Castle Doctrine

Since I currently have access to Lexisnexis (not the law part though) I will try to find it for you. It was possibly 10-15 years ago,perhaps, maybe, IIRC. Sad story for all involved. The homeowner was not indicted and I don't think they even charged him.
 
I was wrong, it was Baton Rouge La.. The date was Oct 17 1992. The man's name was Rodney Peairs (I did spell it correctly if the news story spelled his name correctly). He was acquited the next year.

Man!! I love Nexislexis, and I am going to miss it when I graduate.
 
As the fellow who initiated this thread, I want to offer a few PERSONAL OPINIONS:

a) Obviously, I would be willing to use lethal force, were I COMPELLED to do so, to defend innocent life from an imminent, grave threat.

b) However, I would not be willing to use deadly force to defend my property -- especially inconsequential property, such as the aforecited “toaster” example.

c) While this decision has a personal ethical component, the driving factors are practical. Even in a GREAT state like Texas (where the statues permit such force under broad conditions), shooting/killing the felon is likely to result in considerable expense (attorneys, potential civil lawsuits, and so forth) and hassle (police investigation, potential loss of you firearm, possibly incarceration, etc.). I simply don’t think it’s worth the troubles, especially since I am a prudent, well-insured individual.

d) In several ways, I am sorry to have reached this conclusion (“c" above), since it seems logical that only when criminals understand that there are real, direct, and substantial consequences for their illegal action will they be dissuaded from doing so.
 
jburtonpdx,
Sounds very subjective to me. I wonder what direction case law has taken this?
I mean does insurance paying you back for the tv count as "recovered by other means"?
Click to expand...
Nope. “Recovered by any other means” means recovering the specific item being stolen, not insurance paying you for the item. My own personal opinion (supported by my personal research) is that it also doesn’t include the police recovering the property at some later date. In other words, to me personally, the law means recovering the property right then and there by some means other than force.

That’s the legal side of things here in Texas. Obviously everybody has a different view of how they would personally choose to act under that law. For myself, your damn right, I would use deadly force to stop a thief taking off with my property. It’s the principle of the thing.
 
Maryland?

I just moved from a red state (Ohio) to a VERY blue state (Maryland). Anyone know the law out here?
I think it goes something like this-
If someone breaks into your house you can't, curse at them, call them gay or homosexual, inquire about there race or ethnicity, tell them to leave, make any threatening gestures, ask why, refuse to make them dinner, or intentionally hurt their feelings. :eek:
 
The last good answer heard for Maryland was retreat as far as possible and then you may only use deadly force if threatened with same.
My sympathy on your move to the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland.
 
Pistol Pete,
Read the earlier part of this thread where Va laws were discussed. Md laws seem to be very similar and the "must retreat" part may (or may not) be excepted when you are trying to do a citizens arrest. Md District Attorneys usually try to prosecute someone who has defended themselves when it ends up with a fatal result, even if it occurred in their own home.
 
Florida October 1

(4) The court shall award attorney's fees, court

30 costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses

31 incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action

5

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

Florida Senate - 2005 SB 436 2-361A-05

1 brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant

2 is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). The

3 plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney are jointly and

4 severally liable to the defendant for the payment of fees and

5 costs.


The above is a slice from the Castle doctrine Law that has been signed by Governor Bush, and comes in to force Oct first, 2005.

The amazing part of it is they have aimed at the Lawyers who charge fees when the know they have no legal grounds, or every chance of putting you in the poor house, with their actions, are now liable for frivolous law suits, love it.

See Joe Lawyer out of his house!

Love Florida, all this, and sunshine as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top