slash415
Member
And if you could name some states that use Make My Day, that would be great! Thanks
Could someone explain the difference between Castle Doctrine and Make My Day laws?
- Thread starter slash415
- Start date
- Status
NOMI WASP
member
Make my day laws? LOL Pretty sure that's only in Hollywood
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Are you thinking of "Stand Your Ground" laws?
All of these are variations on the theme of helping someone who has shot and/or killed someone under a specific set of circumstances establish their claim of "self defense."
"Castle Doctrine" laws generally apply to one's residence and usually allow the state to accept that the attacker's uninvited presence in the home is sufficient evidence of malicious intent. The defender doesn't have to show some other proof that the attacker was trying to hurt/kill them. Also these can grant that the defender does not have to prove that they couldn't retreat safely from the residence before they shot. And sometimes these also cover immunity from civil lawsuits from the attacker's family if the self-defense claim is accepted.
"Stand Your Ground" laws tend to apply in broader circumstances. They'll say that, so long as you weren't involved in some criminal activity, and you were somewhere you had the legal right to be, you don't have to prove that you tried to (or couldn't) run/flee before you shot the guy threatening you. And they often also include the civil immunity clauses as well.
Either of these is "rebuttable," meaning that the presumptions they grant may be challenged if evidence indicates that, for example, you knew the attacker and had agreed to meet them in that location, or there was something hinky going on.
All of these are variations on the theme of helping someone who has shot and/or killed someone under a specific set of circumstances establish their claim of "self defense."
"Castle Doctrine" laws generally apply to one's residence and usually allow the state to accept that the attacker's uninvited presence in the home is sufficient evidence of malicious intent. The defender doesn't have to show some other proof that the attacker was trying to hurt/kill them. Also these can grant that the defender does not have to prove that they couldn't retreat safely from the residence before they shot. And sometimes these also cover immunity from civil lawsuits from the attacker's family if the self-defense claim is accepted.
"Stand Your Ground" laws tend to apply in broader circumstances. They'll say that, so long as you weren't involved in some criminal activity, and you were somewhere you had the legal right to be, you don't have to prove that you tried to (or couldn't) run/flee before you shot the guy threatening you. And they often also include the civil immunity clauses as well.
Either of these is "rebuttable," meaning that the presumptions they grant may be challenged if evidence indicates that, for example, you knew the attacker and had agreed to meet them in that location, or there was something hinky going on.
guyfromohio
Member
"Make my day"? More like " turn my life upside down". If A firearm is used in self defense, the only upside is that you and whoever you were defending are both still living. Other than that, plan on a long ordeal. It would not make my day to take a life in self defense.
As often happens with legislation, both those laws were the result of extreme actions by the police and prosecutors. The "castle doctrine" arose from a case where a woman shot and killed a violent intruder after retreating to the basement of her home, holding her baby. The insane anti-gun prosecutor contended that she should have climbed through a casement window two feet over her head rather than harm the "innocent" attacker.
Likewise, a man in a wheel chair killed a knife-wielding attacker who was trying to rob him. The prosecutor, again a nut-case anti-gun type, claimed that the man should have been able to get out of the wheel chair and run away from the robber.
Neither law would have been needed if public officials were responsible individuals instead of puppets for radical extremism.
Jim
Likewise, a man in a wheel chair killed a knife-wielding attacker who was trying to rob him. The prosecutor, again a nut-case anti-gun type, claimed that the man should have been able to get out of the wheel chair and run away from the robber.
Neither law would have been needed if public officials were responsible individuals instead of puppets for radical extremism.
Jim
cowtownup
Member
Hey guyfromohio, maybe it should be, "TAKE MY PAY" instead of "MAKE MY DAY"
slash415
Member
Ok, thanks for the replies, I guess I didn't realize it wasn't a law. According to my intro to law book, "make my day" is a set of rules: "adopted by some states that put no limits on the use of deadly force by occupant of a dwelling in response to a trespasser".
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
You have a law book that actually says that? Did it come for free in a box of Cracker Jacks? 
Both the term, and that explanation of it, are complete horse manure. Not even close to correct.
Both the term, and that explanation of it, are complete horse manure. Not even close to correct.
Field Tester
Member
I'm curious as to which law book it is and what the author's name is.
slash415
Member
"Criminal Law" Thomas J. Gardner and Terry M. Anderson isbn 978-1-285-45841-0
slash415
Member
Sam1911: it's actually my college text for intro to criminal law.
slash415 said:
slash415 said:
And I bet it doesn't say exactly that. In law, the exact words are very important; and precision in communication is also very important.
Indeed, I have not seen any law that puts no limit on the use of lethal force against a trespasser by the occupant of a dwelling. Every Castle Doctrine/Stand-Your-Ground law I've read (1) includes conditions which need to be satisfied to justify the use of lethal force against an intruder; and (2) include one or more exceptions.
See our Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine thread for a more in depth discussion.
slash415
Member
What do you mean by exactly? if you are talking about an actual statute, then no that's not in the book, however what I posted was an actual quote from the book.
JRH6856
Member
May be time to find a different law school.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,717
Last time I checked, Frank is a practicing attorney.
Every time I checked (I have read a fair number of his threads, and communicated with him once or twice), he is very precise with his wording.
I suspect that is not a coincidence.
Every time I checked (I have read a fair number of his threads, and communicated with him once or twice), he is very precise with his wording.
I suspect that is not a coincidence.
Derry 1946
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 516
I believe Colorado's 1985 Homeowner Protection Act was popularly referred to as a "make my day" law. It applied only in the home, and I think Colorado did not have a "stand your ground" law at the time. During the Zimmerman trial, I heard commentators refer to Florida's self defense rules as a "make my day" law, but I think the phrase was used derisively. Laws usually have a citation, sometimes also an official name, sometimes also a popular name, and sometimes a nickname (e.g. "Obamacare"). Sometimes aggregate groups of laws are referred to with a descriptor ("sunshine laws;" "crime bills"). The media may glom onto a pop monicker, furthering the confusion. Best to cite and quote the law verbatim to have a meaningful discussion.
If you are reporting that accurately, I need to see it in context. The fact is that there are no laws in the United States which could be described that way.slash415 said:
Actually, I'm retired now, but I did practice for 30+ years. I'm also still licensed to practice (i. e., I'm an active member of the California Bar).orionengnr said:
And the libs have yet to notice Virgina has VERY good common law for wealth force.
We have NO statue law.
The police operate under the same laws as everyone else.
The only thing they get is an exception to brandishing.
It is ALL common (case) law.
We have NO statue law.
The police operate under the same laws as everyone else.
The only thing they get is an exception to brandishing.
It is ALL common (case) law.
Field Tester
Member
It's not the school, he's saying it's from the actual text book. According to the isbn 13 he provided it's the 12th Edition.May be time to find a different law school.
I'm also curious to see the exact passage he's referring to. I've only ever heard it as a lay term rather than actual law text.
OP, thank you for following up and replying to this thread. It has me a bit interested.
slash415
Member
Field Tester
Member
Good on the OP for quoting, even better for providing a picture of the actual text.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That is a grossly suspect oversimplification of the popularized version of the law. Hardly what one would expect from a law text. I would certainly hope they do a better job when they actually cover such statutes in the body of the textbook.
Maybe the author of the preface there is a big fan of network news and Law & Order.
Maybe the author of the preface there is a big fan of network news and Law & Order.
Some of that is simply not true. Some states had a requirement to retreat within one's own dwelling, even to leave the dwelling, before using any force against an intruder. That is the reason for the modern "castle doctrine".
I won't comment on "make my day" laws because that term can mean anything anyone wants it to mean, either in supporting or opposing the concept of self defense.
Note that "make my day" was said by "Dirty Harry", who was (in the movie) a police officer enforcing his own brand of "justice" with a .44 Magnum. No matter what might be thought of his approach, the movie sold a lot of .44 Magnum revolvers!
Jim
I won't comment on "make my day" laws because that term can mean anything anyone wants it to mean, either in supporting or opposing the concept of self defense.
Note that "make my day" was said by "Dirty Harry", who was (in the movie) a police officer enforcing his own brand of "justice" with a .44 Magnum. No matter what might be thought of his approach, the movie sold a lot of .44 Magnum revolvers!
Jim
Field Tester
Member
Google only turns up the term in reference to Colorado. Wiki has something to say on it, but I don't see them as a citeable source.
The Dirty Harry film was made in 1971 but the first edition of this text was made in 1969. I wonder in which revision this was added.
It seems to be a derogatory phrase used to demean the Castle Doctrine law.
The Dirty Harry film was made in 1971 but the first edition of this text was made in 1969. I wonder in which revision this was added.
It seems to be a derogatory phrase used to demean the Castle Doctrine law.
- Status
