Castle Doctrine
- Thread starter nachosgrande
- Start date
- Status
Officers'Wife
Member
I believe the theory is - when someone breaks into your house you are legally entitled to assume they are desparate enough to cause you or yours grave physical harm. With that assumption any action you perform after is self defense. The perp's intentions are irrelevant. Ergo:
MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = SUICIDE BY HOMEOWNER
In the real world people make choices then live with the consequences. In a castle doctrine state breaking into a house the odds are the consequence is loving Christian correction applied with a deadly weapon. They takes their chances they pays the price. Maybe it's unfair in some eyes- the shame is their parents didn't teach them to respect property.
MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = SUICIDE BY HOMEOWNER
In the real world people make choices then live with the consequences. In a castle doctrine state breaking into a house the odds are the consequence is loving Christian correction applied with a deadly weapon. They takes their chances they pays the price. Maybe it's unfair in some eyes- the shame is their parents didn't teach them to respect property.
Last edited:
ByAnyMeans
Member
"In the real world people make choices then live with the consequences. In a castle doctrine state breaking into a house the odds are the consequence is loving Christian correction applied with a deadly weapon. They takes their chances they pays the price. Maybe it's unfair in some eyes- the shame is their parents didn't teach them to respect property."
+1 It's about not having to wait and see what they want, being in your house is enough to justify your belief that they can cause you and yours bodily harm. It also does'nt mean you have to use deadly force but gives you the option if needed. DON'T WANT TO BE SHOT AT DON'T COME INTO MY HOUSE.
+1 It's about not having to wait and see what they want, being in your house is enough to justify your belief that they can cause you and yours bodily harm. It also does'nt mean you have to use deadly force but gives you the option if needed. DON'T WANT TO BE SHOT AT DON'T COME INTO MY HOUSE.
And in any case, we can never know the perp's intentions, because we can't read his mind. All we can do is infer his intentions from his actions. And basically what the various flavors of Castle Doctrines provide is that we would be reasonable to infer from certain actions that the perp manifest an intention to hurt us.Officers'Wife said:
Absolutely.Officers'Wife said:
Wait a minute…you mean you’re not in North Carolina?
My bad…Every time I hear a “sw” in one o’ those furrin’ country names, I automatically think Sweden/Bjorn Borg-comes from a misspent youth watching too much tennis!
Let me just cruise on over to Google and see ‘zactly what language Switzerland does speak…HOLY COW-4 official languages?
I, I, I…..just can’t talk to you any more!
Hey, gimmee a break! It was early morning, I had just gotten up, and hadn’t had my morning cup of Switzerland chocolate…or is that Swiss chocolate?
Well now you’ve just gone and gotten me completely cornfused! :banghead:
mljdeckard
Member
I am in control of my home, and everyone in it. This is necessary to preserve the safety of my children.
If someone violates this sanctity, they have put me in a position where I must instantly discern what their intentions are. Unfortunately, if they are a meth head looking for an xbox to pawn to get their next $40 fix, they are unstable enough to do anything if they are discovered, and may well do something violent to ANYONE in my house. There is no reasonable way I can know this, therefore the law gives me the benefit of the doubt. If someone enters my home, either by violence or by stealth, with the intent to commit a felony, they get a lead salad. They are presumed to be desperate, violent, and dangerous. IF, and ONLY if, their eyes instantly show surrender, and they immediately comply when I tell them face down on the floor, hands behind their head, DO NOT MOVE, I won't act to stop their actions until the police arrive. If they deviate, I must act.
If someone violates this sanctity, they have put me in a position where I must instantly discern what their intentions are. Unfortunately, if they are a meth head looking for an xbox to pawn to get their next $40 fix, they are unstable enough to do anything if they are discovered, and may well do something violent to ANYONE in my house. There is no reasonable way I can know this, therefore the law gives me the benefit of the doubt. If someone enters my home, either by violence or by stealth, with the intent to commit a felony, they get a lead salad. They are presumed to be desperate, violent, and dangerous. IF, and ONLY if, their eyes instantly show surrender, and they immediately comply when I tell them face down on the floor, hands behind their head, DO NOT MOVE, I won't act to stop their actions until the police arrive. If they deviate, I must act.
Study how the state defines "murder" and "manslaughter" and their varying degree's and you will have a better understanding of the castle doctrine, and it's intent.
IMO, castle doctrine is there to protect the law abiding citizen, in fear of great bodily harm or death, from felons with unknown intent.
JoeFish
Member
This is an excellent point. Just because you have the right to shoot an intruder does NOT mean that you are required to give them three in the head. A command to desist while your partner calls the police, or a disabling shot, to the leg, maybe, if you feel comfortable doing so, can be applied before taking this person's life.
That said, if it's in the dark and they're pointing something at me (whether it's a gun or a banana), and I'm going to take him or her down.
Washington- where I'm about to move- is a "Stand your ground" state, which takes many cues from Castle Doctrine, and I'm pretty glad about it. In the age of criminals with firearms, "duty to retreat" seems a little outdated.
If you EVER pull the trigger, you should be aiming for COM. The logic often used when considering non-lethal placement is that if you had the ability to place your shots as to not be lethal, you were not in a position where deadly force was justified.
Shooting a guy in the leg is HORRIBLE advice to give anyone and invites costly legal proceedings-- likely in civil AND criminal court.
I wouldn't do that in the favorable legal environment of Mississippi. You probably should re-think that in SoCal.
-- John
jad0110
Member
Emphasis added. This would also include drawing your weapon in many states. In North Carolina, merely drawing your weapon can be legally considered "assault with a deadly weapon" unless use of lethal force is justified. Therefore, in NC's CCW classes we are basically told that you only draw your weapon if lethal force is justified and you are ready to employ it.
Not to mention that leg shots can be lethal too. Severing the femoral arterey can result in death very rapidly.
Shoot him to save your life, not to save your pencil. shoot him to stop him from harming you, not to kill him. If he dies later, oh well, that's his fault not yours.
You should never consciously choose to end another person's life because he stole your pencil. That would be stupid, likely illegal, and immoral.
You stated you believe in "eye for an eye". Would you take someone's eye if they cut off your hangnail? Do you think that phrase from the bible was put there to give you permission to do such a thing?
You should never consciously choose to end another person's life because he stole your pencil. That would be stupid, likely illegal, and immoral.
You stated you believe in "eye for an eye". Would you take someone's eye if they cut off your hangnail? Do you think that phrase from the bible was put there to give you permission to do such a thing?
Before this moves too far down one road or the other, I think it would us well to be reminded that Defense of Property IS allowed in many states.
Whether you chose to defend property is a function of the jurisdiction you live in as well as your own personal code of ethics.
-- John
Whether you chose to defend property is a function of the jurisdiction you live in as well as your own personal code of ethics.
-- John
ByAnyMeans
Member
Good point John. I'm not saying I would shoot someone if I see them running out of my house with my TV, but just becuase they have your TV does'nt mean thye don't want something else as well.
People have asked me " Is shooting someone worth saving your TV" and I usually reply "you should ask the robber if getting shot is worth stealing a TV".
People have asked me " Is shooting someone worth saving your TV" and I usually reply "you should ask the robber if getting shot is worth stealing a TV".
Quote:
"A command to desist while your partner calls the police, or a disabling shot, to the leg, maybe, if you feel comfortable doing so, can be applied before taking this person's life. "
Man, you are asking to be beaten, shot or worse. You dont know what the criminal that is in you house is planning, or has. Not to mention the court cost, and other expenses that might creep up. I will not take chances with my family or my life. The castle laws gives a peace of mind, that what you have to do, will be accepted.
"A command to desist while your partner calls the police, or a disabling shot, to the leg, maybe, if you feel comfortable doing so, can be applied before taking this person's life. "
Man, you are asking to be beaten, shot or worse. You dont know what the criminal that is in you house is planning, or has. Not to mention the court cost, and other expenses that might creep up. I will not take chances with my family or my life. The castle laws gives a peace of mind, that what you have to do, will be accepted.
Last edited:
armoredman
Member
Has the OP revisited this thread at all?
Hell, I wouldn't have to do dishes for quite awhile.withdrawn34
Member.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 529
There is a general misconception that the Castle Doctrine is about vigiliantism and basically "the penalty for tresspassing is DEATH."
While some people, even supporters, believe this, this is not really the intent of the castle doctrine.
When someone breaks into your house, regardless of the time, are you going to sit him down with a cup of tea and ask him gently if he is armed? if so, with what? What are his intentions? Would he like some biscuits with his tea?
No, you don't know and his intentions are not going to be good. If he is going to run, let him run. Fine. The Castle doctrine, as it is in most states, doesn't let you shoot a fleeing intruder/attacker. There's also no reason you should as he/she is no longer a threat.
I have a feeling you have never had anyone invade your home while you were in it. You don't stick around to find out whether he is armed... you generally either freeze and/or run to somewhere, unless you are armed. At that point you are in fear of your life and there's a pretty damned good chance he is armed and intends to do you harm.
If he doesn't intent to do you harm, then he would have run at the first sign that the house is occupied. But he's coming into the house... he's not just there to say hi. Defend yourself, stay safe.
Would you fault a police officer for firing on a suspect who suddenly reached into his waistband and turned around very quickly towards police? Do you know, for sure, what he is pulling out? History tells us it is probably not a long stem rose. There's an presumption that as a society we consider reasonable. The castle doctrine is simply an extension of a similar line of reasoning.
Of course, you are under no obligation to use deadly force, ever. It is always your choice. So if you are against killing someone who is an immediate danger to your life, that is your choice. This law doesn't force anyone to do anything.
I am not trying to insult you, but keeping a firearm for self-defense must involve a prior, serious thought session and final decision that if someone is a threat to your life, you are willing to take human life in that one case. If you cannot kill in this case, then a firearm is not for you. Call 911, put bigger locks on your bedroom door that you will hopefully have a chance to run to and hope the guy runs away when he hears you calling 911. Seriously, that is all you can do with no means to defend yourself. Sometimes it does actually work, but there's no reason you can't do that holding a shotgun at the bedroom door.
While some people, even supporters, believe this, this is not really the intent of the castle doctrine.
When someone breaks into your house, regardless of the time, are you going to sit him down with a cup of tea and ask him gently if he is armed? if so, with what? What are his intentions? Would he like some biscuits with his tea?
No, you don't know and his intentions are not going to be good. If he is going to run, let him run. Fine. The Castle doctrine, as it is in most states, doesn't let you shoot a fleeing intruder/attacker. There's also no reason you should as he/she is no longer a threat.
I have a feeling you have never had anyone invade your home while you were in it. You don't stick around to find out whether he is armed... you generally either freeze and/or run to somewhere, unless you are armed. At that point you are in fear of your life and there's a pretty damned good chance he is armed and intends to do you harm.
If he doesn't intent to do you harm, then he would have run at the first sign that the house is occupied. But he's coming into the house... he's not just there to say hi. Defend yourself, stay safe.
Would you fault a police officer for firing on a suspect who suddenly reached into his waistband and turned around very quickly towards police? Do you know, for sure, what he is pulling out? History tells us it is probably not a long stem rose. There's an presumption that as a society we consider reasonable. The castle doctrine is simply an extension of a similar line of reasoning.
Of course, you are under no obligation to use deadly force, ever. It is always your choice. So if you are against killing someone who is an immediate danger to your life, that is your choice. This law doesn't force anyone to do anything.
I am not trying to insult you, but keeping a firearm for self-defense must involve a prior, serious thought session and final decision that if someone is a threat to your life, you are willing to take human life in that one case. If you cannot kill in this case, then a firearm is not for you. Call 911, put bigger locks on your bedroom door that you will hopefully have a chance to run to and hope the guy runs away when he hears you calling 911. Seriously, that is all you can do with no means to defend yourself. Sometimes it does actually work, but there's no reason you can't do that holding a shotgun at the bedroom door.
Paul34 nailed it:
There are a lot of misconceptions about the castle doctrine. Much of this is the result of unfavorable publicity from the antigun media.
I have read legal opinions that even the most controversial castle laws really didn't change things very much. They codified the absence of a duty to retreat from one's dwelling or auto (in many states) and affirmed that the fact of breaking and entering a dwelling provides a basis (in many states, but not all) for a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. Some also provide protection against civil suits when deadly force is justified under criminal law. All good, and not what you read in the media, I'm afraid.
The laws do vary.
In Texas, for the fact of entry alone to justify the use of deadly force, the entry must be unlawful and with force. In Colorado, where the media have described the castle law as the "make my day" law, deadly force is not permitted unless (1) the entry is knowing and criminal (and by the way, that introduces the intruder's state of mind and motive into the equation) and (2) the person using force has a reasonable belief that the intruder intends to commit a serious crime.
As far as defense of property is concerned, one often reads that deadly force may be used to prevent robbery, in addition to murder, kidnapping, rape, etc. That's not burglary or picking your pocket, or picking up a lap-top on the way out. It involves force or threat of force to harm you. Here's the Texas law on robbery:
Laws vary a great deal from state to state. In Missouri there is no reference to forceful entry. Know your state laws; don't beleve what the media say about castle laws; and do not act in accordance with what the media say you are permitted to do.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the castle doctrine. Much of this is the result of unfavorable publicity from the antigun media.
I have read legal opinions that even the most controversial castle laws really didn't change things very much. They codified the absence of a duty to retreat from one's dwelling or auto (in many states) and affirmed that the fact of breaking and entering a dwelling provides a basis (in many states, but not all) for a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. Some also provide protection against civil suits when deadly force is justified under criminal law. All good, and not what you read in the media, I'm afraid.
The laws do vary.
In Texas, for the fact of entry alone to justify the use of deadly force, the entry must be unlawful and with force. In Colorado, where the media have described the castle law as the "make my day" law, deadly force is not permitted unless (1) the entry is knowing and criminal (and by the way, that introduces the intruder's state of mind and motive into the equation) and (2) the person using force has a reasonable belief that the intruder intends to commit a serious crime.
As far as defense of property is concerned, one often reads that deadly force may be used to prevent robbery, in addition to murder, kidnapping, rape, etc. That's not burglary or picking your pocket, or picking up a lap-top on the way out. It involves force or threat of force to harm you. Here's the Texas law on robbery:
Laws vary a great deal from state to state. In Missouri there is no reference to forceful entry. Know your state laws; don't beleve what the media say about castle laws; and do not act in accordance with what the media say you are permitted to do.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Not so much, altho he is currently logged in and active.
Last edited:
nachosgrande
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 282
No, I've revisited. Just didn't want to post much else because on this topic everyone seems to think I'm an idiot. They might even be right, I should have posted this in "Legal" to begin with.
To refine my OP, my state does allow for protection of property. And I never said 15-20 years for murder was fair, I just said that's what it is.
All people are different. I just know personally that I'm not emotionally strong enough to kill someone I caught stealing, legal or not. I would dwell on it every day for the rest of my life wondering what their true intentions were.
The way I see it, the percentage of murderers who are thieves is probably 100%, but the percentage of thieves who are murderers is probably closer to 5%.
To refine my OP, my state does allow for protection of property. And I never said 15-20 years for murder was fair, I just said that's what it is.
All people are different. I just know personally that I'm not emotionally strong enough to kill someone I caught stealing, legal or not. I would dwell on it every day for the rest of my life wondering what their true intentions were.
The way I see it, the percentage of murderers who are thieves is probably 100%, but the percentage of thieves who are murderers is probably closer to 5%.
withdrawn34
Member.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 529
Nacho, let me ask you this. Most criminals, if they break into a house, are usually looking to take something. Not just kill the inhabitants and leave. Generally, the murder accompanies the theft.
I am curious to know how you plan to ask an intruder who you catch stealing say, a TV, whether he just wants the TV or in the panic of being caught, turn around immediately an come at you with a knife, crowbar, or gun. Or maybe, he's much bigger than you and plans to beat you to death. How do you know?
Generally, you have an option of saying something to the effect of "FREEZE" or "STOP!" If they don't comply immediately then its not because they are confused!
I think the point is, use common sense. If you feel it is reasonable to be in fear of your life, then do so and be prepared to defend your actions. I feel like people are afraid to trust themselves with the "major" responsibility of common sense. Its your house, someone has broken in. Act appropriately. Don't go overboard - just act appropriately.
If you know, for sure, that someone is JUST stealing your pencil and is taking off, then of course, don't shoot (of course, in reality, this scenario is implausible; but just for the sake of argument I put it here). That's common sense, wouldn't you say? The castle doctrine doesn't *obligate* you to shoot in any circumstance. Just gives you the option. It is up to YOU to exercise that option wisely and appropriately.
Read up at places like here, go through scenarios in your head, become familiar with the law, think about what you are comfortble with morally and ethically, and then just trust yourself that you'll do the right thing when the time comes.
I am curious to know how you plan to ask an intruder who you catch stealing say, a TV, whether he just wants the TV or in the panic of being caught, turn around immediately an come at you with a knife, crowbar, or gun. Or maybe, he's much bigger than you and plans to beat you to death. How do you know?
Generally, you have an option of saying something to the effect of "FREEZE" or "STOP!" If they don't comply immediately then its not because they are confused!
I think the point is, use common sense. If you feel it is reasonable to be in fear of your life, then do so and be prepared to defend your actions. I feel like people are afraid to trust themselves with the "major" responsibility of common sense. Its your house, someone has broken in. Act appropriately. Don't go overboard - just act appropriately.
If you know, for sure, that someone is JUST stealing your pencil and is taking off, then of course, don't shoot (of course, in reality, this scenario is implausible; but just for the sake of argument I put it here). That's common sense, wouldn't you say? The castle doctrine doesn't *obligate* you to shoot in any circumstance. Just gives you the option. It is up to YOU to exercise that option wisely and appropriately.
Read up at places like here, go through scenarios in your head, become familiar with the law, think about what you are comfortble with morally and ethically, and then just trust yourself that you'll do the right thing when the time comes.
nachosgrande
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 282
Paul34,
My problem is probably a poor knowledge of human psychology. I have a very difficult time thinking that someone is capable of murder. I've never worked in law enforcement or any field that you come into contact with this sort of people on a day to day basis, or ever had any experience with someone capable of committing theft, much less murder, so it's difficult for me to relate.
My thinking is that if you catch someone stealing your TV, they will probably make a run for the door. What could they gain from attacking a homeowner with a gun? Let's be honest, which of you here would actually shoot an intruder in the back that was running away from your home after an attempted theft?
gym,
That Clint line was the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Kinda reminded me of a Family Guy skit.
My problem is probably a poor knowledge of human psychology. I have a very difficult time thinking that someone is capable of murder. I've never worked in law enforcement or any field that you come into contact with this sort of people on a day to day basis, or ever had any experience with someone capable of committing theft, much less murder, so it's difficult for me to relate.
My thinking is that if you catch someone stealing your TV, they will probably make a run for the door. What could they gain from attacking a homeowner with a gun? Let's be honest, which of you here would actually shoot an intruder in the back that was running away from your home after an attempted theft?
gym,
That Clint line was the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Kinda reminded me of a Family Guy skit.
- Status
