Defensive Carry banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I believe the state of Kansas has the castle doctrine. That means that if you've got a home invader you can use any means to neutralize them. So I take it if somebody is at your house and you ask them to leave and they don't leave you can shoot them. I believe this is how it is in the state of Kansas, just trying to clarify.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,983 Posts
I don't believe that's how it works in most states. You can't shoot someone for trespassing unless your life and/or limb is in danger. Outside your house more than likely stand your ground would be in effect. Inside your house would be Castle doctrine but life and limb would still have to be threatened which 95% of the time would be the case. There are cases where someone who is drunk and disoriented, for instance, and stumbles into the wrong house. If you shoot them for that, you could be in trouble.
Your best information would be your local RCW codes. They should give you all the legal info you need. Don't assume anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Here is a good link for you to read.. It might clear up some things for you.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
By that logic if your mother-in-law doesn't leave - or doesn't leave quickly enough - you can shoot her?

I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,457 Posts
I believe the state of Kansas has the castle doctrine. That means that if you've got a home invader you can use any means to neutralize them. So I take it if somebody is at your house and you ask them to leave and they don't leave you can shoot them. I believe this is how it is in the state of Kansas, just trying to clarify.
You’d better consult an attorney before you get yourself in trouble. Hopefully this is a rhetorical question and you don’t actually live in KS.

Sometimes your “take” on things is interesting to say the least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,344 Posts
Castle doctrine laws (or case law) vary from simply no duty to retreat from home up to if someone forcibly enters deadly threat is assumed and deadly force can immediately be used.

You need to know what your state situation is. It's not a one size fits all concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TSKnight and OldVet

·
Registered
Northwest Oregon
Joined
·
18,894 Posts
Only Double-0 agents like James Bond 007 have licenses to kill. For everyone else, it depends.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
Regardless of when, where, or how a situation takes place there will always be a basic test applied to the facts, commonly known as the "reasonable person" test. Were the actions taken by a person reasonable under the circumstances known to exist at the time of the events in question?

So called "castle doctrine", "duty to retreat", "make my day laws", and all the other nonsense means very little if a jury of your peers looks at the evidence and decides that your actions were not reasonable.

I sincerely hope that you will never be the "test case" at the courthouse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
There are cases where someone who is drunk and disoriented, for instance, and stumbles into the wrong house. If you shoot them for that, you could be in trouble.
Regardless of state laws I think what happens after such an incident largely depends on the political climate where you live, and how the local DA sees things.

There was a local case a couple years ago and I don't remember all the details but basically it was that a drunk guy started pounding on the door at the home of an elderly couple in the wee hours of the morning. He apparently thought he was at a friend's house. When he didn't get an answer after pounding on the door for a while he tried to get the door open and the old guy inside shot him through the door. After investigation there were no charges brought, or any charges were dropped, I don't remember which it was. But, let that same scenario play out somewhere else here in PA, perhaps with a more liberal DA and I'll bet the outcome would be different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,722 Posts
Regardless of when, where, or how a situation takes place there will always be a basic test applied to the facts, commonly known as the "reasonable person" test. Were the actions taken by a person reasonable under the circumstances known to exist at the time of the events in question?

So called "castle doctrine", "duty to retreat", "make my day laws", and all the other nonsense means very little if a jury of your peers looks at the evidence and decides that your actions were not reasonable.

I sincerely hope that you will never be the "test case" at the courthouse.
All true. For example in my state, Virginia, someone who breaks into your home during the daylight hours is considered a trespasser. If this occurs at night time, that person is considered a burglar. The difference. Burglary is one of the five felonies for which a deadly force response is justified. But let's say you yell at that nighttime intruder, the burglar, telling him to get out of your house and he beats feet for the door. Would you be justified in shooting him? Let's just say that I wouldn't do this. On the other hand, if he remains in your home and starts going from door to door in the house, the prudent and reasonable person would naturally assume he is not out selling Christmas cards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,106 Posts
All true. For example in my state, Virginia, someone who breaks into your home during the daylight hours is considered a trespasser. If this occurs at night time, that person is considered a burglar. The difference. Burglary is one of the five felonies for which a deadly force response is justified. But let's say you yell at that nighttime intruder, the burglar, telling him to get out of your house and he beats feet for the door. Would you be justified in shooting him? Let's just say that I wouldn't do this. On the other hand, if he remains in your home and starts going from door to door in the house, the prudent and reasonable person would naturally assume he is not out selling Christmas cards.
I would definitely shoot based on that alone.

FL law is fairly lenient on use of deadly force in defense of life in the home. One is presumed to be in fear of death or grave harm if someone has illegally entered or attempted to enter one's residence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
You are asking questions that should be directed to a qualified Attorney.
Also consider Civil Cases can devastate your life as easily as Criminal Cases and they have much lower thresholds.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,615 Posts
Worrying about legal ramifications in the middle of a break in will get you killed or hurt bad.
If you are in danger, or feel you are in danger I will do whatever it takes to keep my family and myself safe.
I will worry about the consequences of my actions after the threat is over.
Most of us here know the difference of when to use deadly force.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top