Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Castle Doctrine

Discussion in 'Legal' started by nachosgrande, Dec 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nachosgrande

    nachosgrande Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    282
    Trying to figure out the logic of the "Castle Doctrine", which is legal in my state. I'm an "Eye For an Eye" kind of guy, so this law makes no sense as I see it. Basically, if someone in my state murders someone else, they will probably get 15-20 years of jail time (realistically) and be done in the eyes of the state. However, if they break into my house, steal a pencil, and I shoot them dead (we'll call this capitol punishment), they lose their life and I'm off scott free. Therefore, in the eyes of my state, MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = DEATH PENALTY. Could someone please explain the logic in this?
     
  2. gunnie

    gunnie Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    787
    the difference is-when they are in your house at night, you don't know if they are armed. and even in the daylight, you can't read their mind to know their intentions. ALL YOU DO KNOW for sure is they aren't bothered by laws they broke to get there inside your house.

    why should breaking others be a problem for them?

    gunnie
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2008
  3. biggiesmalls

    biggiesmalls Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    352
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    the way i see it, they gave up their safety when they enter your house unwelcomed. if they're willing to risk it, be happy to oblige and save your own life and your family's... if you assume badguys are in your house just to steal a pencil then you should just throw a couple of pencils on your front yard and save everybody some time :)
     
  4. bthest86

    bthest86 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    362
    Location:
    Mexico
    Call it what ever you want. That is not what it is. I'm not shooting the intruder because he is stealing my pencil, I'm shooting because he is illegally in my house doing God knows what and I'm protecting myself. That is not an execution. It is self-preservation.
     
  5. biggiesmalls

    biggiesmalls Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    352
    Location:
    Austin, TX

    the lack of logic here is that murder only commands 15 years, not that theft gets death penalty, because you are assuming that you will not suffer bodily harm in a simple burglary, which you really have no way of knowing whether it is until it's too late and worse things are happening.
     
  6. Shung

    Shung Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Geneva, Switzerland
    don't feed the troll.. (my aplogize if the question was serious)
     
  7. mnrivrat

    mnrivrat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,587
    Location:
    MN
    15 to 20 in the eyes of the state for murder is fair to you ? an eye for an eye man . For murder one should face the death penalty in my way of thinking.

    Then there is the pencil ? I doubt anyone is going to break into your home to steal a pencil , that said , perhaps they are only there to steal something. (makes no difference what) How can you possibly know that , vs there being in you house to murder and possibly steal as well ?

    And my last point is , should you face murder charges for believing they are there to do great harm, and thereby protecting yourself ?
     
  8. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    Castle doctrines are not laws designed to preserve the right of a homeowner to protect his property (except in Texas :D). Castle doctrines are laws that preserve the rights of homeowners to protect the occupants of their homes from harm or death.

    In other words, you are not shooting an intruder as punishment for theft of an item, you are shooting an intruder to stop a possible attack against your person or any other person present in your home.
     
  9. qajaq59

    qajaq59 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,375
    Location:
    S. C. Florida
    Maybe he isn't there to steal your pencil? Could be he wants to kidnap your 5 year old daughter.
    Sounds a little different that way, doesn't it?
     
  10. basicblur

    basicblur Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,633
    Location:
    VA
    Since I don't speak Swedish...:D

    "Smart" thieves/murderers (an oxymoron) have been reported to break in houses and find/use a weapon in the home (kitchen/butcher knives etc) rather than bring their own weapon, in the hopes that if caught/charged, they will be charged with lesser offenses than if they had brought their own weapon.

    'Course, if you catch 'em before they can do whatever they had in mind, they just broke in to steal a pencil/cigarette etc. donchaknow!
     
  11. Shung

    Shung Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Well, not a problem if you don't speak Swedish, since I can't neither.. [​IMG]

    google map is your friend ;)

    ps: DO NOT RELY ON CNN :banghead:

    [​IMG]
     
  12. rocinante

    rocinante Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,306
    Location:
    Alpharetta GA
    The lack of real world reality seeping into the mind of the original poster is astonishing. He has a stranger in his house? Who is he? Thief? Rapist? Murderer? Anything but a danger? Bambi? Mini Me? Tiny Tim? Stop and negotiate? Use a commanding presence and with the authority of goodness and righteousness and a stern voice order him to leave? Lets be PC and just not project any prejudgment on this "uninvited guest".

    I love the label of "castle doctrine". In this illogical country where the success or failure of a concept depends on a label that one is spot on. A man's home is his castle and there he is the sovereign.

    Fact is home invaders do harm and often kill the subjects of the realm. Recent example was the beautiful news reporter in Arkansas that was raped and beat to death so sadistically every bone in her face was broken.
     
  13. XD Fan

    XD Fan Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,011
    Location:
    Stuck up here (rural Missouri) and got Dixie on my
    An execution would be if you caught the guy two days later using your pencil and shot him in the head.

    While he is in your home, you must assume that he (or she for that matter) is there to harm your person, or your family. To assume otherwise would be the heighth of irresponsibility.
     
  14. Just Jim

    Just Jim Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,099
    Let's see now, he tresspasses and then breaks into your house (B&E) then steals from you (burglary) and he could shove that pencil in your eye and kill you. He dies because he is stupid enough to violate alot of laws, not for stealing a pencil.

    jj
     
  15. jdc1244

    jdc1244 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    680
    Location:
    Florida
    Correct – if someone does not want to get shot and perhaps killed, don’t break into someone’s home; very simple. The intent of the Doctrine is to act as a deterrent to would-be home invaders.
     
  16. indoorsoccerfrea

    indoorsoccerfrea Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    738
    Location:
    Central Indy
    eye for an eye...so with that logic you arent going to use lethal force to protect yourself...unless its already been used on you...that doesnt leave you much of a choice does it?
    Castle doctrine is intended to give a protective advantage and legal support for defending yourself.
     
  17. rmmoore

    rmmoore Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Location:
    Wyoming
    +1 to most of the posters on this one. If you find an intruder in your home, it would be foolhardy for you to assume that he is there to steal unless you catch him walking out with your TV in his arms. Lethal force to protect PROPERTY is not justified (in most places), unless in the instance of an auto, and the vehicle is occupied. LETHAL force is intended to protect you or a third party from imminent danger or the threat of imminent danger. If the "thief" enters my home under the cover of darkness, while it's occupied, I can safely make the claim he's not there to collect pawn shop items, and he WILL be met with deadly force under the pretext that he was there to offer someone in my home bodily harm, hence the illegal forced entry in the cover of night. Now, if I come home in broad daylight and find him in my home while it is unoccupied, that is a different circumstance altogether. You MUST, repeat MUST, be in imminent danger OR be able to articulate why you FELT you were, in order to justify deadly force.

    Here in Wyoming, that's not that too difficult to do. Other places however, you need to wait until he has a knife to someone's throat before you can make the case. THANK GOD I live in a State that still believes in the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home, and their LIVES have more value than a criminal's rights. At least for the most part anyway; noone is perfect and Utopia doesn't exist.
     
  18. JWarren

    JWarren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,632
    Location:
    MS and LA
    I find it exceedingly difficult to consider a situation where personal responsibility and consequence is not sitting FIRMLY and SOLELY on the shoulders of the person COMMITTING the crime.

    I wake up at 3 AM to let my pup out to pee and I see a guy in my kitchen. Do I know if he is there to steal my Lucky Charms? Or do I know if he is there to rape and kill my wife?

    I don't have to know.

    I don't NEED to know why you broke into my house.

    But you know what? I don't NEED to shoot you, either. At that point, I have choices that would be based upon my observances of the situation and my beliefs about what is going on.

    If I am wrong in my beliefs or observations of the situation, it is STILL on your shoulders that you chose to break into my house and expose YOURSELF to that. People forget that the best way to not have this inconvienently imposed upon you is to NOT break into any houses.

    Castle Docrine is NOT a license to "murder" an "innocent" person. Castle Docrine IS protection for a person that has to protect his life, his loved ones lives, and his property from people CHOOSING to potentially taking any or all of the above from them.

    Castle Doctrine is a moot point the instant CRIMINALS decide to stop preying on people who are minding their own business in their own homes.

    A discussion of Castle Doctrine CANNOT be had until the very real and very relevant point is conceeded that the responsibility of consequences lies squarely on the shoulders of the intruder.


    There have been threads in S&T about people who are stoned or otherwise intoxicated accidently going into the wrong house. This brings up the potential for a Castle Doctrine situation where there may be post-facto indications that this wasn't an "actual" home invasion.

    Well... guess what?

    If you get so intoxicated that you stumble into the wrong house on occassion, then perhaps-- just perhaps-- this should have been a WAKE-UP call to get your substance abuse under control. The RIGHTS of people to not have threats and intruders in thier own homes TRUMPS the right to go through life in a drug-induced haze. And if a person DOES accidently walk into the wrong house in said drug-induced haze, who's responsibility exactly is that? Is it the responsibility of the homeowner to know that you just got high on cat-pee and are otherwise harmless? Or is it your responsibility to be able be somewhat functional in your actions?

    Bad choices can make bad consequences. EVEN if those consequences are a "comedy of errors." Those "errors" are STILL the responsibility of those that are making the errors.


    -- John
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2008
  19. The Bushmaster

    The Bushmaster Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,837
    Location:
    Ava, Missouri
    The "Castle Doctrine" is there to protect you from law suit from the dead intruder's relatives. The right to protect you, yours and property has always been there, but you could be sued. With the "Castle Doctrine" you are protected from law suit...

    Missouri has extended the "Castle Doctrine" to your automobile too...We also no longer have to "retreat"...
     
  20. Graymutt

    Graymutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    60
    Location:
    Texas
    Only have one thing to say about the Castle Law, Good Bless Texas. If some one breaks in to my house. I have no issue with the law protecting my family.
     
  21. rosemont

    rosemont Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    19
    I think the logic is there already, no need to go twisting it.
     
  22. wyocarp

    wyocarp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,453
    Location:
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Stay out of my house!
     
  23. JR47

    JR47 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,414
    Location:
    N. Georgia
    Actually, Castle Doctrine came about in response to ignorant politicians placing unreasonable demands upon the home owners. Requiring someone to flee from their home in the face of deadly threat, rather than to defend themselves is still in effect in some blighted areas of America. Always an after-the-fact review, it provided another layer of gray, allowing politically motivated prosecutors yet another chance at fame and votes.

    In those states, unless you are under physical attack, you may not respond with lethal force. You MUST flee if there is any way to do so. That may require abandoning children or elderly, but, hey, that's not anybody's problem but yours.
     
  24. MT GUNNY

    MT GUNNY Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,450
    Location:
    Kalispell MT
    By Your logic after he steels a pencil you should go to his house and steel a pencil. The only thing is Don't be Surprised if he Shoots you during your attempt.
     
  25. Glockman17366

    Glockman17366 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,150
    Location:
    South Central Pennsylvania
    Castle Doctrine is for self defense. If a person breaks into your home, he or she has already indicated intent to do harm to you or your family.
    It's your duty to prevent that harm. If the intruder is injured or killed while defending your home and family, why on earth would you consider that a death penalty?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page