Arguement for full libertied castle doctrine?

[moi_self26]

I'm not too sure if this is true or not..... I've tried finding an article about it, but have been un-able to do so. I heard that someone, somewhere was arguing in court, that the castle doctrine should be an open ended right, to where if anyone has broken into your home, regardless of if they are armed/un-armed, and whether or not they try to retreat, you should have the right to shoot them. If this is true, part of their argument is that if in intruder breaks into your house, and you display force causing them to retreat, the intruder is now leaving with both the knowledge that you are armed as well as the knowledge of the layout of your house..... which may cause them to either a) come back while you are not home to steal your weapon/s or b) come back while you ARE home with superior firepower and try to "retaliate".

Regardless of the veracity of the story as I was told....

How realistic of a concern is that possible scenario that is presented? Do you think that that is a valid legal argument? Do you think that it could hold up in court?

 

[moi_self26]

Just to be clear, I AM aware, that this is not the first time that the right has been argued for...... but the reason is one I have never heard before, and I heard it is being heard right now in some state, which is why I thought I would bring it up.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

I see the purpose of castle doctrine as being an antidote to past excesses of prosecuting attorneys and juries. There have been sad cases where homeowners have shot intruders and ended up on shaky legal ground trying to substantiate "reasonable" fear of GBH and having to show they had no "reasonable" opportunity to retreat. Homeowners are in particular jeopardy in such cases because they may in some cases shoot someone who was in fact engaging in a mere property crime. The homeowner can't read minds or predict the future and intent isn't always clear.

An unfortunate byproduct of castle doctrine laws is that some homeowners with bad attitudes are unduly emboldened to adopt a shoot first, ask questions later approach straight from some Hollywood script. Your post takes this to its logical conclusion. Castle doctrine is meant to be a safe harbor, not a license to kill for no reason.

 

[Guitargod1985]

The great thing about an open-ended all-encompassing Castle Doctrine, as Mostly Harmless pointed out, is that you, the victim, do not have to worry as much about some overzealous DA raping you in the courtroom when all you were doing was defending your life from what you perceived as a genuine threat to your life/well-being.

In Florida, for instance, you are presumed to have held a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm if someone breaks into your occupied dwelling - be it a house, apartment, tent, occupied vehicle, etc. There is no duty to retreat, and because of the legally sanctioned presumption of imminent death or bodily harm, a person is justified in using deadly force to protect oneself. In Florida, the exception to this is if you are engaged in any felonious activity - selling drugs or using your house as a brothel, for example. Another exception is using lethal force against any person who also resides in that dwelling, such as a child or spouse. Also, no lethal force against law enforcement officers while engaged in official duties - (NO-KNOCKs, anyone?).

I believe, as most on this board probably would, that this type of legislation is well within reason. A person has the right to be safe and secure in their home, and when a criminal willfully chooses to violate that sanctity, the homeowner cannot reasonably be expected to know if the criminal intends to do him harm or not. It is my understanding that this is the reasoning behind the presumption of imminent death / great bodily harm.

 

[moi_self26]

This is something I honestly worry about.... maybe more than necessary. My state has lots of ROE's regarding when you can/can't shoot an intruder in your home. Personally, I DO feel like if someone has broken into my home my family and I ARE in danger.... and I should have every right to defend myself by whatever means I feel is necessary. If I felt it necessary to protect my family and I, I would shoot the intruder in a heartbeat...... but I also know that if the situation isn't perfectly presentable in my favor, jail and/or lawsuits are very real possibilities, and that scares the **** out of me. It's so sad that criminals have more rights than we do.

 

[chuckusaret]

Florida's Castle Doctrine and CC laws have reduced crime in my area but, it took a few clerks at the corner Quick Shops and a few home owners to blow away a few bad guys. I have no hang ups when it comes to protecting my family. If the BG is in my house he will hear the 12 gauge bark.