Castle Doctrine

[Cyborg]

Robbery VS Theft

At SAC I was taught that the difference between theft and robbery is whether or not force is used. If someone lifts a purse from behind a bar-stool, that is theft. If they use force to yank it away from the woman who is carying it, that is robbery. In Texas there is no longer such a thing as "shoplifting". There is only theft - the severity is determined only by the value of the property taken - PLUS the victim. If you steal from a Senior or a person physically or mentally disabled, the severity is increased by one level. That means that in 8 years any theft from me will be arrestable (i.e. B misdemeanor or higher) and if you steal $500 from me you will have committed a felony. Steal $1,500 from me after Aug of 2016 and you will be looking at not more than 10 years and not less than 2 years in prison. 'Course since I get more afraid for my life as the years go by, you might not live to make it to trial.

And kleanbore, you are dead on about local laws. There is so much variance from state to state and even from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you had FRELLING well be knowledgable about the legal climate where you are - WHEREVER you are!

Final note: A distant cousin of mine who is an Attorney, told me once that if I hear a burglar in the house to be sure and wait until he crosses the threshold into my bedroom. That way there is no doubt about his intent. Remember 9.06.

 

[Kleanbore]

From Cyborg:

At SAC I was taught that the difference between theft and robbery is whether or not force is used. If someone lifts a purse from behind a bar-stool, that is theft. If they use force to yank it away from the woman who is carying it, that is robbery.

And kleanbore, you are dead on about local laws. There is so much variance from state to state and even from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you had FRELLING well be knowledgable about the legal climate where you are - WHEREVER you are!

A distant cousin of mine who is an Attorney, told me once that if I hear a burglar in the house to be sure and wait until he crosses the threshold into my bedroom. That way there is no doubt about his intent. Remember 9.06.

Cyborg, you obviously know what you are talking about.

I took CCW training last summer. Here are some things that I had not known:

• The basic prerequistes for the use of deadly force outside the home (A, O, J, P; Tueller drill distance criterion.)
• That I cannot detain a perp (without entering into the risky world of citizens arrest)
• The provisons of our castle law (that's the subject of all this, of course)
• That I cannot use my gun to protect property here
• That my dog is considered property
• That producing the weapon in a situation in which the use of deadly force is not justified can get me into serious trouble from both the criminal and civil standpoints
• Don't even consider a warning shot
• If the threat dissipates, do not shoot, period

I could go on. I had not realized that I would have to be able to draw from concealment and fire in a couple of seconds. I had never considered what I would go through after using my weapon.

I've been spending a fair amount of effort trying to find out what else there is that I need to know. That includes the laws in states in which I may travel.

I strongly recommend that anyone owning a gun spend some time on these things before a situation arises that may require its use.

 

[mljdeckard]

Absolutely. Even to the point of taking a few criminal law classes from your local community college. My criminal justice program is taught by prosecutors and judges, they taught me a LOT about precedent and practical application of law. Just for example, I took classes in arrest, search, and seizure law, professional responsibility, and criminal law, for a combined total of 135 hours of instruction. By way of comparison, it is feasible that there are Level-I certified police officers walking around out there with a grand total of 8 hours of instruction in the same areas. It's just like weapon training, you can never know enough.

 

[Explorer1]

The laws make TOTAL sense! The fact is the thugs have NO business doing what is getting them killed. When seconds count law enforcement is only minutes away - and hampered by being overworked, understaffed, and regulated beyond belief.
The purpose of these laws is NOT to punish those who you refer to as stealing a pencil but those who are threatening the well-being of someone who was minding their own business and bothering no one.
A home owner should NOT be afraid of defending themselves or their family or going broke defending themselves if they do.

 

[gunnie]

get the book....

ANYONE, castle state, CCW state, ANY state, who owns a firearm that can/will be used for self defence owes it to themselves, and their family to read Massad Ayoob's book, "In The Gravest Extreme".

should be mandatory for firearms purchasers , IMO.

gunnie

 

[Ala Dan]

Let Get This Straight-

Only if you fear that your
life, or the life of a loved one is in emminent danger are you covered under
the Castle Doctrine Act. Yes, if someone forcibly enters your residence,
his/her intentions are unknown; and most likely they are there to cause
you or a loved one physical bodily harm. Therefore, the Castle Doctrine
Act would supercede any existing laws entitled "Use Of Deadly Physical
Force". The same would hold true if a potential perp of the car-jacker
type approached your vechile, while you are stopped at a traffic light*.

FootNote- you can't shoot an unarmed individual approaching your
vechile too ask for directions; but while paying attention to detail of
his/her behavorial mood, you see that they are armed [say with a
tire iron] then YES you can blow them away under the Castle Doctrine
Act.

 

[Kleanbore]

From Ala Dan:

you can't shoot an unarmed individual approaching your vechile too ask for directions; but while paying attention to detail of
his/her behavorial mood, you see that they are armed [say with a
tire iron] then YES you can blow them away under the Castle Doctrine
Act.

NOT WHERE I LIVE!

 

[benEzra]

you can't shoot an unarmed individual approaching your vechile too ask for directions; but while paying attention to detail of
his/her behavorial mood, you see that they are armed [say with a
tire iron] then YES you can blow them away under the Castle Doctrine Act.

Not quite correct. States that extend the Castle Doctrine to vehicles (such as Florida) use the same standard as your home--illegal forced entry. If someone is walking up to your vehicle holding a tire iron threateningly, you may, depending on the circumstances, be able to use potentially lethal force in self-defense (matching the threatened lethal force with equivalent force), but that is not Castle Doctrine; it is ordinary self-defense law.

If the attacker breaks your window and reaches in trying to open the door, then the Castle Doctrine would apply in Florida, because he is attempting an illegal forced entry of your occupied vehicle.

Castle Doctrine and no-duty-to-retreat-in-public-places are not the same thing.

 

[Kleanbore]

get the book....
ANYONE, castle state, CCW state, ANY state, who owns a firearm that can/will be used for self defence owes it to themselves, and their family to read Massad Ayoob's book, "In The Gravest Extreme".

should be mandatory for firearms purchasers , IMO.

gunnie

My copy arrived yesterday. I'm well into it already. Excellent. I agree with gunnie's recommendation.

 

[RPCVYemen]

That I cannot detain a perp (without entering into the risky world of citizens arrest)

I think that there are a lot of of other risks with trying to detain a perp. You're standing there thinking, "He's in big trouble, I have a gun pointed at him!" The perp is laying there thinking, "That's a nice gun. I'd like to have that gun. I can take that fat old white man!"

In addition, it's not clear that you can actually shoot someone for disobeying your orders. If the perp decreased the distance to you without issuing any threats, or worse yet specifying no threat, "Hey man, can't we talk about this? I don't mean any harm. Peace.", can you shoot him? Once he's within arm's reach, your gun is his.

Think about it. What sense does it make to order a violent felon to stay in the room with you at gun point?

Watch when the pro's do it - watch videos of police detaining a citizen for something other than a traffic stop. The tension level is very, very high, and generally doesn't ease until the perp is in handcuffs in a car. In addition to all that, from what I see, officers strongly prefer two (or more) officers doing the handcuffing.

So the pro's - who have lots of training, and who detail people for a living - show an extreme level of tension and awareness when trying to detain a perp, and almost always do it with en mass. And law abiding Joe Citizen, who hasn't been in a fight since 7th grade is going to do it by himself?

The absolute best outcome for 99.999% of us non-LEOs is that the perp runs away.

Mike

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I think that there are a lot of of other risks with trying to detain a perp. You're standing there thinking, "He's in big trouble, I have a gun pointed at him!" The perp is laying there thinking, "That's a nice gun. I'd like to have that gun. I can take that fat old white man!"...

Absolutely correct. Massad Ayoob makes the point in his class that the criminal is not afraid of the gun. The criminal may be afraid of the person who he is convinced truly has the resolve to use the gun. If you point a gun at a criminal, you must convince him, by your manner, bearing and tone of voice (if you speak) that without a doubt you will in fact shoot him. And do some soul searching here; because if you really doubt that you have the resolve to shoot a person, it may be impossible to convince a criminal that you will shoot him.

Other instructors have said that the gun is not the weapon. You/your mind is the weapon. The gun is merely a tool.

...The absolute best outcome for 99.999% of us non-LEOs is that the perp runs away....

You bet!

 

[Kleanbore]

From RPCVYemen:

In addition, it's not clear that you can actually shoot someone for disobeying your orders.

Should he choose to flee, you may not use deadly force except under certain rare circumstances. Fiddletown has listed those on this or another forum. This is covered in a SCOTUS ruling (Garner v. Tennessee).

Think about it. What sense does it make to order a violent felon to stay in the room with you at gun point?

None! Why would he stay?

So the pro's - who have lots of training, and who detain people for a living - show an extreme level of tension and awareness when trying to detain a perp, and almost always do it with en mass. And law abiding Joe Citizen, who hasn't been in a fight since 7th grade is going to do it by himself?

Beautifully put!

The absolute best outcome for 99.999% of us non-LEOs is that the perp runs away.

+1!

 

[Superlite27]

The type of law is different in many states so I can't specifically say this is the same for all Castle Doctrine laws, but the actual doctrine is not aimed at the person who is involved. Castle Doctrine in Missouri merely changes the BURDEN.

Instead of shooting a trespasser, getting arrested, and the HAVING TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE, Missouri Castle Doctrine merely moves the burden of proof onto the prosecutor. Without Castle Doctrine you had to prove your innocence. With Castle Doctrine, the prosecutor now has to prove YOU DIDN'T DEFEND YOURSELF. Very hard to do when a ski-mask wearing prior felon with a crowbar is lying in your livingroom.

Before Castle Doctrine, the burden was ON YOU to prove you acted correctly. After Castle Doctrine, the burden is ON THE STATE to prove you didn't.

EXACTLY where the burden needs to lie. Before, you would be automatically arrested. It was up to you and your attorney to prove your innocence. NOW, a prosecutor might have to think about arresting you until he can make his case. If you are TRULY innocent until proven guilty, this is as it should be.

 

[rbernie]

The absolute best outcome for 99.999% of us non-LEOs is that the perp runs away

Actually, probably not. That simply means that he/she will move on to predate upon somebody else. No society or community can thrive when internal predators are unaddressed. In terms of that which is best for the health of the community, the continuum of desired outcomes probably looks something like this:

1. People stop predating upon each other altogether
2. People that predate upon others are apprehended in the act of Being Bad People and submissively removed from the community
3. People that predate upon others are apprehended in the act of Being Bad People and injured/killed in the act of forcing their submission, upon which they/their corpse is removed from the community
4. People that predate upon others are allowed to flee when confronted and move on to find an easier target

 

[Kleanbore]

From rbernie:

In terms of that which is best for the health of the community, the continuum of desired outcomes probably looks something like this:
People stop predating upon each other altogether
People that predate upon others are apprehended in the act of Being Bad People and submissively removed from the community
People that predate upon others are apprehended in the act of Being Bad People and injured/killed in the act of forcing their submission, upon which they/their corpse is removed from the community
People that predate upon others are allowed to flee when confronted and move on to find an easier target

In terms of what is best for the resident and his family, the continuum of desired outcomes probably looks like this:

1. The intruder leaves and may or may not be apprehended later
2. The resident attemps a citizen's arrest, and the intruder sues for false arrest or assault or both
3. Same situation, and the resident is charged with kidnapping
4. Same as 2, and the situation results in an out of court settlement or the plaintiff wins
5. The resident is convicted of criminal action; insurance does not pay civil damages
6. In the attempt to restrain the intruder, the intruder is killed or severely injured, and consequences range upward to a murder conviction
7. In attempting to restrain one or more intruders, the resident is overcome, disarmed, and injured or killed
8. Same, except the intruder turns the gun on the resident's family

 

[ChCx2744]

Kleanbore said:
That contradicts this from a Georgia law firm:


Quote:
If you enter any of these places without the owner's authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft in that place, you've committed the crime of Burglary.

If you simply enter someone's house without their authority and you did not commit a theft or felony, at worst you are guilty of criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor.


http://www.georgiadefenders.com/theft.burglary.htm

Fact: I do not know what a perp is THINKING when they enter my home. How am I supposed to read someone's mind? Am I Mr. Cleo?
Fact: If someone is in my home WITHOUT my permission, there is no legal justification for it and they are wrong, period. I will FULLY believe my life is in jeopardy given the LONE fact that someone is in my home WITHOUT my permission.

Oh and by the way, YOU have been slightly fooled by the link you provided. Criminal Trespass is not literally defined as "Illegally entering without permission," Criminal Trespass is also used to determine property damage and at what point the cost of damage is a misdemeanor or felony. There are different degrees to criminal trespass (Criminal Trespass [damage < $500 in the state of Georgia], Criminal damage to property 1st degree, 2nd degree, Burglary) and any of these charges can be combined; I.E. Criminal Trespass can be added onto burglary if damage cost goes with the crime, etc. I don't know where you are from, but I live in Georgia and the laws here probably are not the same as the laws in your state. State Law is still Law, and federal law does not constitute everything.

True, you must have situational awareness of what is going on and the nature of what is going on; however, 99% of the time someone is in your residence without your permission is going to be intentional, whether you want to believe that in your little world or not. The remaining 1% MAY WELL BE some kid who went to the wrong house after curfew, an elderly woman who accidentally went into the wrong apartment that was unlocked (my grandmother did this once), or some maintenance guy who went into the wrong house/apt. Either way, deadly force can be justified through articulation (given the nature of thier entrance/presence). You can debate all day and night justification for deadly force in the Castle Doctrine, but your "googling" and "opinions" will not change what has already happened and what has been prooven.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If someone is in my home WITHOUT my permission, there is no legal justification for it and they are wrong, period. I will FULLY believe my life is in jeopardy given the LONE fact that someone is in my home WITHOUT my permission.

You might. But will the DA, grand jury and/or trial jury agree? Good luck and have a nice day.

The point is that things are often not that cut and dried. It all depends on exactly what is going on. The devil is in the details, and we must learn to exercise good judgment.

 

[pbearperry]

Hey Nachosgrande,
If you think someone would break into your home while you are there to steal a pencil,you must either be a complete moron,or on some kind of liberal kool aid drug.Which is it.lol

 

[Frank Ettin]

Hey Nachosgrande,
If you think someone would break into your home while you are there to steal a pencil,you must either be a complete moron,or on some kind of liberal kool aid drug.Which is it.lol

If you're referring to me, the answer is that I'm neither.

I am a lawyer retired after more than 30 years practice who has trained with Bennie Cooley , at Gunsite with Jeff Cooper, with Louis Awerbuck and with Massad Ayoob, among others. I'm also an NRA certified instructor in Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home and Shotgun.

And if name calling is the best that you can do, I doubt that you can have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion.

EDIT: pbearperrry, I see that the OP was Nachogrande -- I guess this thread has been going on for so long, I lost track of who started this thing. Looking back over things, I agree that Nachgrande is way off base, but that's no reason to call him names.

 

[shiftyer1]

In some cultures past and possibly present people ABSOLUTELY would not enter your home if a stone was out front of the door. It was an unthinkable act. Some of these homes doors were secured with string or even not at all. What happened to commen sense. Entering ones home uninvited is a very violating experience for the homeowner. I've discussed some of the issues my moms been havin at home in this respect here a few times. Anyway why should one have to question why someone is in your house? Someone is in your kitchen, living room etc. this is a terrible time to discuss the weather, current events and oh, by the way whats your name and why is that knive in your hand?

I cannot believe any home defense laws actually effect the actions of home owners to much extent.

This is a law that actually protects normal people when they react to someone protecting whats thiers, be it family or property.

I really don't understand why concepts like these are so hard to understand.

People tryin to hurt you are not people too they are predators!!!!!!

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I cannot believe any home defense laws actually effect the actions of home owners to much extent. ...

Nonetheless, they are what they are. So if you want you and your family to survive the episode, and you to survive any legal aftermath, it would be good to know and understand the laws and exercise appropriate judgment.

An intruder whose actions truly constitute a threat must be dealt with decisively, but an intruder who has clearly broken off his activity and is on his way out may present a different question. You're going to have to decide what to do, and decide quickly, based on what is actually happening. You're going to then have to explain you decision and live with it.

 

[skoro]

Therefore, in the eyes of my state, MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = DEATH PENALTY. Could someone please explain the logic in this?

To ease your conscience, keep a jar of dimes by the door so the pencil thieves can take a handful and go to the corner store and buy all they want.

Problem solved!

 

[bytesize]

I was questioning one of my HCP instructors (a very experienced LEO) on how to handle a potential life threatening situation. After listening patiently, he interrupted me in mid-sentence and said: “You are being too analytical. You will absolutely know when someone is trying to kill you”.
An intruder in your home for any reason is not your friend. If discovered and they don’t immediately flee the premises, you can expect things to go badly for at least one of you. The Castle Doctrine is a good and just law meant to protect you from criminal prosecution and civil suits if you survive. It won’t protect you from anything if you are dead.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

Aha. Protect you from Prosecution ONLY if you were within the LAW itself IF you shot someone inside your home.

They will decide and examine to consider charges against YOU the homeowner/shooter. If they decline to file charges then NO one else can sue or charge you for that shoot. (Successful home defense)

Should you not know the law of home defense in your area and make a wrong decision, YOU stand to be taken to JAIL and Charged and later SUED civilly.

Dont even think for a second the bad guy you shot and stopped that everything is ok. You will face the possibility of arson, drive by shoots and more crimes against your property from the Bad guy's family and friends once everything is reported in the media the following days after your successful shoot in defense of life and home.

 

[bytesize]

Aha. Me thinks you are being too analytical. Simple points are: 1 - Intruder in your home and won't leave, you better figure out out a way to survive. 2 - If you don't have ability or will to complete #1 then anything that comes after is a secondary concern. Castle doctrine is a nice tool to help you out with the secondary stuff if you do complete #1. Life ain't easy is it?