Think Castle Doctrine Gives You Legal Right to Shoot....Think Again

[Jeff White]

Looks like the Missouri judiciary is deciding how juries will be instructed on what the law means. And according to them, it's more narrow then then many people think.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...4BE600F1968E4EB5862573C0001616A8?OpenDocument

Impact of 'castle doctrine' law is debated
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
12/29/2007

KANSAS CITY — The debate continues over the state's recently enacted law allowing potential crime victims to use deadly force against their attackers.

Officials are still questioning how far people can go if someone enters their home.

In Texas last month, a man spotted two burglars carrying items from his neighbor's house. After calling police, he grabbed his shotgun and killed the burglars.

The new Missouri "castle doctrine" law appears to allow killings like those, according to judges and lawyers.

Advocates praise it as allowing innocent people to defend themselves against criminals, but critics fear the law could cause unnecessary deaths, such as killings of petty thieves.

It appears the law allows a person to kill anyone unlawfully entering a house or a car or committing a forcible felony, such as kidnapping, armed robbery, burglary, arson, assault, rape or sodomy.

The 13-member committee writing jury instructions for the new law accepts a narrower interpretation, said Jackson County Judge Charles Atwell, the committee's chairman.

He said the previous state law included a "reasonableness" standard, meaning a person had to believe that he or another person was in serious danger before using deadly force.

Because that phrase remains in the new law, juries should take it into account, Atwell said.

"That's going to cause a fight," said lawyer Kevin Jamison, who worked with the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance and the National Rifle Association to help pass the new law.

The NRA has helped spread such laws to more than 15 other states in the last two years, though wording varies among states.

Prosecutors say the eventual impact of Missouri's law will hinge on how those jury instructions turn out.

The instructions are expected to be finished early next year, after which the Missouri Supreme Court will either accept them or order a rewrite. Lawmakers also could change the law again.

Already, the law prompted Jackson County prosecutors to drop a murder charge against a Kansas City man and accept an involuntary manslaughter plea instead.

Prosecutors fear the law will make it more difficult to file and win cases against even hardened criminals, who may twist the law to help them kill others legally.

"Bad people are going to get away with murder because of this statute," assistant Jackson County prosecutor Bryan Krantz said. "A lot of people are going to get away with murder."
spacer

 

[El Tejon]

As I have said many, many times, the misnamed "Castle Doctrine" does not create a free fire zone around you. Living in Texas does not do this either. Having your "CCW" and a Batman outfit does not create a free fire zone around you either, no matter the guys at the gun shoppe tell you.

Self-defense is determined by an objective/subjective standard--what would the reasonable man do in that given situation.

Jeff, the committee did not such "narrowing". The committee restated existing law, which was law before the misnamed "Castle Doctrine". How I hate this media misapplication of this term. It's creating confusion even here on THR and adding fuel to Gun Shoppe Commando fires.

Mr. Krantz, that is a complete and utter falsehood. Elimination of the duty to retreat does no such thing and you should know it. If you cannot prove your case, then it is just that the defendant walks--you know this and are giving the public an excuse for future failures of your office.

 

[K3]

Officials are still questioning how far people can go if someone enters their home.

In Texas last month, a man spotted two burglars carrying items from his neighbor's house. After calling police, he grabbed his shotgun and killed the burglars

I'm sorry, but these two statements do not belong together.

An invader entering one's home is FAR different than the incident in Texas. The journalist put the statements together not by accident, I'm thinking.

 

[CombatArmsUSAF]

In Texas last month, a man spotted two burglars carrying items from his neighbor's house. After calling police, he grabbed his shotgun and killed the burglars

If you ask me, this is a bad shoot. Granted the BG's could have pulled a gun on him, but he still went looking for trouble. Castle doctrine takes away the requirement to retreat, it doesn't allow for vigilante justice. If he had heard screams or gunshots coming from his neighbors house during the course of events, then it MIGHT be justifiable for him to go confront the burglars.

 

[Zoogster]

Yeah this is misleading journalism, the only worthwhile information is that citizens need to demand proper jury instructions and end the political careers of those who attempt to ruin laws that took a lot of effort to pass.

Removing a duty to retreat does not give someone the freedom to advance.

However every situation is unique. Was the neighbor tied up in the home? Did he know? Did he chase them down to shoot (as it seems if he killed both without mention of aggressiveness on thier part, but that could be selective journalism) or did he investigate his neighbor while armed and shot to defend himself?

The same result can come from different actions and changes the perspective greatly. Journalists know this and use opinions and selective journalism, highlighting some facts and leaving out others that are obviously important.

Also the journalist speaks of Missouri, then highlights an incident in Texas as if they are the same.
Texas is unique in the nation that it allows lethal force to defend property in many situations. Usualy thier own property on thier own land though.
I don't think there is another state in the US that allows a private citizen the option of lethal force to defend property (in some situations.)
In fact there is a statute that pretty much allows discretionary use of force at night on private land for a wide range of crimes that someone could not even pull a firearm out for in other states. Texans don't have a license to kill, but they are definately unique in thier use of force laws.
It has to do with "criminal mischief at night".
So many things that are a bad shoot elsewhere are legal in Texas.

So they are being very misleading comparing apples to oranges. Missouri is not Texas, and "Castle Doctrine" may be the lowest standard one must comply with in Missouri, but it is not the lowest standard for lethal force in Texas.

So that combined with the fact that the journalist gives the impression that someone breaking into your home is the same as running into a situation at a neighbors, and carries the same criteria shows a biased against self defense in general to me. I think the reporter is anti and is twisting multiple facts to lead readers to an emotional conclusion that agrees with him. For some reason he appears to dislike Castle Doctrine and is trying to drum up emotions which support that, and is relying on very poor journalism to do it.

 

[telkontar]

Means nothing

This story means nothing (yet).

Draft jury instructions may or may not mean much of anything. If the term "reasonable" is in thenew statute, it should be in the jury instructions.

While I do not know Missouri legal procedures, in many states jury instructions can vary from case-to-case involving the same laws and can be drafted by attorneys (then approved by the court). Most western states do not have mandatory jury instructions. "Form" jury instructions in these states are examples only. (It is not clear from the story whether the Missouri Supreme Court's imprimatur makes use of these jury instructions mandatory.)

The meaning of "Castle Doctrine" may vary from state-to-state.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Officials are still questioning how far people can go if someone enters their home.

Leave it to "officials" to question the sanctity of commoners' homes.

He said the previous state law included a "reasonableness" standard, meaning a person had to believe that he or another person was in serious danger before using deadly force.

The word is "reasonability," not "reasonableness." People who can't write intelligible English should content themselves with flipping hamburgers.

 

[CombatArmsUSAF]

Actually the standard set forth in my lesson plans is "Objective Reasonableness", so I guess it is an approved term.

Reasonableness is also in Webster's Dictionary. It still doesn't sound right though.

 

[Technosavant]

Bryan Krantz seems to be a liar, hoping his brand of obfuscation can accomplish what the express wishes of the MO legislature and governor intended to avoid- the railroading of innocent people in an effort to boost his own career and push forward his anti-self defense view.

Should folks in MO shoot first and ask questions later? No. Should they fear for their life's savings and freedoms if they defend themselves against an intruder? Most certainly not.

Hopefully, this ignites a debate over how jury instructions can lead people to be convicted for things that were not illegal.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

As I have said many, many times, the misnamed "Castle Doctrine" does not create a free fire zone around you. Living in Texas does not do this either. Having your "CCW" and a Batman outfit does not create a free fire zone around you either, no matter the guys at the gun shoppe tell you.

Yes, but the mall ninja outfit is still good for this right?

I never though Castle Doctrine gave you any special rights. It often erases the duty to retreat clause and protects homeowners from civil prosecution in legal home defense shootings.

The article makes comparisons to Texas, but the circumstances allowing for shooting are covered by numerous laws in Texas, not Castle Doctrine to any great extent, although it expands the circumstances.

 

[WeedWhacker]

According to the "news" story, Mr. Horn stalked and murdered two petty thieves in cold blood. What a crock, and that alone is enough to discount everything else stated using that "news" story as support.

Juries are anathema to most of the current government, federal, state, and local. Juries are one of the very last lines of defense against tyranny, and are, by way of hundreds of years' worth of custom, common law, and outright support from upright judges who are also students of history and our own system of law, to judge the law as well as the facts. Certain judges have been directly instructing juries to the contrary, as of late - dispicable.

Keeping the jury ignorant and uninformed is the best way yet that the government has found to pursue its agendas within the "justice" system.

(For more information on the rights and duties of a juror, check out www.fija.org.)

 

[nelson133]

In Michigan the "Castle Defense" package of laws ends the duty to retreat on one's own property, in one's vehicle, or anyplace where one is legally allowed to be. It only allows deadly force to be used to prevent murder, sexual assault or great bodily harm to one's self or another. If they are running away with the tv, let them go.

 

[El Tejon]

I believe the problem is that the "Castle Doctrine" is an exception to a general duty (duty to retreat), but the media has morphed this into some positive law that affords shooters some force field of exclusion from the test for self-defense.

We need to get in front of this and correct this deliberate media misinformation.

nelson, did Michigan have a duty to retreat requirement? "Castle Doctrine" refers to an exception to the duty to retreat requirement where a person inside his domicile does not have a duty to retreat.

Eliminating the duty to retreat is called "elminating the duty to retreat"; it is not called "Castle Doctrine."

 

[SteveS]

did Michigan have a duty to retreat requirement?

Michigan had no duty to retreat in a dwelling. There was a duty to retreat, but only under very narrow circumstances (if a person was involved in a mutual affray). The law didn't change as much as some people think.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Weedwhacker said...

According to the "news" story, Mr. Horn stalked and murdered two petty thieves in cold blood. What a crock, and that alone is enough to discount everything else stated using that "news" story as support.

I don't know what news you read, but Horn didn't stalk anybody. The whole incident was witnessed by a plainclothes detective. The shooting was in accord with Texas law that had NOTHING to do with Castle Doctrine. The grand jury apparently hasn't decided on this yet but are required to address the issue of a homicide by law, but the cops were apparently convinced that horn acted in accord with the law enough that they didn't arrest him.

As for being petty theives, gimme a break. At least one was an illegal alien felon how had been deported previously because of drug charges. Both were involved the the commission of felonies.

Nelson said

It only allows deadly force to be used to prevent murder, sexual assault or great bodily harm to one's self or another. If they are running away with the tv, let them go.

I am willing to bet that Michigan already had lethal force laws that allowed for the use of lethal force to prevent murder, sexual assault, or great bodily harm before Castle Doctrine.

 

[RioShooter]

Juries are not required to follow "jury instructions". They can interpret the law the way they want. If the jury does not agree with a law, they can ignore it completely.

If you don't believe me, google "jury nullification."

 

[El Tejon]

Steve, exactly right, and I think that is the problem. I have heard gun owners, even on THR, talk about "Castle Doctrine" as providing some sort of immunity from prosecution if they ever have to use a firearm against another human being.

It is terrifying when you realize what they do not understand.

 

[PX15]

JMOFO:

Well, I'm sure I'm going to take some heat for this, but just judging from the 911 conversations of the incident in Texas where the two thieves were killed I think the person doing the killing was dumber than the crooks...

I'm an old fart so maybe my perspective is clouded but killing folks over tv's and such is simply beyond my understanding. Killing someone stealing from the house across the street is simply beyond my understanding.

I have NOTHING material in my home that I would take a life to protect. I will protect myself, family and innocents if threatened, but beyond calling 911 and getting my family out of harms way I certainly wouldn't be killing anyone over "things"... Just not worth it IMO.

EVEN if you live in a place where the "Castle Doctrine" is the law I would still suggest the minute you deliberately pull the trigger and kill someone your life is going to change drastically forever. Even IF you were threatened, much less if it was just a dope head trying to steal your lawn furniture.

If you were not prosecuted criminally you can bet your bottom dollar the dead folks will have a multitude of grieving relations who will have some crooked lawyer haul you into civil court. You will find to your amazement that the person(s) you killed were actually active members of some church choir who were the victims, not you. You will be tried by 12 folks who are supposed to represent your "peers", but if you care to take a look at the makeup of most modern juries I would suggest you would find that is not the case....

Taking a life is a big deal, and doing so for "possessions" of your own, much less those of the family you don't really know across the street is absolutely stupid with a capital S.. In my opinion.

If confronted by deadly force I will certainly try my best to defend myself, family and others, but if given a choice I will grab everyone and retreat as long as I am allowed to do so. If you back me or the others into a corner, and threaten us with deadly force then all bets are off.

I can buy another car, tv, whatever...

I'm a big 2nd amendment guy, I'm a member of the NRA, and I've been carrying concealed legally since 1966. I've never, knock on wood, once had to display a weapon in my defense, much less having to actually use one. I am armed because I want to PROTECT lives, (primarily my own first), not my property.

I know my opinion is contrary to what others might think, and I have no argument with those who think differently than I do. You kill someone without needing to and you have to live with both the legal ramifications, and even worse the knowledge that you took a life unnecessarily. My conscience won't let me do that.

I think the fellow who killed the two obvious thieves was dumb, dumb, dumb, and I'll betcha' before it's all over he will wish many times he had listened to that gentleman on the other end of the 911 call who was giving him what I consider to be excellent advice.

YMMV

Respectfully,

J. Pomeroy

 

[Todd A]

In Ct we never had a duty to retreat in our homes.We did have the "Fear of death or grave bodily harm" though. The changes to the Statutes removed this when home invasions became popular several years ago. We are allowed to use deadly force in our homes to prevent or terminate forcible entry. I don't know if this would be considered "Castle Doctrine".

However I still can't (I would'nt even if I could) shoot you if you forgot to put down the bag of "goodies" as you ran out the door.

Sec. 53a-20. Use of physical force in defense of premises. A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination.


This does not carry over to the street where we still need to fear death or grave bodily harm and retreat if possible (without exposing yourself to harm).

 

[PakWaan]

All states are different.

The new "Protection of Persons and Property" law in Florida "permits a person to use force, including deadly force, without fear of criminal prosecution or civil action for damages, against a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters the person's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle"

It also "creates a presumption that a defender in his or her home...has a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when the intruder is in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or enters. It also creates a presumption that the intruder intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. These presumptions protect the defender from civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of force or deadly force in self-defense."

In other words, the fact that they are breaking into your house creates the AUTOMATIC legal assumption that the homeowner is in fear for his life and that the intruder plans to do them bodily harm - no further need to establish these facts in court.

** Quotes from the law synopsis by the Florida Senate Committee on Criminal Justice.


Anyone in Florida should own a copy of "Florida Firearms" by Jon Gutmacher, a criminal defense attorney in Orlando who specializes in firearms law. His book answers any questions you could possibly ask about firearms in Florida, and is used in the police academies in Florida to train LEO's about firearms law. ( http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com )


.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I don't know what news you read, but Horn didn't stalk anybody. The whole incident was witnessed by a plainclothes detective.

I'm quite aware of that.

Officials are still questioning how far people can go if someone enters their home.

In Texas last month, a man spotted two burglars carrying items from his neighbor's house. After calling police, he grabbed his shotgun and killed the burglars.

Journalism at its finest, right there.

 

[BReilley]

"If just one criminal's life could be saved..."

A lot of "unnecessary deaths" of "petty thieves" could be avoided if people would just mind their own business and work for a paycheck like the rest of us.

 

[Jim K]

The "castle doctrine" was in response to absurd interpretations of the "duty to retreat." In a famous Mass. case, a woman killed an intruder after she had fled to the basement. A nut-case judge found that she should have retreated through a casement window that was only a foot high and was three feet over her head, and she was convicted of murder. The decision was reversed, but the "castle doctrine" was intended to put the "no need to retreat" into law.

I see no problem with a "reasonable man" standard, it has served pretty well in other cases. Taking a life is and should be a serious business, and I see no reason "castle doctrine" should be extened to allow the killing of anyone who sets foot on your property or a neighbor's property or the property of some guy four streets over. If a person sees that his neighbor is being attacked, he, a "reasonable man", should respond, but defense of property is a bit trickier when no threat to innocent life is involved.

Jim

 

[El Tejon]

No, "Castle Doctrine" predates the Massachusetts Supreme Court by centuries. Castle Doctrine goes back in English to Lord Coke, 1644; however, there are references to this phrase in Latin under Roman Law.

It's as if "castle doctrine" has become this shapeless phrase batted about in the media and no one knows what it means.

 

[Rumble]

Castle doctrine, as I understand it, stems from the idea that a "man's home is his castle," and he may therefore defend it against invaders. Now, there's still the "reasonable man" standard with regard to fear of imminent death or injury.

So - again as I understand it - if a state didn't have a duty to retreat when in one's own home, then the castle doctrine was alive and well there already. New laws that eliminate the duty to retreat in public are not castle doctrine laws.

But regardless, you never have a right to shoot. You may have justification to do so, given the circumstances, but it's not a right.