According to my firearms instructor, who is personal friends with and a client of the attorney who authored the MS CCW law, the castle doctrine protects people from liability when they use deadly force against a person who it putting life and limb in jeopardy. However, if you miss the bad guy and kill the little girl riding her bicycle across the street, you can and will be charged with a crime, and will go to jail. Each of us in taking it upon ourselves to carry a deadly weapon are taking the responsibility for each and every bullet that exits our weapon. The castle doctrine only protects us when we kill/injure the bad guy, not when we miss and kill somebody else.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A legal question on limited liability from Castle and other similar laws
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Hot off the presses - a CHL who doesn't understand the Castle doctrine.
http://weareaustin.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=81415
Yes, that guy is in trouble and rightfully so... even if he tries to claim Castle Doctrine, he is going to have the problem that while Castle Doctrine may not require you to retreat, it certainly doesn't authorize you to follow someone off a highway exit and start shooting at them.
Apparently the guy was in FRONT of him and exited the highway, meaning that Smith had an easy way to avoid the confrontation but continued it. This sounds more to me like someone taking actions he knew were criminal and trying to justify it after the fact.
Now he is looking at a first degree felony - if convicted, not only will he lose his CHl, he'll lose his right to ever own a firearm again and he is going to end up in a place where there are going to be much more serious threats than an ADD guy with a car being a jerk.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Glenn E Meyer said:Is the arson component based on property or the potential lethal nature of arson?
I don't know. I've never seen a clarifying statement of any kind. My assumption, possibly entirely unwarranted, is that if it were based on the possibility of arson being deadly then it would include some sort of language like "if such person reasonably believes that the targeted structure is occupied."
This was BRIEFLY mentioned in the required CCW class and there was no clarification. The ADA said that lethal force is authorized to stop or prevent arson and then moved on to the next topic.
In the CHP course in Texas I seem to remember the instructor who was also a LEO and a LEO firearms instructor and use of force trainer with a long career saying you are responsible for where that bullet goes. If you miss or hit the bad guy and an innocent bystander takes the round. You are neck deep in the stuff that the fan has flung.
I would say that that this also applies in the Castle Doctrine if you shoot a third party who is an innocent bystander. The only party that can not sue you is the perpetrator of the crime you shot. If you shoot the neighbor through his wall you are in neck deep and sinking again. If I think I see the perpetrator in my house in the shadows and take a shot and hit the neighbor next door who is in the bathroom TCBing then I have a legal problem.
Which means that no shot might be the best solution sometimes unless you are in really great danger of being killed or a grievous wound which will leave you maimed or crippled for life.
Just because you have a CHP and a gun in hand does not mean you should disengage the brain or you have Carte Blanche to send massive amounts of lead downrange.
Your rights ends where someone else's begins if they are doing you no harm.
The purpose of having a CHP is to keep yourself or some one else from coming to harm not to be harming innocent bystanders.
I would say that that this also applies in the Castle Doctrine if you shoot a third party who is an innocent bystander. The only party that can not sue you is the perpetrator of the crime you shot. If you shoot the neighbor through his wall you are in neck deep and sinking again. If I think I see the perpetrator in my house in the shadows and take a shot and hit the neighbor next door who is in the bathroom TCBing then I have a legal problem.
Which means that no shot might be the best solution sometimes unless you are in really great danger of being killed or a grievous wound which will leave you maimed or crippled for life.
Just because you have a CHP and a gun in hand does not mean you should disengage the brain or you have Carte Blanche to send massive amounts of lead downrange.
Your rights ends where someone else's begins if they are doing you no harm.
The purpose of having a CHP is to keep yourself or some one else from coming to harm not to be harming innocent bystanders.