Defensive Carry banner

Question About Castle Doctrine

10K views 45 replies 31 participants last post by  mandalitten 
#1 ·
I'm moving to Rhode Island next month and I've found out the state has a castle doctrine law. The only difference I can see between Connecticut, which is not a castle doctrine state, and Rhode Island, which is, is that you don't have to retreat. 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.

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 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.

Now, my consideration is that if I wake up in the night and hear someone in my house and I look next to me and discover my wife is still in bed with me I can assume the extra person in my house doesn't belong there. How can I know if this person intends to kill or harm me? It's dark. Things are uncertain.

I find this version of castle doctrine to be very mushy.

Anybody got any thoughts on this?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
This is where training and good judgement comes into play, IMO..........I always have a flashlight, cell phone and my .45 on my night table next to me. Should you experience a home invasion during the night your options are to call 911 and stay put..... or..... to call 911 and clear your home if you are able. Either way you will have to determine whether you and your loved ones are at deadly risk.
Our first line of defense would be our male German Shepard then me and my sons. IOO, if someone enters my home at night knowing full well it is occupied..........he's there to do us bodily harm................IT's ON.
 
#3 ·
What the law says:
§ 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.
That means if they chose to prosecute you they have to prove your use of force was unreasonable. If the BG is facing you and you shoot him COM in the middle of your living room the other side has to prove somehow that he was no threat. That is not going to be easy for them. If you shoot him in the back as he is diving out a window, you could have problems.
Overall it really doesn't look that bad, but it would be nice if they included flat out civil immunity in that too.
 
#4 ·
Now, what if I discover a burglar in my house who says, "Don't shoot me, I'm only going to rob you."
Criminals are so honest.

Michigan as well as the castle doctrine as well, with that said in Michigan you can only use deadly force to prevent death, great bodily harm, or rape. If I can ensure myself and my family are going to make it through the encounter without firing a shot then I won't shoot and I'll call the cops and they can come do their thing. Now the second the circumstances change then I will act accordingly to ensure my families safety.
 
#5 ·
INAL but Castle Doctrine which states no duty to retreat means that you stand your ground. If someone is in your house in the middle of the night, shoot first and ask questions later. Georgia has a Castle Doctrine and Stand your ground laws. This BG kept breaking into this old ladies garage stealing from her. She got tired of it and waited for him. When he broke in one night, she shot him dead. Local law enforcement didn't do a thing to her.

If someone is in your house in the middle of the night, or any time for that matter, and you don't know them, didn't invite them, and they have no business being there... they are not there to bring you a sweepsteaks check I guarantee you. If you are in a Castle Doctrine state, shoot the fool !

But..., INAL of course.
 
#11 ·
If someone is in your house in the middle of the night, shoot first and ask questions later.

If someone is in your house in the middle of the night, or any time for that matter, and you don't know them, didn't invite them, and they have no business being there... they are not there to bring you a sweepsteaks check I guarantee you. If you are in a Castle Doctrine state, shoot the fool !
I have a neighbor that sounds a lot like you. I think he is actually hoping that someone does break in so he can shoot them. It seems he would feel gratified by killing someone committing a crime. He has the opinion that he is justified killing anyone who crosses the threshold of his home.

So your advise is to just start shooting ???

Reminds of the case in Laredo Texas were a man shot a 13 year old boy in the back for stealing twinkies. Or another case in Kentucky where a man shot through his door killing a guy who was drunk and didn't realize he was at the wrong house.

INAL either but my advice would be...If I had an intruder I would call 911 while taking cover. I would announce to them I have a gun and will use it if needed. If they ran for the door, fine, let them go. Make it very clear that any movement or action by them could result in them being shot and that the police are on the way. They will most likely run. The last thing I would want to do is kill them, however, any movement towards me would immediately result in open fire. Remain ready to fire and in your covered area until police arrive.
 
#6 ·
CONNECTICUT LAW

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 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).
 
#9 ·
CONNECTICUT LAW

Under Connecticut law, a person may use physical force (self defense): to protect himself or a third person....
Sketch, thank you for posting this - you beat me to it. I appears to me that the original poster is not fully aware of the extent of CT law with respect to "castle doctrine" issues, although I give him credit for looking into what the law will be in his new state.

(Nutmegger at heart here)
 
#7 ·
The courts would love you to let the BG take whatever and go on about his way with neither party doing anyone any harm but in the real world it won't happen that way.

There have been many discussions on here regarding how the castle doctrine is interpreted and what different people would do. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion so here is mine. In the event someone broke into my home and I was there I would first identify that person as a threat, if safe to do so order him to the ground or if he chooses to leave then go for it. Should he become aggresive or attempt to harm myself or anyone else I would stop that action with whatever means were at my disposal up to and including deadly force.

In some states you are immune from civil prosecution in many SD acts, don't know about where you are, but in no state are you immune from the laws of common sense. I am sorry I cannot agree in any way with the advice of shoot first and ask questions later and rely on the castle doctrine statute to save you.
Castle Doctrines "generally different laws for different states" are there so a homeowner does not have an obligation to retreat that does not mean that many other criteria in regards to deadly force are thrown out the window and you have a free hunting permit in your living room because some guy broke in. As far as waiting for a BG to break in and gunning him down may fall under the same premise as setting up a booby trap and killing someone. It shows premeditation on your part and may make the castle doctrine invalid in that instance.

If someone comes into your home defend yourself and your family from the direct threat, not what he could have or would have done but the direct immediate threat at that time and you will come out on top.

I am sure there are states out there where it is legal to engage in deadly force for the mere act of breaking into an occupied residence remember different laws for different places.
 
#12 ·
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 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.
First off, I could care less what the burlar says he's going to do. If someone breaks into your house with some criminal intent, you'd be crazy to assume that you could trust his actions. Secondly, if that scenario actually ever happened I'm pretty sure anyone willing to discuss the terms by which they will rob you would think better of continuing to rob someone who was holding them at gunpoint; they'd most likely turn and flee. If not, they pretty much deserve what would be coming next...

That said, I totally understand your overall point but 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. I know I most certainly would, and the bottom line for me would be I'd rather make my error on the side of keeping myself and my family alive and safe than assuming that I need to get beaten, stabbed or shot before I could legitimately justify shooing someone. A criminal is a criminal and they don't deserve too much benefit of the doubt when they have broken into your home and you have a family to protect.
 
#13 ·
If my 80 pound puppy couldnt convince someone to leave, then they must be up to no good. The only problem I have in shooting the person is doing it in such a way as to not hit my dog who would most likely be all over the guy. I really like my dog.
 
#14 ·
First off, you need to fully understand the castle doctrine law and its application in the state in which you reside (or will). In Fl, the burgler's in deep poo--period.

Secondly; who else is there to "hear" the burgler say he isn't going to harm you? No witnesses? Nuff said. He's in the wrong place at any time.
 
#17 ·
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.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#21 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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
 
#24 ·
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?
 
#23 ·
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.
 
#25 ·
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
 
#26 ·
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.
 
#27 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
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.
 
#28 ·
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.
 
#31 ·
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.
 
#29 ·
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
 
#32 ·
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.
 
#33 ·
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.
 
#34 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top