" on me or my wife I would not be justified in shooting him. He could stuff his bag until he heard the sirens coming.
    The OP has already discovered the burglar so he can't use his cat like instincts to surprise him. The burglar is in the house committing a crime. Anything the burglar says can be assumed to be a lie. Who would trust a burglar? I would not want to let him just walk away. When the cops come, they just take him to jail where he probably gets better treatment than on the streets.

    I would want to think quickly about my options. My first thought would be to just shoot him a little. Preferably aiming for a foot or knee. I know that is not always practical and can still be a real mess to clean up. I might call my wife and ask her for my baseball bat. I might even be lucky enough to be carrying my heavy flash light. I of course still have my pistol aimed at his chest. Still really not sure exactly what I would do. I do know I would whack him with something a few time before the cops came. It would be enough so he would remember to never come back.
    If you understand, things are just as they are... If you do not understand, things are just as they are....
    - Zen Saying

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Sig I must say have never heard the phrase "Just shoot him a little" LOL will have to remember that one.

    We would probably all have to fight the temptation to render a little street justice before the troops arrive to take him away, and no would not believe a word that he said would still maintain cover and weapon until he was cuffed and stuffed.

    In regards to our state statutes the statement that you must be able to retreat in complete safety, not 96% or 99% but 100%, helps seal the deal and the prosecution would have to show that I could have done that.
    "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

  4. #33
    VIP Member
    Array SIGP250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    MO - Rock Ranch
    Posts
    2,245
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Sig I must say have never heard the phrase "Just shoot him a little" LOL will have to remember that one.

    Well, the guy said " Don't shoot me." I take that to mean don't kill me. So I say "Okay, I'll just shoot you a little." Now that I think about it, this is where a .22lr bug could come in real handy.

    We would probably all have to fight the temptation to render a little street justice before the troops arrive to take him away, and no would not believe a word that he said would still maintain cover and weapon until he was cuffed and stuffed.

    In regards to our state statutes the statement that you must be able to retreat in complete safety, not 96% or 99% but 100%, helps seal the deal and the prosecution would have to show that I could have done that.
    Yeah, I don't think any castle doctrine with "duty to retreat" requirement would be worth calling it a castle doctrine.
    If you understand, things are just as they are... If you do not understand, things are just as they are....
    - Zen Saying

  5. #34
    Senior Member Array JohnLeVick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Texas High Plains
    Posts
    568
    I've not read all the replies, but here's my take as an attorney and a Texas CHL Instructor: Find yourself a local lawyer and a local CHL Instructor, preferably someone who is both, and ask your question. I've never read your state's "Castle Doctrine" law, but in general, if there is ANY duty to retreat, there is no Castle Doctrine. We enacted so-called Castle Doctrine statutes here in 2007, and part of what those laws did was to do away with duties to retreat outside the home. Here, even pre-2007, there has never been any duty to retreat in one's home. What any burglar/home-invader might say would ordinarily be utterly irrelevant to any "Castle Doctrine" considerations, especially in one's home.

  6. #35
    Ex Member Array Glocksin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Georgia
    Posts
    362
    "Dont shoot me,im only going to rob you"? If he knows your armed,why try to rob you in the first place?

    At any rate,someone will have to endure all my fury and then kill me before they take anything.

  7. #36
    New Member Array dr dirt nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    2
    Sometimes the laws can be so convoluted and wishy washy it really stinks. Here in NC, one criteria that must be satisfied in a home invasion shooting is that you must prove that the person was in your house with the intention of committing a felony...ummm, just the fact that he is in your house is in itself a felony!!! The type of felony is determined by the time of day the break in occurred, a day invasion is not considered as serious as a night invasion, but a felony nonetheless. At my ccp class, they were very hesitant to dicuss legality in depth but what I found most interesting is that by the literal defenition of the law, (here in NC) you are much better off shooting him through the door before he gains access...not kidding. Use your best judgement, know the laws, call 911 first and you have no doubts about a credible witness...or, just shoot him a little...

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array NC Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NC Foothills
    Posts
    2,504
    Quote Originally Posted by dr dirt nap View Post
    Sometimes the laws can be so convoluted and wishy washy it really stinks. Here in NC, one criteria that must be satisfied in a home invasion shooting is that you must prove that the person was in your house with the intention of committing a felony...ummm, just the fact that he is in your house is in itself a felony!!! The type of felony is determined by the time of day the break in occurred, a day invasion is not considered as serious as a night invasion, but a felony nonetheless. At my ccp class, they were very hesitant to dicuss legality in depth but what I found most interesting is that by the literal defenition of the law, (here in NC) you are much better off shooting him through the door before he gains access...not kidding. Use your best judgement, know the laws, call 911 first and you have no doubts about a credible witness...or, just shoot him a little...
    You may want to review your NC law with a good source. Shooting through a door without identifying your target can put you where you never want to be. Time of day not is a concern. There are other charges other than felony offenses that they could be charged with so don't put yourself in a bad situation because of bad info.

  9. #38
    New Member Array dr dirt nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    You may want to review your NC law with a good source. Shooting through a door without identifying your target can put you where you never want to be. Time of day not is a concern. There are other charges other than felony offenses that they could be charged with so don't put yourself in a bad situation because of bad info.
    I'm talking strictly the LITERAL defenition my friend, not situational specifics. Nobody worth their salt should even consider owning or carrying a weapon without doing extensive research about all aspects of gun ownership, of which I have done. My point was that the laws are very rarely well defined and crystal clear, (especially gun laws) and sadly leave too much room for personal/legal subjective interpretation.

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array mojust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Willimantic Connecticut
    Posts
    624
    Here is the actual statute for Rhode Island:

    TITLE 11
    Criminal Offenses
    CHAPTER 11-8
    Burglary and Breaking and Entering
    SECTION 11-8-8

    11-8-8 Injury or death Defense. In the event that any person shall die or shall sustain a personal injury in any way or for any cause while in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in 11-8-2 11-8-6, it shall be rebuttably presumed as a matter of law in any civil or criminal proceeding that the owner, tenant, or occupier of the place where the offense was committed acted by reasonable means in self-defense and in the reasonable belief that the person engaged in the criminal offense was about to inflict great bodily harm or death upon that person or any other individual lawfully in the place where the criminal offense was committed. There shall be no duty on the part of an owner, tenant, or occupier to retreat from any person engaged in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in 11-8-2 11-8-6.
    Sig 226, 228. Glock 19, 23. Smith Model 60,and 1911. XD45 Tactical. Mossberg 930 SPX.

    How we behave as gun owners is important. Posturing and threatening does not serve us well in the public eye.

  11. #40
    Member Array The Dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    146
    My first response to him would be "No....you're not" (well, likely more profanity laced than that).

    I guess we should be thankful that, in Florida at least: "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if...He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

    Here this is true in my Castle or anywhere else I have the right to be (which is pretty much anywhere as long as I am allowed to be there, not breaking the law or in a "place of nuisance" - e.g., crack house or brothel):

    "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

    And:

    --"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

    In Florida as well:

    "A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle;"

    Anyway, that is the law here and even it apparently leaves a lot of gray areas (e.g., "forcefully entering"). I would think most states would define the parameters (e.g., if deadly force is justified in the face of a violent crime, what constitutes a "violent crime").
    "To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence." Friedrich Nietzsche

  12. #41
    Senior Member Array itschuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    719
    Check out KRS 503. If what the OP stated happens in kentucky.. the criminal is pretty well dead meat. Plus there is civil immunity, Check out section 3 too

    A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and 503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom the force was used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff, if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1) of this section.
    Current collection: Too many according to the wife...

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,006
    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." This would mean ...
    ... that you're having a forcible felony inflicted upon you and yours, nothing more. Whatever the felon says about it is extremely likely to be subterfuge to get you to comply, drop your defenses, become meek, or whatever. Point is, IT IS NOT BEING SAID FOR YOUR BENEFIT. To think otherwise is simply daft.

    Now, that being said, in a state with "Castle" statutes, you are almost certain to have every legal right to do whatever is in your heart for the legitimate defense of your family, irrespective of the questionable words out of the felon's mouth in the moment before you decide how to respond to the felony threat against you.

    Everything depends on specifics, and every situation is different. The specific wording of laws from state to state are, certainly, different, in that not all "Castle" statutes are the same.

    Castle doctrine states that you can use lethal force only when you are convinced that you are in danger of death or great bodily harm.
    Well, if that is in fact the legal reading on the wording of your state's particular statute, then I'd have to say this: there are Castle statutes, and then there are castle statutes. If true, then your legal footing isn't much different than most everywhere else, in that you're legally restricted to defending your live only when legitimately in fear of the loss of it. Whereas, many stiffer Castle positions state that by definition you can presume that severe violence or death of you and yours is the point and purpose of such felonies inside your home, irrespective of whether the felon has mouthed certain words to get you compliant.

    Here in Oregon, the statutes do not include a "Castle" type set of requirements for its citizens. No civil immunity, either, dang it. All of which allows the prissy doubters to question everything and, based on the mere claim, haul your butt into court as if you were the felon, all because you defended against forcible felony.

    Anyway, in Oregon, the statutes simply use the "reasonable man" standard, along with legal acknlowledgment of the person's right to determine when one life is at grave risk of being lost and that deadly force is justifiable. In my home, I can tell you, I'm not going to be worrying too much over the platitudes spewed by a felon engaged in robbing me anymore than I'd be concerned over what his earlier meal was that day. He's in my home, he's by definition a severe threat to me and mine, and (in your scenario) he has formally acknowledged he's intending to rob you (beyond merely being there and my presuming that's the case anyway). I would defend against him with everything I've got. If he dared move against me or didn't immediately comply, I would force that compliance upon him, contacting the cavalry for assistance when I was able to do so. But that's Oregon. Some states would have you jumping out your own window. Not here. Not ever, in your own home.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array ctsketch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    2,319
    Now, what if I discover a burglar in my house who says, "Don't shoot me, I'm only going to rob you."
    He could be lying...he is a criminal.... even if he has a chance to utter that whole phrase before being shot.
    Glock 19
    Kahr PM9
    LMT-M4
    Mossberg 590
    Shodan, Jujutsu

  15. #44
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    I have a real problem with the Castle Doctrine. To me it's just an ambiguous law to counteract other ambiguous laws that allowed a person to be charged in the first place for protecting their property and family. No government should need to give you the right to self protection. Rather than a mirky law that might still find you explaining your actions to a jury, a property owner should be exempt from criminal charges resulting from using deadly force to protect themselves while in or on their own property, period. Most of the restrictive laws on the books were made by lawyers so lawyers could make money dealing with them. Doesn't anyone else think it's more than just a coincidence that most crooked politicians are or were lawyers?

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,006
    Quote Originally Posted by GunGeezer View Post
    I have a real problem with the Castle Doctrine. To me it's just an ambiguous law to counteract other ambiguous laws that allowed a person to be charged in the first place for protecting their property and family. No government should need to give you the right to self protection.
    Exactly so. It's so incredibly pointless, all of it.

    If you believe you're being attacked, deal with it to the best of your ability using the degree of force you believe is required to stop the attack and to save you and yours. If the government weenies are going to come after you, then it should (IMO) be required that they prove it could not have been self-defense; then and only then should they be legally allowed to come after someone who claims legitimate self-defense. Of course, everyone's held up to scrutiny. After all, it's lives that are being harmed, perhaps taken. But in no way should a citizen be fearful of one's own temporarily-elected putzes simply because a hundred years of thieving has gotten the better of them/us. Personally, I'd like to see the whole set of firearms-related statutes bulldozed into oblivion, replaced with a a handful, just a handful, of simple statutes. It ain't rocket science.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

Page 3 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.