Castle Doctrine and lawns

Status
Not open for further replies.
CopperFouling

CopperFouling

Member
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
1,153
Location
Midwest
Please keep the scope of this discussion confined to the quotation at hand and not the larger incident.

From the article:

Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said Monday that it was “very dangerous” for the McCloskeys to engage with protesters by brandishing guns, but Missouri’s Castle Doctrine allows them to defend their property on Portland Place, a private street.

"At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn [italics added],” Walker said, calling the state’s Castle Doctrine a “force field” that “indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri.”

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...8632f28585.html#tracking-source=home-trending

Now, granted, I am suspicious of the use of partial, fragmented quotations like some of the quotations here, as they are too easy to take out of context. However, the relevant part that I want to discuss is a full sentence. I have never been of the understanding that someone in Missouri can legally use deadly force to get someone off the lawn if the person who set foot on the lawn does not pose a threat. Frankly, that sounds nuts. The fact that a law professor said it is even nuttier.

@Kleanbore or @Frank Ettin , any insights into this?
 
Last edited:
I refer folks to the concept of curtilage with respect to a residence dwelling. Andrew Branca discusses this in his LoSD course when addressing Castle Docctrine. The accurate legal interpretation depends on both codified law and case law in the particular state. IaNaL, so I will not try to translate what I learned from the course here, leaving further discussion to our resident legal minds. I do recall from the course that a court may possibly take into account how far outside the dwelling, while still on the grounds, the incident may have taken place; being on your porch may be different from being at the outer edge of your four acres.
 
I'm not convinced that Walker knows the subject anywhere near well enough to comment on it authoritatively.

Missouri ""Castle Doctrine" (specifically, that aspect of the law that provides exception to some limitations of the use of deadly force in the defense of persons) to real property that is owned or leased by the individual who is defending the property. What does that mean on a private street?

Yes, of course that sounds nuts, and it is. People who read the black law would conclude that a resident may shoot anyone who has entered a house unlawfully or who refuses to leave. That is not the case. There are jury instructions that qualify that. I do not have access to them..

In Andrew Branca's state-specific course on the defense of highly defensible property, he mentions required conditions other than unlawful entry. I don't remember what he said well enough to repeat it verbatim. But since I will never be looking for legal justification to shoot anyone, that doesn't bother me.

I would not threaten force to get anyone off my lawn, and I most certainly would not put myself in danger by leaving the safety of my house.

Input on the jury instruction and on Andrew's words would be helpful here.

The couple have been shooting their mouths off in the media, and making statements that could be used against them.

Were they justified? Maybe, but if they are charged, they will spend bales of the long green to establish that they are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I hope they don't have to find out.

I think their best hope lies in prosecutorial discretion. I don't think that Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner would have any reluctance whatsoever to charge them, but Mayor Krewson might well think twice before letting the serpents out of the bag kind for an incident of that kind in that neighborhood.

By the way, Krewson's husband was murdered [edited] in front of their house on nearby Wells Avenue.
 
Last edited:
Information from Branca's Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition.
From Table 5-1, Laws on Duty to Retreat, Deadly Force, by State, p. 218
Missouri, p. 222
General duty of non-aggressor to retreat before use of force in self-defense - NO. Effective January 1, 2017. 563.031(3)(3)
No retreat in Castle (dwelling) 563.0311(3)(1)
No retreat in Castle+ (curtilage) 563.0311(3)(3)
No retreat in Castle++ (business) 563.0311(3)(1)
No retreat in Castle+++ (vehicle) 563.0311(3)91) [sic]
No retreat anywhere you have right to be (Stand Your Ground) 563.0311(3)(3)

From Table 8-2, Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Property, p. 270
Missouri, p. 281
563.041. 1.A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under such circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
=-=-=-==

p.s. This is why I bought the book in addition to taking the video course.
 
Using force and deadly force are different, so clue me on what
when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
Click to expand...
qualifies for the usage of deadly force.
 
GEM said:
Using force and deadly force are different, so clue me on what

qualifies for the usage of deadly force.
Click to expand...
Your quesiton well illustrates the reason for this in one of our Sticky threads:

We have among our forum rules the following very strong advice:

"...trying to interpret a particular law in isolation by using lay dictionary definitions can lead to erroneous conclusions. Case law—decisions rendered by high courts in the interpretation of the laws—and relationships among other pertinent laws and constitutional principles can have as much to do with the real meaning of the law as the words in a single statute.

"For this reason, we strongly discourage the rote cutting and pasting into posts of state legal codes to support one’s position in a discussion here, and we advise against the reliance on same to justify the lawfulness of a particular course of action.

"Such reliance is particularly dangerous when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force."

In a recent post, our member boom boom explained it this way:

"One of the problems with only knowing the black letter law of the statute is that the courts may have interpreted that statute in a way that is not obvious through cases applying the statute to specific case facts. Then there is as Jeff White says, the politics and personnel enforcing the law in the area of the incident. And at last, civil liability also lurks out there as an additional danger.

"The statutes themselves are often a mish mash of laws, sometimes with apparent contradictions, that have been passed over a century or so. So courts do not normally read a statute in isolation from other statutes that apply to the general situation but try the reconcile any ambiguities and contradictions that occur over time through interpretations of the laws in specific cases.​
 
JudgeHolden10 said:
Please keep the scope of this discussion confined to the quotation at hand and not the larger incident.

From the article:

Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said Monday that it was “very dangerous” for the McCloskeys to engage with protesters by brandishing guns, but Missouri’s Castle Doctrine allows them to defend their property on Portland Place, a private street.

"At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn [italics added],” Walker said, calling the state’s Castle Doctrine a “force field” that “indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri.”....
Click to expand...

To discuss this properly we need to start with the law itself, i. e., exactly what the statutes say and how they've been interpreted and applied by the courts.
 
Frank Ettin said:
To discuss this properly we need to start with the law itself, i. e., exactly what the statutes say and how they've been interpreted and applied by the courts.
Click to expand...
Yep, and the seeming differences between the former and the latter, where both exist, would likely surprise some lay persons.

The extension of areas in which the code makes special provision regarding the lawful use of force is rather recent. The application to the occupied domicile and the occupied automobile has been relatively well established, though many people obviously do not understand it very well.

The expansion of coverage to individuals acting on real property that they own or lease is recent. We'll know what it really means after there has been a criminal conviction, an appeal pertaining to the application of that law, and an appellate ruling on the appeal.
 
Kleanbore said:
"For this reason, we strongly discourage the rote cutting and pasting into posts of state legal codes to support one’s position in a discussion here, and we advise against the reliance on same to justify the lawfulness of a particular course of action.

"Such reliance is particularly dangerous when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force."
Click to expand...

@Kleanbore is right, and I apologize if my citation from Branca's book was out of line. In both the Branca's course and his book he emphasizes repeatedly that to understand the law you must know not only the statute, but also the relevant case law (appeals court rulings) and the standard or common jury instructions given in that state for the type of case. Even with all three parts of the equation, it can be tricky interpreting actual application, which must be done by the jury and judge. In the state-specific LoSD course Branca does provide the full set for each state.
This is also why I often Like the posts recommending that folks actually take the course.
 
Frank Ettin said:
To discuss this properly we need to start with the law itself, i. e., exactly what the statutes say and how they've been interpreted and applied by the courts.
Click to expand...

Yikes. That sounds like a research paper in and of itself.

Kleanbore said:
I would not threaten force to get anyone off my lawn, and I most certainly would not put myself in danger by leaving the safety of my house.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed on both counts.
 
Craig_VA said:
In the state-specific LoSD course Branca does provide the full set for each state.
This is also why I often Like the posts recommending that folks actually take the course.
Click to expand...

Tangential question: is the book not enough? I was going to order a copy.
 
JudgeHolden10 said:
Tangential question: is the book not enough? I was going to order a copy.
Click to expand...
Buy the book.

The book is not enough for me.

I am a Platinum Member of the LoSD blog.

I have taken their great online courses. Another one coming up will have to do with riot and arson. Last year I wouldn't have bothered.

I listen routinely to learned discussion of the most interesting appellate court decisions on self defense law--two to four cases each week, on average. And I do not claim to be any kind of authority.
 
Craig_VA said:
2. A person may use deadly force under such circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
Click to expand...

Even a casual reading of that sentence without referencing any other part of the law, it is highly likely that there are specified situations when deadly force may be used in other portions of the law. There in fact are. To avoid quoting here what may be easily read elsewhere: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneChapter.aspx?chapter=563 I would reference 563.031 for specifics.

And of course regardless of the criminal outcome: 563.016. Civil remedies unaffected. — The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil actions.
 
JudgeHolden10 said:
Tangential question: is the book not enough? I was going to order a copy.
Click to expand...

I agree with Kleanbore -- by all means buy the book, but it's best not to stop there.

I've taken criminal law classes (including a number of classes on forensic evidence) while fulfilling my continuing legal education requirements. I've taken Mas' MAG-40 class and have been an assistant instructor for one of his MAG-40 classes. I've taken Branca's live classes (Law of Self Defense 1&2). And I study on my own.

One reason for not stopping with buying the book is that understanding this stuff is more than just learning some rules. Law involves a certain type of analysis and the interplay between facts and law. And learning that is to some extent a matter of practice under qualified guidance.

The "qualified guidance" part is important. I've seen a lot of folks who are "self-taught" who really don't understand things and keep getting things wrong.
 
The July 1 After Action Analysis Report on the LoSD blog goes into great depth on the McCloskey case and into relevant Missouri law.

These programs are now available only members and they will not longer be on Facebook.
 
The only thing I can offer to the original question is that in my concealed carry class I asked whether in Arizona castle doctrine applies to one's front yard, and the answer was no. I suspect the answer may not be the same in all states.
 
Frank Ettin said:
I agree with Kleanbore -- by all means buy the book, but it's best not to stop there.

I've taken criminal law classes (including a number of classes on forensic evidence) while fulfilling my continuing legal education requirements. I've taken Mas' MAG-40 class and have been an assistant instructor for one of his MAG-40 classes. I've taken Branca's live classes (Law of Self Defense 1&2). And I study on my own.
Click to expand...

Something I don't understand about the Mag 40 class is how does he differentiate from state to state. He teaches, I assume, in almost every state, or people from all over the country travel to take the class. His video is the exact same thing every tie, by design. Given the nature of state by state laws on self defense it would seem to me that, for many people, parts of the class would be irrelevant if not downright incorrect.

I just finished my state's CCW class and, using the information I learned, decided not to carry concealed because the risk from what the state is going to do to a self defender is as great or greater than what a criminal is going to do. I was surprised to come to that decision having carried in other states in years (decades actually) past.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
Something I don't understand about the Mag 40 class is how does he differentiate from state to state. He teaches, I assume, in almost every state, or people from all over the country travel to take the class. His video is the exact same thing every tie, by design. Given the nature of state by state laws on self defense it would seem to me that, for many people, parts of the class would be irrelevant if not downright incorrect.
Click to expand...
Self defense laws are about 80% common.

Differences of which I am aware involve such things as when defense against an intruder is justified (eg, entry accomplished vs attempted), what property the castle doctrine covers, requirements to retreat, and the threshold for justifying the presentation of a weapon.

Laws providing protection against prosecution vary, but a defender should not be taking such things into account.

I do not recall anything in Mas' course that would be correct in one state but not in another.
 
old lady new shooter said:
The only thing I can offer to the original question is that in my concealed carry class I asked whether in Arizona castle doctrine applies to one's front yard, and the answer was no. I suspect the answer may not be the same in all states.
Click to expand...


In AZ, it's also questionable, or it was, if the garage is part of the house.
 
I am a little skeptical of the article’s content. Castle doctrines do not absolve people from brandishing and threatening. Castle doctrines provide a defense when you use force to protect yourself or others from harm by anyone attempting to enter, entering, or in your caste (home, office, hotel room, vehicle). If someone is standing in your lawn, even if they are making threats, there is no immediate threat. Trespassing is not illegal entry. I know of no law that would justify shooting a trespasser unless the trespasser posed an immediate threat with a deadly weapon. The brandishing actions of the homeowners was uncalled for in my mind/
 
Last edited:
1942bull said:
Castle doctrines provide ani unity when you use force to protect yourself or others from harm by anyone attempting to enter, entering, or in your caste (home, office, hotel room, vehicle).
Click to expand...
Actually castle doctrines per se obviate any requirement to retreat from, or within, whatever property is covered by the law.

In Missouri, the portion of the law commonly and colloquially referred to as the "castle law" provides an exception to certain limitations on the use of deadly force for the defense of persons, provided that not deadly physical force would be justified. It applies in and on any property owned or leased by the individual.

1942bull said:
If someone is standing in your lawn, even if they are making threats, there is no immediate threat.
Click to expand...
That depends.

1942bull said:
Trespassing is not illegal entry.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is. But it is not very serious.

1942bull said:
I know of no law that would justify shooting a trespasser unless the trespasser posed an immediate threat with a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...
Almost. But there need be no deadly weapon
 
In Missouri, trespassing is a misdemeanor crime. It doesn't matter if you trespass on someone's yard/property or actually enter a home or building. Missouri stand your ground/castle doctrine law extends outside the home to the property line/border.

As far as the couple is St Louis are concerned. Yes they had every legal right to be armed and to protect their property under Missouri law. What I do not agree with is how they were waiving their guns around, especially the wife.

In Missouri, any property marked as private is just that - private. The property must be properly marked with either private property/no trespassing signs or with state recognized purple paint. If the protesters did indeed break down the gate, they were criminally trespassing. Again, trespassing is a misdemeanor in Missouri.
 
12Bravo20 said:
Yes they had every legal right to be armed and to protect their property under Missouri law.
Click to expand...
I'd appreciate citation of case law and statute supporting this statement. According to Branca's course, Texas is the only state that provides for use of deadly force (e.g. guns) to protect property. And even then there are several very specific requirements for the situation. All other states, including Missouri, authorize only non-deadly force to protect property. There are also in some states special provisions for using deadly force to protect residential dwelling with an assumption that intrusion into the residence constitutes a threat to the people in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bulletski
  • Locked
Deadly force and Castle Doctrine
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
alsaqr
alsaqr
S
  • Locked
Arkansas Senator Files "Castle Doctrine" Bill
Replies
11
Views
734
stlgunfan
S
D
  • Locked
'Castle doctrine' lesson? Stay out of the wrong castle
Replies
14
Views
1K
Hypnogator
Hypnogator
B
  • Locked
Castle Doctrine Language
Replies
2
Views
305
absinthe
A
B
  • Locked
Castle Doctrine Under Attack in Montana
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top