OK Teenager Kills Intruder

mehavey said:
The key word in the legislation is "...unlawfully and forcefully..." [emphasis added]. In the computer world that's known as an 'AND' gate, through none shall pass unless both conditions are met.
Click to expand...
This is correct, but if you arrive home and see that the front (or rear) door has been forced open, then the "forcefully" aspect has been satisfied and you are aware of it. If you then enter the house and find a stranger standing in your living room, you haven't given him permission to be there so the "unlawfully" aspect is satisfied.

The law does NOT state that you have to be in the house at the time the unlawful, forceful entry is actually perpetrated. It simply establishes that those two conditions create a legal presumption that the unlawful entrant is there with intent to do you harm, and that you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself within your "castle." Note the two tenses: "had" indicates past tense, and would include coming home to find that a forceful entry "had" already been committed.
 
I brought it up mainly because I don't like sloppy reporting. These guys get paid to investigate events and write accurate stories about them.

If the hood on my car was so close on the left side that it was rubbing the frame, and had a gap on the right side so big I could drop a marble through it - I wouldn't just let the manufacturer off the hook and say "OK, close enough - I guess it's really not that important."

The Dailymail report had some defficiencies in it.

The other thing though is, maybe I am sensitive to a percieved bias in he media. When one reporter wrote a story about Rick Perry he described Perry as carrying "Deadly Hollow Point Bullets" in his handgun. It was skewed to make it look like Perry had made an especially vicious choice of ammo.

IMO - the Dailymail's inclusion of Doug Frieson's over-simplification of Oklahoma's Castle Doctrine makes it sound like you can gun down anyone you don't want in your home, and completely omits the aspect of unlawfull forceful entry. I think there are people out there who really take issue with the castle doctrine and not only do they portray it inaccurately, but they spin all sorts of fanciful yarns - like "teenage neighbor comes 'home' drunk and wasted, walks into the wrong house (front door was not locked), goes to the fridge makes himself a snack, is sitting at the kitchen table eating when the homeowner comes downstairs and shoots him 17 times."

I think the castle doctrine is a very very important legal doctrine. Also important are the provisions that dissallow the deceased criminal's familly from suing the victim who succesfully defended themselves. In the case of Sarah McKinley - she's now getting aid from people all over the country, she's making money doing appearances on shows - and all that money should be completely totally hers, not a penny should go to Martin's relatives.
 
pax, without meaning to start a religious debate or off-shoot, I'd substitute "my brother's keeper" for "sheepdog." If nothing else, it doesn't start cross-species anthropomorphism arguments.
 
C0untZer0 said:
I think the castle doctrine is a very very important legal doctrine. Also important are the provisions that dissallow the deceased criminal's familly from suing the victim who succesfully defended themselves.
Click to expand...
Since we've been mentioning accuracy in reporting, we should also strive for accuracy in our OWN reporting. The fact is the "castle doctrine" came to the United States from English common law and has been with us for a very long time. Virtually every state has had laws allowing people to use force and deadly force to defend themselves within their homes (the "castle") for many years.

But most of the older castle doctrine laws did not provide immunity from civil suit. Some of the recent revisions or first iterations of castle doctrine laws likewise do not provide immunity from civil suit. That some states are now adding that to their castle doctrine laws is a good thing -- but it is not central to the concept of a castle doctrine law.

Also, states are beginning to add laws allowing people to defend themselves against assaults outside of the home without having to first attempt to escape. These laws are often lumped in with castle doctrine, but IMHO that's just adding to the confusion. These are NOT castle doctrine laws, because (a) they don't involve the castle, and (b) they don't establish a presumption that the assailant/invader is legally presumed to have mal intent simply by virtue of standing there. It's easy if he broke down your front door to get in. If you're both standing on the sidewalk at 4th and Elm Street -- what factors could support a presumption of mal intent? None -- on the street, you are allowed to defend yourself if and when you are assaulted. IMHO these laws should be described and discussed as what they are -- which is "no duty to retreat" laws, not castle doctrine laws.
 
But I disagree. We use cultural shortcuts to transmit that 1,000-word descriptor in a picture.
Click to expand...

No, I think we use pictures for that.

I know this is a diversion off topic, but permit me ... look at usage in speech right here. Made-up short cuts: LGS, HD/SD, SS, EBR, MBR, and on.

So, now I will issue an infraction to myself for thread veer.
 
Also, states are beginning to add laws allowing people to defend themselves against assaults outside of the home without having to first attempt to escape. These laws are often lumped in with castle doctrine, but IMHO that's just adding to the confusion. These are NOT castle doctrine laws, because (a) they don't involve the castle, and (b) they don't establish a presumption that the assailant/invader is legally presumed to have mal intent simply by virtue of standing there. It's easy if he broke down your front door to get in. If you're both standing on the sidewalk at 4th and Elm Street -- what factors could support a presumption of mal intent? None -- on the street, you are allowed to defend yourself if and when you are assaulted. IMHO these laws should be described and discussed as what they are -- which is "no duty to retreat" laws, not castle doctrine laws.
Click to expand...

Funny, I just had this same discussion with my girlfriend the other day. She asked what the difference was if someone came at her with a knife in the house or on the street. Printed out a copy of CT statutes and we started to go over them last night.
 
Funny, I just had this same discussion with my girlfriend the other day. She asked what the difference was if someone came at her with a knife in the house or on the street. Printed out a copy of CT statutes and we started to go over them last night.
Click to expand...
I've had a CT permit for many years -- I grew up in CT and my brother still lives there. A few years ago I got a compilation of "gun" laws from the CT State Police. I'm told that they no longer update this annually because the state is too broke to pay for printing it, so I may have one of the last copies around. I think it's dated 2005 and I don't believe that there was a "no duty to retreat" law in CT then. Have they enacted one since?
 
In the case of "Castle Doctrine", no. No duty to retreat. But I believe in public, there is a semblance of one. I'll try to find it and post.
 
Found this:

Sec. 53a-19. Use of physical force in defense of person. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor, or if he or she is a peace officer, a special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, or a motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, or a private person assisting such peace officer, special policeman or motor vehicle inspector at his or her direction, and acting pursuant to section 53a-22, or (2) by surrendering possession of property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto, or (3) by complying with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform.
Click to expand...

As close as it comes.
 
I agree but that's not what Frieson said. He mischaracterized it. Nothing about invasion, nothing about force. He said "The simple fact that you’re unauthorised in the home is enough that allows the homeowner to use deadly force." That's not what the law says.
Click to expand...

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons
Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971
Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder

E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
 
Last edited:
icedog88 said:
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor,
Click to expand...
Thanks. That would appear to be the closest CT has to a castle doctrine law. It's interesting in that it DOES extend the castle doctrine to the workplace (something I don't think I've encountered previously), but on the flip side it also imposes a duty to retreat if NOT in the home or workplace.

IANAL but to me the wording leaves a big grey area: What if I am visiting a friend and a home invasion takes place where I am armed but my host is not? The law specifically says I must attempt to retreat ("with complete safety") unless I am in MY dwelling or place of work.

Badly-written law. There's probably some common law precedent based on actual prosecutions, but I wouldn't know how to research that even if I had access to the resources -- which I don't.
 
There is a castle doctrine here. Pieces of laws scattered over the entire breadth of CT Statutes. Hard to get them all pertaining to guns, self defense and such. But I believe there is also a provision for the example you cite. Have to go find that one too, but it reads something like 'legal right to occupy' IIRC. I can get you the site, but my computer is being occupied by the girls for homework right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top