Debating the law: a "man's home is his castle."

Status
Not open for further replies.

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
Rawls shooting to ignite 'castle doctrine' fires

By Sid Salter
[email protected]

In 2006, Mississippi lawmakers will likely be debating the old common law notion that a "man's home is his castle."

Ex-convict Marcus Rawls, 23, of Jackson — whose criminal record includes convictions on drug charges, burglary and receiving stolen property charges — was killed by a single gunshot wound to the head in the pre-dawn hours Sunday.

Rawls was released from prison in October.

After a 911 call, Jackson police found Rawls' body on the porch of a home they believe he was trying to burglarize at the time he was shot by the homeowner, who fired a single shot through the door at about 2 a.m. The homeowner told police he was trying to scare the intruder away and didn't know anyone had been hit until a few hours later.

Dressed for the occasion?

Rawls was wearing a ski mask and gloves at the time of his death.

Jackson Police Department officials have declined to identify the homeowner who fired the shot, but no arrests have been made in a shooting that appears to be a case of a homeowner who was trying to protect himself from an intruder.

For her part, Rawls' mother, Vonda Rawls, doesn't believe her son was involved in an attempted burglary and is upset that no charges have been filed against the homeowner.

The case remains under investigation. A Hinds County grand jury will eventually sort out what happened on the porch of the house at 464 Willaman Street in Jackson. But the case of the Rawls shooting is likely to stay in the news for some time regardless the decision of Hinds County grand jurors.

The Rawls shooting is a poster child case for proponents of what has come to be called the "castle doctrine" — the notion founded in British common law that one's home is one's castle and that the owner of the castle has a right to defend it.

The "castle doctrine" governs the rules of self-defense for criminal and tort law in almost every state, including Mississippi.

Florida recently adopted a new "castle doctrine" law that was known as the "Stand Your Ground" law. The new law expanded the self-defense laws in Florida and made it easier to lawfully shoot dead home, car or even boat intruders.

With the strong backing of the National Rifle Association, the Florida "castle doctrine" changes took on a political life of their own.

How does new law work?

Law professor Anthony Sebok of Brooklyn Law School in New York wrote in FindLaw's Legal Commentary in May that the new Florida law changed self-defense laws in that state in the following ways:

First, under the old law, any persons who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all such persons have to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.


Second, the new Florida law expanded the definition of "castle" to include vehicles — such as cars and boats. This expansion the "castle doctrine" was clearly intended to address carjackings.


Third, in Florida, a citizen can now "stand his ground" even if outside of his or her home. But to do so, one must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against oneself or others.

Mississippi is a place where gun ownership is high and gun control laws are DOA in the Legislature. Changes to the state's already tough self-defense laws will pass in a cakewalk and this issue has strong legs.

The only thing that could make a "castle law" change here pass faster is if the man who shot Marcus Rawls is indicted.
 
jsalcedo said:
First, under the old law, any persons who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all such persons have to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.
Is this true, the part about “in fear for their safety in no longer required?”

Third, in Florida, a citizen can now "stand his ground" even if outside of his or her home. But to do so, one must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against oneself or others.
Sounds reasonable.
 
For her part, Rawls' mother, Vonda Rawls, doesn't believe her son was involved in an attempted burglary and is upset that no charges have been filed against the homeowner.

"He was such a good boy."

:rolleyes:

ski mask, gloves, middle of night, etc.
 
I agree with the article, but I dont perceive that there will be any problem unless the mother of the burglar can sue. Florida has laws that forbid civil suits after a legit self defense but MS might not.

Mississipi is a very warm and humid place. People do not ordinarily wear ski masks there. My hunch is that this man was earning himself a trip back to jail.
 
Wearing his ski mask and gloves - could he have been going skiing and gotten lost? Stopped by this guy house to ask directions to the slope, and the homeowner - who thought he was duck hunting - shoots thru the door killing the skier. Tragic accident.
 
Is this true, the part about “in fear for their safety in no longer required?”

In states that have castle and make my day laws I believe someone who breaks into your home can be shot with the reasonable expectation that no charges will be filed. I don't think it matters if the guy is armed or not.


This castle doctrine will be one of the best deterrents to crime for any state that adopts it.


Believe it or not criminals do pay attention to CCW laws and home defense laws. I've talked to ex-cons and current crooks more than a few times
and they seem to weigh dangers when they go out to commit crimes.

The chance of getting shot will make some bad guys go back to stealing hubcaps and tipping coke machines.
 
jsalcedo said:
In states that have castle and make my day laws I believe someone who breaks into your home can be shot with the reasonable expectation that no charges will be filed. I don't think it matters if the guy is armed or not.
I think it's a good law, just seems odd they would exclude it.
 
For her part, Rawls' mother, Vonda Rawls, doesn't believe her son was involved in an attempted burglary and is upset that no charges have been filed against the homeowner.
Just goes to show that mothers are many times poor judges of character when it comes to their own children. I am sure that won't stop the press from quoting mothers when they write about a criminal.
 
Well, if someone breaks into your vehicle, home or boat while you are there, you would be really stupid if the first thought that came into your mind was not, "I am in danger of death or great bodily harm." A murderer doesn't have to be armed, he can beat you to death. Size? Doesn't matter, since you have no way of knowing if he is a trained martial artist capable of killing you. He must feel pretty confident to break into an occupied "castle". As for weapons, your home is full of them. Table leg, kitchen knife, lamp, wrenches, etc, and he has access to all of them. Lawyer is important for anyone involved in a self defense shooting, since what you say to a police officer will be forever enshrined as your mental frame of mind. You must be convinced in your mind that you were in imminent danger, for really, that is the only justifiable reason for killing someone.
 
Gunpacker said:
Well, if someone breaks into your vehicle, home or boat while you are there, you would be really stupid if the first thought that came into your mind was not, "I am in danger of death or great bodily harm." A murderer doesn't have to be armed, he can beat you to death.
Good point.
 
Gunpacker said:
Well, if someone breaks into your vehicle, home or boat while you are there, you would be really stupid if the first thought that came into your mind was not, "I am in danger of death or great bodily harm." A murderer doesn't have to be armed, he can beat you to death. Size? Doesn't matter, since you have no way of knowing if he is a trained martial artist capable of killing you. He must feel pretty confident to break into an occupied "castle". As for weapons, your home is full of them. Table leg, kitchen knife, lamp, wrenches, etc, and he has access to all of them. Lawyer is important for anyone involved in a self defense shooting, since what you say to a police officer will be forever enshrined as your mental frame of mind. You must be convinced in your mind that you were in imminent danger, for really, that is the only justifiable reason for killing someone.

That's why, in a situation like that, you shut up. Decline to give a statement until you have an attorney present. Yeah, yeah, yeah... that'll sound "suspicious". "Suspicious" won't put you in jail. You babbling on and on and winding up saying the wrong thing will.
 
Bad judgment makes bad precedent.

I can't condone shooting through the door to "scare someone away." What if had been a panicked man trying to get help for his family after a car wreck?

Having said that, I doubt any grand jury would indict a homeowner for shooting a masked, gloved burglar trying to enter his home. If he hadn't figured someone was home and been prepared to confront/overcome them, why the ski mask?
 
Mississipi is a very warm and humid place. People do not ordinarily wear ski masks there.

It's not that I think the guy wasn't up to mischief, but it does get cold in Mississippi, too, even on the coast.

jmm
 
You have to admire

Mr. Rawls resourcefulness at being able to find a ski mask in flat, semi-tropical Mississippi.
 
If I was building a house from scratch, and could afford it ... it would not only be a doctrine but a reality.

Something on the order of those old Irish round towers ;)

Or maybe a square tower made of logs.

No-knock this! :p
 
Ex-convict Marcus Rawls, 23, of Jackson — whose criminal record includes convictions on drug charges, burglary and receiving stolen property charges — was killed by a single gunshot wound to the head in the pre-dawn hours Sunday.
And the problem is......? I guess I don't get why all the hubub over a dead miscreant.

Greg
 
What kind of complete idiot is this home owner?

Who in the hell shoots throught their door and doesnt go check afterwards?

Who in the hells shoots through the door unless they know what is behind it?

This moron deserves to go to jail. His neighbor across the street could have been sitting on his porch and got hit.(Even at 2am) This guy deserves procsecution!
 
Hunter Rose said:
TallPine: I drew up designs for my"win the Lotto" house. HAd several people look at them, and the most common comment was "I hope DEA never gets YOUR address by mistake!" Execution of a no-knock on that house would take a few hours...

How so?
 
I think if you own property and someone breaks into it you should be immune from criminal prosecution or civil suits for what happens to the offender within reason. For instance you can't hang the guy upsidown and skin him alive because he ran across your yard, or if the guy raises his hands and says don't shoot unless he makes a threatning move you can't shoot him. But if you wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of something wrong and go to investigate and the situation and the intruder ends up shot because he made a threatning move and you wern't gonna wait to find out what it was for? Well sorry I am going to take the word of the homeowner that he felt his life was in danger and you can enjoy your one way all expenses paid vacation to the great north or the steamy south and I'm not going to shed a tear. Don't break into others homes and you wont have to worry about the risk of being shot for looking at the guy crosseyed and not surrendering when you are busted.
 
Why not cover the door with shotgun with 00buck from behind the cover? When it is clear that the person breaking in has hostile intent, unleash the fury. You are going to destroy the door regardless. He acted irresponsible by shooting through the door without identifying the threat. He needs to get immideate training.
 
Jeeper said:
What kind of complete idiot is this home owner?

Who in the hell shoots throught their door and doesnt go check afterwards?

Who in the hells shoots through the door unless they know what is behind it?

This moron deserves to go to jail. His neighbor across the street could have been sitting on his porch and got hit.(Even at 2am) This guy deserves procsecution!

+1 on this. He needs to go to jail for at least a week and courts should revoke his weapons until he can demonstrate that he can get some education and demonstrate that he can operate them in a safe manner. I don't want to be shot because some idiot doesn't know how to use his own gun.
 
jsalcedo said:
In states that have castle and make my day laws I believe someone who breaks into your home can be shot with the reasonable expectation that no charges will be filed. I don't think it matters if the guy is armed or not.

Quite some time ago, the only time you were okay using deadly force (in Fla, that is... YMMV) was if you could show a deadly threat against you. The bad guy had to have a deadly weapon in hand, or he had to have beaten you to the point where you were almost dead. Mere burglary wasn't justification enough. The homeowner had a "duty to retreat", and had to try to escape, if possible.

If you used deadly force, and the prosecutor could show you had any kind of avenue of retreat, you went to prison.

The "Castle Law" removed that duty to retreat, but only in your own home. The theory was that if you were in the street, you could just run away, leaving your car, bags, groceries, jewelry, and wallet behind, because theft of material things was not enough of a justification for loss of life.

These days, when the legislators finally realize that the thugs will kill you over a pizza, even as you run away, they've removed that duty to retreat altogether. As long as someone shows the intent and ability to harm you, you're free to use whatever force is required to stop the threat.

And about friggin' time, too!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top