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

[MechAg94]

Why they bother to reference Texas I don't know. The "castle doctrine" in Texas did not substantially change self defense law except to prevent civil suits against people after a "good shoot".

The "retreat" requirement was not in law as I understand it. It was only a lawyer argument thing. If you tried to get out of the deadly situation, it is easier to convince a jury that it was self defense.


Sounds like Castle Doctrine supporters in MO, need to look back and see if they really worded their new law correctly.

 

[cbsbyte]

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.

Well I heard that she fled to the bathroom with her young child, the attacker was her ex-husband/boyfriend. She shot through the door killing him. It really does not matter which version is correct, what matters is the law was changed in Massachusetts because of her case. While the duty to retreat in ones home was removed from the law, one can only use deadly force to stop an attack initiated by an aggressor. Otherwise the homeowner can not claim self defense in the shooting. Even pulling a gun on a intruder to detain them until the police arrive is considered illegal use of force under Massachusetts statures.

 

[MarkDido]

While legislatures have the luxury of time to debate what constitutes a "reasonable fear of death or bodily harm", citizens are asked to make that decision in a split second when their front door comes crashing down.

That doesn't sound "reasonable" to me.

 

[k_dawg]

This is why I like the wording of Florida's law. It codifies in the law, that the home owner is, by law, in fear of his life, and by law, in mortal danger.

 

[Master Blaster]

The need for dealy force in a dynamic situation involving burglars or other bad folks who are in your home uninvited, is always going to be a split second decision, there isnt time for the luxury of making up a list of pros and cons. Its a split second life or death decision, similar to the decision a police officer faces when confronted by a suspect who has his hands in his pockets and refuses to remove them. Shoot or not? wrong decision and you are dead, or the criminal is dead and you are facing charges.

The law makes it less likely that you will be second guessed after the fact by folks who weren't there and didn't have to make a split second life or death decision. Just like the police officer you may still be second guessed.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It codifies in the law, that the home owner is, by law, in fear of his life, and by law, in mortal danger.

It codifies a presumption that the home owner is in fear of his life. It says that in the absence of any contrary evidence, the mere fact that the bad guy was breaking into the home is sufficient to establish that the home owner had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury.

However, if evidence establishes otherwise, you could have a problem. For example a statement like "I had him disarmed and proned out on the ground; but he kept mouthing off so I shot him because I knew I was protected under Castle Doctrine." In that case, the presumption will not protect you.

Mr. Horn's legal problems also derived from the fact that he misunderstood Castle Doctrine (no doubt helped along by sloppy reporting and hyperbole from public officials). He thought he had more protection than he did when in reality, Castle Doctrine didn't really do anything for the situation he was in.

It is a shame that this is so misunderstood.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Of the eight murders in my home town in the three years 2004-2006,
at least five were victims of home invasions by people seeking drugs
or money for drugs. At least one of the victims was totally innocent.
Two sets of murder victims were suspected drug dealers killed by users.

Such home invasions are unpredictable. I can understand a requirement
to retreat in a "mutual combat" circumstance of two people involved
in an altercation that is escalating. If you can walk away without taking
a knife or bullet in the back, the discrete thing to do is just walk away.
If some drug-crazed thug is kicking in your door at midnight, believing
you can be robbed for money or drugs (we have had elderly people
home-invaded for their medications), there should be a Castle Doctrine
of stand your ground where you have a right to be, especially your own
home. That still does not remove the basic rule of engagement: lethal
force in response to an iminent threat of death or greivous bodily harm
ONLY.

I know a couple who detained a burglar at gunpoint until the police
arrived and arrested the burglar. The cops thanked the couple.
There is a big difference between Tennessee and Massachusetts.

 

[Technosavant]

Sounds like Castle Doctrine supporters in MO, need to look back and see if they really worded their new law correctly.

It was worded fine. The problem is that the people doing the interpretation for the benefit of jury instructions are among the most anti-gun people in the state. Jury instructions are important because many juries do not carefully consider the law itself and jury nullification is rarely understood.

 

[k_dawg]

That still does not remove the basic rule of engagement: lethal
force in response to an iminent threat of death or greivous bodily harm
ONLY.

Simply being illegally in my home *IS* an imminent threat of death or greivous bodily harm. I do not have special powers to know if he has a gun on him or not. I'm not giving him the opportunity to draw said gun.

He breaks in, he's being shot. For the welfare of my family.

 

[TEDDY]

King Castle Bill

the case refered to in Mass was a woman who killed an attacker after she went in cellar with her children and attacker came to celler stairs and she shot him with a 20ga shotgun.he was her BOYFRIEND and lived in the house,thus the retreat.the judge found her guilty because she should have left the house,but released her to the custody of her children because he deserved it.Gov king signed the castle bill that no need to retreat.subsiquintly
a man shot a person he brought home from bar when he woke and found the man trying to commit sodomy on him and refused to leave.convicted and appealed,DA dropped charges because of the castle bill.he put 3- 357 mag in the guy.I was afraid he would get charged with excesive force for putting 3 in.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

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

I don't quite understand what you are saying here.

Are you trying to say that if I here someone breaking into a neighbors house at 3 a.m. and I know that she is most likely at home alone that I should not take it on myself to advance on that person?

Before answering let me add that I live out in a rural area where there are no local police and it will take the sheriff's deputy 30 - 45 minutes to show up if they ever do!

I am also troubled about the Horn case in Texas. I haven't heard/read all the evidence, so I don't know if he had been asked to protect the neighbors property or not. If so, then that could add a different slant to the situation. I just don't know. What little I have heard of the 911 tape was disturbing, but then you only get to hear what the media wants you to hear.

I do agree that the Texas Horn case and the possibly instruction to to jury in MO. are no where related.

 

[XDKingslayer]

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 )

Don't worry, Jeff will be along shortly to argue this too.

Trust me...Doesn't live in Florida, isn't a LEO in Florida, isn't a prosecutor or attorney in Florida, but he'll argue it with you. He'll probably argue the meaning of the word "presume".

 

[Crashola]

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'm no expert, but I thought the "castle doctrine" was the old common law notion that a person had no duty to retreat in his/her own home. Over time, some states abrogated the castle doctrine (either judicially or legislatively) to require a duty to retreat. Recently, some of those states have gone back to the common law castle doctrine. Am I right??

Also, isn't is a misnomer to refer to the Texas law on protecting personal property as the "castle doctrine"??

I'm confused.

 

[Millwright]

The 'bottom line' is the bench can 'instruct' a jury, but it isn't obligated to follow those instructions. "Jury nullification" has long been an aspect of the American judicial system. The jury can agree to pretty much tell the judge/prosecutor to 'pound sand' and return the verdict they feel is just. >MW

 

[Cosmoline]

The 13-member committee writing jury instructions

Just FYI these guys don't make the law, nor do they have any authority over court decisions. The proposed civil jury instructions, if accepted, are included among a bunch of others in a book attorneys and courts can draw from as needed. But they aren't mandated, and while some standard pattern instructions for a particular state are used 99.99% of the time, other pattern instructions are almost always changed. For a new law like this they're bound to be argued by both sides in particular cases and the courts will have to decide who's instruction to use. Then the state supreme court will likely have to decide whether the instructions are proper.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Mr. Horn's legal problems also derived from the fact that he misunderstood Castle Doctrine (no doubt helped along by sloppy reporting and hyperbole from public officials). He thought he had more protection than he did when in reality, Castle Doctrine didn't really do anything for the situation he was in.

What legal problems? Perhaps you meant the problems with the folks on his lawn? The civil litigation sure to follow is a given, castle doctrine or not.

Breaking into a home is a FELONY. Mr. Horn was justified in confronting, with deadly force, FELONS in the act of committing a FELONY. Texas is not unusual in this regard, either - many/most states explicitly state that lethal force can be used to prevent at least some types of felonies.

Now, whether or not Mr. Horn would do the same thing again is a matter of speculation, but it wouldn't be because he violated any criminal laws.

 

[gym]

I'm all for the basis of the castle doctrine, but why didn't the guy call the police instead of just shooting the guys who weren't on his property, seems a lot of assumptions were made here.

 

[Procarry]

I'm all for the basis of the castle doctrine, but why didn't the guy call the police instead of just shooting the guys who weren't on his property, seems a lot of assumptions were made here.

If you're talking about Horn
he did call the police
they told him not to go out there
He disobeyed the 911 operator instructions
He told the operator he's gonna shoot
then he shoots

he is a fool

Like you I'm for castle doctrine, but some take it as a license to be a vigilante


.

 

[PX15]

Procarry:

What you said... Plus one...

J.Pomeroy

 

[foob]

Are you trying to say that if I here someone breaking into a neighbors house at 3 a.m. and I know that she is most likely at home alone that I should not take it on myself to advance on that person?

I think what he is saying is exactly what he is saying, which is not what you are saying (or twisting). Whether you advance or not has nothing to do with "no duty to retreat", and "no duty to retreat" does not specify whether you have or have not a duty to advance. There is also a big difference between "duty" and "desire". A person can retreat even if there's no duty to do so.

As for me, I would go over to check it out. That doesn't mean I go over and shoot any stranger I see, only if there is imminent danger to my neighbor or me. The stranger for all I know could be the neighbor's relative.

Breaking into a home is a FELONY. Mr. Horn was justified in confronting, with deadly force, FELONS in the act of committing a FELONY. Texas is not unusual in this regard, either - many/most states explicitly state that lethal force can be used to prevent at least some types of felonies.

In general, you cannot use deadly force after the felonious act is over. I don't know the story, but if Mr Horn shot two burglars that already left the house, that wouldn't be a good shoot.

Good rule of thumb, if the cops can't do it, you can't do it.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I'm all for the basis of the castle doctrine, but why didn't the guy call the police instead of just shooting the guys who weren't on his property, seems a lot of assumptions were made here.

Reading up on the news story may help with the confusion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?bl&ex=1197867600&en=93fa05328f89c51c&ei=5087%0A
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/12/17/joe-horn-update-colombians-upset/

Listening to the 911 call may also shed some light: Mr. Horn can be heard saying "Move [garbled], you're dead!", which Mr. Horn states he said "Move and you're dead!". After that was said, Mr. Horn stated that one (or both? I can't recall) of the burglars moved towards him, entering his yard, at which point Mr. Horn opened fire.

For all the other points I've tried to point out, this matter boils down to a self-defense scenario, as when felons were confronted during the commission of a crime, they threatened someone holding a shotgun on them. Not a wise choice, in retrospect.

 

[TexasSkyhawk]

If you're talking about Horn
he did call the police
they told him not to go out there
He disobeyed the 911 operator instructions
He told the operator he's gonna shoot
then he shoots

he is a fool

Like you I'm for castle doctrine, but some take it as a license to be a vigilante

Why? Who the hell is a 9-1-1 operator? Sure not a cop, and he was already out there from what I understand.

He kept asking to get some cops out there and the operator kept telling him it was going to be something like twenty minutes. Meanwhile his neighbor's property is being carted off faster than if it'd been marked "FREE" at a rummage sale.

And since when is looking out for your neighbor considered "vigiliante?"

Any idea what the Latin root for "vigilante" means?

Jeff

 

[Kipling79]

I am no expert, but am familiar with some aspects of this thread.

As some have pointed out, the "reasonableness" standard seems unfair on it's face, since a split second decisions are hardly reasonable per se. But, that split second/uninformed decision is exactly what the doctrine addresses. The jurors would be asked "what would a reasonable person in the same situation & circumstances, etc.. have done". The doctrine would likely help a defender if he had reason to fear for life.

As far as jury nullification goes (and I am no expert), it is as far as i know not widely used. We have not even mentioned it in law school... this topic was my first ever encounter with that term. Even if nullification is a formidable tool, judges themselves have the power to overturn jury verdicts if clearly against the applicable law. So there is some balance. Plus, there are always appeals if someone is convicted wrongfully.

In general, i dont think any life should be ended simply for commiting petty crime. The duty to retreat and fear of injury doctrines are usefull to society in my opinion. How many of us have done stupid things to other people, or on their property, that could have resulted in us being shot legally if the castle doctrine was too loose? I am guessing that most of us have.

 

[WeedWhacker]

A felonious crime is a serious crime that lawmakers have found to be so horrific that such crimes require more than a year of confinement as punishment.

Breaking into a person's HOUSE is a felony... NOT a "petty crime".

I sure did some dumb things as a kid - breaking into a (mostly) occupied house was not one of them.

 

[Cosmoline]

As noted, you cannot kill someone yourself as punishment for a felony. That's murder, and is rightly considered a very serious crime in and of itself. The castle doctrine does not give anyone a right to kill or a license to kill. Anti-gun agitprop may claim it does, but this is incorrect. It simply allows you to stand your ground and gives a presumption that an intruder (sometimes only a night) into an occupied residence presents an imminent lethal threat. If you realize the intruder does NOT present such a threat, you cannot kill him. Thus if you turn on your tactical light and see the man is bleeding and wounded from a car accident, you cannot shoot him.