Abusing the Castle Doctrine...Texas man shoots a teen in his yard...

. How does somebody cutting across your lawn equate with breaking into a home, business or car?


It doesn't, I am a big fan of the castle doctrine but from what I read here this guy shot a kid for doing something I did a thousand times myself as a kid. I don't trust the media to get the details correct but if what I read in the article is correct this guys is going to be toast. We don't need to be shooting people just because they stepped on our property. Even if these kids were known to be trouble you just can't jump the gun like that. Now if they were entering the house then all bets are off but that does not appear to be the case here.
 
specifically about the C.D. and S.C.

just as I understand it....the C.D. in S.C. really had nothing to do with your home or business because you had no need to retreat from either.... and oh by the way...this includes your property. Legally, as I remember it there was no difference between being on your property, outside and inside your home...

The S.C. castle doctrine had to do with being 'out on the street' and I think what is more important is it negates a cival suit if you are not charged with a crime. Seems that what a bad guys family would do after you took him out was sue you for killing him, even if you were in the right.
 
In SC it was called Protection of Persons and Property - Lawful Use of Deadly Force and included the following part:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4301.htm

It was referred to as the Castle Doctrine but actually covers anywhere you are. It also includes the "Alter Ego" principal where you can act on the part of another person as if you were that person.
 
The law quoted in your post is called a "stand your ground law" (pejoratively called a "make my day" law by antis). Whoever called it a "castle law" is wrong, but we all know the press is perfect.
 
I am not going to argue with the SC Legislature as they are the one who called it "Castle Doctrine". I am not going to C&P the entire act but the first part is show below. I did not find anywhere that they called it Stand Your Ground but they did refer several times as Castle Doctrine.

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4301.htm

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

Protection of persons and property, castle doctrine

SECTION 1. Chapter 11, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:


"Article 6

Protection of Persons and Property

Lawful Use of Deadly Force
Section 16-11-410. This article may be cited as the 'Protection of Persons and Property Act'.

Section 16-11-420. (A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.

Rather than quoting common misconceptions about these types of things we need to read that actual laws in the states involved. Although the "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" have similar meanings there is no universal definition between states or countries on what they mean. We can blame the media for coruption of the terms but I have seen much more BS about what they mean on this board than in the media.

In the case of the OP the original reports were that the shooter would be covered by the "Castle Doctrine". Whether or not he will eventually will or not is now left up to the courts rather than the Prosecutor. Even if the Prosecutor were to determine not to charge him with anything due to the castel doctrine it still does not mean that he cannot be sued in a civil court. He would then have to get a civil court jury to determine that he was also covered by CD.

I was involved in a car wreck one time and the other driver pleaded Guilty to DUI. The nice thing about him pleading Guilty was that then I could use the fact that he was DUI against him in a civil court. If he had been found guilty by a jury or pleaded nolo contendre (?sp) I could not have. Just as with the OJ trial because you are not charged with something or found not-guilty (notice that a jury does not find someone innocent) it does not prevent civil suits. Saying that if you follow the CD you are not liable does not mean you can't be sued in civil court, rather that if you are sued then it is a different case and strategies than normal charges.
 
now that is a great defence

"The guy is 75 years old! Cut him some slack!"
__________________

You are so wrong on that concept. If anything when a person is so old that they are not competent enough to know what is going on around them they should be disarmed to protect both himself and the rest of us.

I believe there have been several thread of late where the shooter was some old geezer who did not know what was going on so he simply shot first. Although he did not know what he was shooting at or why he shot. Great defence -- derangement.
 
just as I understand it....the C.D. in S.C. really had nothing to do with your home or business because you had no need to retreat from either.... and oh by the way...this includes your property. Legally, as I remember it there was no difference between being on your property, outside and inside your home...

The S.C. castle doctrine had to do with being 'out on the street' and I think what is more important is it negates a cival suit if you are not charged with a crime. Seems that what a bad guys family would do after you took him out was sue you for killing him, even if you were in the right.

Looking at the SC statute it seems that the Castle Doctrine was already in place but not defined to mean a person's home. The statute also extended the CD to a person's business & occupied vehicle which, from the wording, did not exist before.

The CD does not include your property outside your dwelling/residence/business/occupied vehicle.

1) 'Dwelling' means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.

...

(3) 'Residence' means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

However SC does now also have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine as created by this same statute.

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

As I stated in my previous post, the difference between the two sections of the statute is that in a CD situation if someone is forcefully entering a CD defined area they are assumed to meet the requirements to use deadly force to stop them.

Section 16-11-440. (A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

In a SYG situation you are authorized to meet force with force including deadly force if:

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

But, notice that there is a requirement to "reasonably believe" that deadly force is necessary in a SYG situation that is already presumed to exist in a CD situation

Again if someone is on your property outside your home/dwelling/business/occupied vehicle, that person must meet meet the requirements (means, opportunity, proximity) for you to be authorized to use deadly force against them. You can't "just shoot" someone on your property who is not a threat unless they are in your home/business occupied vehicle. Even if they are in your home the requirement is that they have entered "unlawfully & forcefully".
 
I agree totally with what you say...

just because some one is on your property (in your yard) does not mean they are a threat to you... logic (which is what laws are supposed to be about) would require much more than just treaspassing to justify deadly force. I would say that once they are inside your 'castle' the the burden becomes less but is still there....

I think the difference with the 'stand your ground' part is no longer having to decide if you have the ability to retreat if NOT own your own property. The way it was taught to me before the law was changed was that if you were out in public and threatened with grave bodily harm or death your first obligation was to find a way to retreat from the threat....
 
In Texas as far as I know there was no obligation to retreat if you reasonably believed that you or another persons life was in danger or you were being attacked and feared for your life.

AS my CHL instructor who is a retired state trooper and a current law enforcment officer told me if the conditions exist where you are in fear for your life ... yell stop and then shoot right after that. You can say you advised him to stop.

However, you still have responsibility for where the bullet goes.

The CD granted a defense to criminal and civil prosecution not immunity.
 
By the by, this case has absolutely NOTHING to do with Castle Doctrine.

NOTHING.

It has to do with a Texas law, which was originally enacted against rustlers and horse thieves, in which deadly force may be used to stop a thief regardless of threat to one's person.

Dateline, or one of those other "news" programs made a big deal a few years ago about a guy who shot and killed a repo man who was taking his vehicle. The guy shot the tow truck driver in the back through the back window of the tow truck with a high powered rifle from several hundred feet as he drove off with the vehicle in tow. They even had video of the guy describing how he raised the rifle and fired to the police on scene the next morning.

At the end of the segment, they asked the local law what they thought about repo men being in danger. He simply said "I'd tell them they need to get into another line of work."
 
Here is the pertinent Texas statute governing this case

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;
or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The
justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use
of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by
the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious
bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the
circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he
installs the device.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept.
1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
 
Other than jimpeel's last post, has no one posted the update on the Pasadena, Texas case? The guy won't be indicted:
A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor's home won't be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in an affluent subdivision in Pasadena, Texas.http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/sto...5278638&page=1
http://www.khou.com/news/local/stori...x.e591442.html

Remember, he shot these clowns in the back...
 
The only similarity to this and the Horn case is that, in both situations, somebody died due to gunfire. There the similarities end.
 
Remember, he shot these clowns in the back...

So did the guy who shot the repo man. The law does not address the issue of the direction of flight. It only addresses the fact that one may use deadly force against anyone moving tangible property of another.

We really need to get off of this theme of whether Horn felt he was in fear of his life, thew direction of flight of the perps, and the portion of the body in which the shotgun pellets struck them.

The law is clear and that law is the one which came to play in this case. Horn was within his rights to shoot the moment the perps took flight. If they had stopped and hit the ground with their arms and legs spread we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The press would have ignored, with the possibility of the local coverage, the fact that an armed citizen arrested two crooks using a firearm. The only reason it got any press is because there were people shot with "one o' them thar e-e-e-evil fararms."
 
The quickest way for lawmakers to get the ammo they need to end the Castle Doctrine, state by state is to show that complete idots are abusing the spirit of the law.
 
Back
Top