Does the Castle Doctrine Apply to Girlfriends Car?

[weblance]

Does the Castle Doctrain Apply to Girlfriends Car?



CINCINNATI — Can a girlfriend’s car be a man’s castle? A Cincinnati area man wants an appeals court to agree that it is, for purposes of self-defense.

Ohio’s “castle doctrine” law justifies defending yourself without retreating in your home or car. Twenty-nine-year-old Woodrow Edwards III was in his girlfriend’s car when a man he didn’t know lifted the door handle. Edwards lifted the .40-caliber handgun he has a permit to carry, and that led to an aggravated menacing conviction. He was fined $100 and ordered to stay away from the other man.

Edwards’ attorney, Brad Fox, tells The Cincinnati Enquirer people should have castle law protection in a friend’s car, or rental car, just like in their own family’s vehicles.

A state appeals court was considering the case Tuesday.



Wait... What? The CHL holder was charged? I cant believe he was charged. I suppose more facts are needed to make a decision, but I think he was correct with his actions. I would have done the same.
__________________

 

[NavyLCDR]

Here's a bit more:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...astle-case?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

"The odd twist is the car’s owner, Sarah Geers, knew both men – she was Edward’s girlfriend and Taylor’s ex-girlfriend. Both men testified at Edward’s November trial they didn’t know each other at the time."

So, let's put this in perspective. Let's say a friend of mine is visiting my house and another friend of mine or a friend of any of the family members that live with us, enters the house. Does my friend visiting my house have a right to threaten deadly force against the other person, known to me and my family as a friend of ours, but not known to the first friend who happens to have his gun in my house?

 

[brboyer]

Here's a bit more:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...astle-case?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

"The odd twist is the car’s owner, Sarah Geers, knew both men – she was Edward’s girlfriend and Taylor’s ex-girlfriend. Both men testified at Edward’s November trial they didn’t know each other at the time."

So, let's put this in perspective. Let's say a friend of mine is visiting my house and another friend of mine or a friend of any of the family members that live with us, enters the house. Does my friend visiting my house have a right to threaten deadly force against the other person, known to me and my family as a friend of ours, but not known to the first friend who happens to have his gun in my house?

It depends entirely on the totality of the circumstances. Friend #1 cannot possibly know who is authorized to, and thereby lawfully, entering the house unless he was given explicit information....like if he was house sitting.

If he was just hanging out with you and you happened to be in another room when the second person entered, I don't feel the blanket statutory presumption of reasonable fear would apply. And therefore the threat of deadly force might be unlawful.

In Florida, there is no requirement that one be in one's own house/car in order for the statutory presumption of reasonable fear to apply - of course, depending on the totality of the circumstances.

 

[Flintknapper]

Depends on the State.

In Texas (where I live), the Castle Doctrine applies to anyplace I have a legal right to be (and can be armed, in the case of a firearm).

In Ohio, I do not know the answer to your question.

 

[smalls]

In my opinion, the castle laws basically say "Anyone coming into your home (business, car, etc.) uninvited is considered a threat".

But you can't know if your girlfriend invited this guy into the car, or not. Even if she hadn't, how do you know, unless she says something to the effect of "Oh my god! He's going to attack us!".

The "anywhere I have a legal right to be I may defend myself" is more of a stand your ground law, so that you do not have to retreat. Castle laws basically state that you don't have to retreat within your own home (business, car, etc.).

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Wait... What? The CHL holder was charged? I cant believe he was charged. I suppose more facts are needed to make a decision, but I think he was correct with his actions. I would have done the same.

[1] Well yes you really need more facts. How can you reasonably conclude he was correct without enough facts? And how could you know that you would have done the same thing without knowing more facts? And if you would have done the same thing, perhaps you would have been wrong.

[2] And yes, this does again illustrate that a Castle Doctrine law is not magic. With every self defense law, including Castle Doctrines and Stand Your Ground laws, there are conditions that must be satisfied to come within their protections. If it's not immediately clear that you did satisfy those conditions, you'll be arrested, and perhaps charged. You might win in the end, but if there's a dispute about whether you threat of force or use of force met the legal standards for justification, you'll need to get over some hurdles to get clear -- or you'll go to jail if you messed up.

[3] You need to understand the law (which vary State-to-State) and conform your conduct to its requirements.

 

[Jim K]

"In my opinion, the castle laws basically say "Anyone coming into your home (business, car, etc.) uninvited is considered a threat".

Well, that is not what those laws say. Not only does the person need to "come in...uninvited" he/she has to constitute what a reasonable person would consider a serious threat.

If your elderly neighbor becomes confused and somehow wanders into your house, would you hunker down and fire 200 rounds into him for the fun of it?

If a six-year old girlfriend of your daughter follows your kid in the door, would you empty three or four mags into her?

You call the phone company to report trouble, and the repairman finds the door open and comes in. Would you blast him with 100 rounds of .45 hollow point?

Really? If you would do those things, with blind unthinking stupidity, believing that the "castle doctrine" will protect you, you would deserve anything the courts could throw your way.

Jim

 

[smalls]

Thank you, Jim, for completely blowing my statement out of proportion.

Of course if anyone comes in your house unannounced, and uninvited, you must assess the threat. Obviously grandma next door probably does not constitute a threat. The cable guy may not be a threat, but he'd be on the wrong end of the barrel while I'm assessing that.

The castle doctrine doesn't give you authority to just start blasting away at anyone who steps foot on your lawn, but it does give you the right to make those that are threats no longer threatening.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Depends on the State.

In Texas (where I live), the Castle Doctrine applies to anyplace I have a legal right to be (and can be armed, in the case of a firearm).

No, it doesn't. Not even in Texas. Castle Doctrine has no affect on public property, standing in a park, standing in a Wal Mart parking lot, in a restaurant, etc. Castle Doctrine only applies in your home, in your car, or in your place of business or employment:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

I don't see anywhere the words "anywhere the actor has a right to be", do you?

That's Castle Doctrine, where deadly force can be used to prevent the unlawful entry into a specific location, without first having to ascertain the intent of the unlawful entry.

In the example presented in the OP, the person against whom the threat was made was not "unlawfully and with force" attempting to enter "the actor's occuppied vehicle." Notice AND with force is also required. Therefore, in Texas, the person displaying the gun would NOT be justified in using deadly force until such time as they determined there was intent to commit or attempt to commit "aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;" which is also in the statute quoted above.