The Castle Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Outcast, given your response, I hope that the LE agencies in Castle Doctrine states will choose very carefully when and how to use their "no knock" warrants, so as to avoid fatal mistakes.

I am not a big fan of the "no knock" warrant use, but i do realize that there are some situations that cannot be handled with a polite knock on the door and an offer of some girl scout cookies. In this local town i referred to, i would bet they will do a bit more checking before executing another "no knock" type warrant.

I do wish to restate that, from what i have read and heard, the old people accidentally raided were satisfied in the end, because the suspected meth dealers cleared out. The only group that missed out was the prosecutor; he didn't get to jail the dealers. The police still got to clean up a bad spot, and the neighbors ended up without the annoying methy neighbors.
 
I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but I did notice that more Republicans than Democrats are against Gun Control. I find it odd that the Democrats have a majority in the House and the Senate, and yet they haven't tried to change the Castle Doctorine.

I personally love the part of the Florida Castle Doctorine that says that if someone comes forcefully into my home, I can legally meet force with force, and that persons family is not allowed to file a civil suite against me for the person getting hurt. I think that this will encourage even more people to use their Second Ammendment right.

On a side note, I do think that the CCW permit is against my constitutional rights, because it does not say in the Constitution that the government has the right to regulate gun ownership.
 
I find it odd that the Democrats have a majority in the House and the Senate, and yet they haven't tried to change the Castle Doctorine.
Click to expand...

The "Castle Laws" are enacted at the State level. Usually in State politics there is a bit more of the general populations view represented than on the federal level.

The feds may try and attack firearms in general, but have little stomach for trying to attack these kinds of laws.

Outcast, given your response, I hope that the LE agencies in Castle Doctrine states will choose very carefully when and how to use their "no knock" warrants, so as to avoid fatal mistakes.
Click to expand...

Thankfully there have been no further incidents that turned out this badly however, now instead of an SRT team
making entry, they simply roll in their new APC, knock down a wall, and arrest whomever runs out.
 
I think the Castle laws are important and I am certainly glad my state has them. But the point I was trying to make with my attached news article (previous post) is that no matter if you have a Castle law, the important issue is just to follow common sense for SD situations. If you are acting in self defense and can show you had reasonable fear of bodily harm then you will probably not be found in the wrong.

Having said that, one of the best things about the Castle law is protection against civil law suits.
 
Last edited:
Odd part is that before the Castle Doc. somebody forcing their way into

your home could be met with deadly force....

I think the CD just cleared it up a little and expanded where the burden of retreat is no longer on you.

Not sure about Florida, but here in S.C. the CD also protects you from future civil suits if your use of deadly force is covered under it.
 
castle doc

Mass has had a castle doc. and it states you may use all force nessesary to eject an unwanted person even deadly force.it was in result from a woman that killed her boy friend who lived in the house.he beat her and her children.she retreated to the celler and had a shot gun blew him when he cam down stairs.they found her guilty because she should have left.but the judge paroled her to her children[very young]"because the bastered deserved it"
the nex case after the bill was past the guy shot and killed a person he brought home who was trying to rape him.3 357s stoped that he was found guilty but on appeal the prosecutor dropped the case.
so it works.:rolleyes::eek:
Click to expand...
 
Mass has had a castle doc. and it states you may use all force nessesary to eject an unwanted person even deadly force
Click to expand...

Um, no it does not. The MA Castle law requires (like most other states) that there be a reasonable threat of grave injury or death before you may resort to lethal force. Merely because someone is "unwanted" does not justify the use of deadly force.

You might wish to review the laws for yourself, punctuation is provided free of charge.
 
I expect to get flamed for this, and possibly rightly so...

If it's just you and another person in your home and you ask them to leave and they won't... and when the police show up it's just you still standing, who's to say what the other person's intent was or what they said before they 'expired.'

I know... but I've heard the quote many times and it is always referenced to LEO's... "A dead man makes a really bad witnesses."

My father's navigational / boating rule:

"The boat that is left was right."
 
Re: Castle Doctrine

I submit to the policy that self defense is a God given right, and that laws against it is morally, and naturally wrong. Also self defense is a part of the natural will to survive, which is inherent in ALL species. Most people will instinctively do whatever is required to survive, and for laws to be passed to penalize people for defending themselves is against all nature intended for us.
 
I want to know what everyone thinks about the Castle Doctorine that has been put into law in Florida
Click to expand...

It's just Florida catching up with the rest of the nation.

First, let's stop using the term "Castle Doctrine." The Florida legislature assigned a name to a bill which had a specific meaning under English Common Law and really got things scrambled up.

Castle Doctrine was an exception to the Common Law duty to retreat before deadly force could be used as a "man's home was his castle" and there was no duty to retreat.

In the United States the duty to retreat has long been the minority position of the states. Many states with fewer electoral votes eliminated the duty to retreat via legislature or judicial decision (e.g. Indiana elminated the duty to retreat with a Supreme Court decision in 1865).

In 2005 Florida, with its many electoral votes, became a majority state by reforming its duty to retreat. As it is a politically important state the media picked up on the bill and suddenly Florida became the first state in the Union to eliminate the duty to retreat.

The Florida reform does several things:

1. Assumes a presumption that someone who forces their way into your home or vehicle is up to no good. Note, your home in Florida is NOT a free fire zone. You CANNOT "automatically" shoot anyone inside your home (UPS man, Girl Scouts, inter alia).

Forcible entry is nuanced and you should seek the advice of a Florida attorney to understand when these thresholds are met.

2. Florida eliminated the duty to retreat joining a majority of the states. However, Florida was a larger state so the media noticed and suddenly, especially on the net, Florida became the first state in the Union.

3. It recodified civil immunity.

The problem is that "castle doctrine" has been transmuted into some sort of aegis that surrounds individuals and gun owners think that now there can be no Problem #2 as long as they squawk the magic words "castle doctrine" the police will let them go.
 
If it's just you and another person in your home and you ask them to leave and they won't... and when the police show up it's just you still standing, who's to say what the other person's intent was or what they said before they 'expired.'

I know... but I've heard the quote many times and it is always referenced to LEO's... "A dead man makes a really bad witnesses."
Click to expand...

Actually, a live guy is a really bad witness too usually - which is why police tend to trust forensic evidence over eyewitness accounts, particularly if those accounts conflict with the forensic evidence.

As far as Castle Doctrine goes... most states already had decent laws in that regard, and the ones that didn't are unlikely to improve them. Most of the recent Castle Doctrine laws just give the homeowner a little more benefit of a doubt, and more importantly, protection from civil suit.

Prior to this, you would occasionally see "revenge suits." For example, there was a case in New York, an intruder broke into the home of a police officer. After the police officer woke up and ordered him to stop at gunpoint, the intruder attacked him with a vacuum cleaner that was nearby and was shot and killed. The intruder's family sued the police officer in civil court for defending his own home with "excessive force" and fought all the way to the appeals court.
 
"A dead man makes a really bad witnesses."
Click to expand...

Except for forensic evidence....

And just why is it that so many people expect the person to die? Too much television, perhaps? I've read that 80 to 90% of persons shot with handguns survive, and certainly a large number survive long enough to give their sides of the story.

A police officer in Phoenix put six bullets into a homeowner recently. The guy is suing the city.

A couple of officers opened up on a crook with a gun in our metropolitan area some time back (SD), and the perp lived long enough to incriminate others--and to complain about excessive force! The officers used .40 caliber semi-autos with JHP ammo and fired until the guy went down.
 
I expect to get flamed for this, and possibly rightly so...
If it's just you and another person in your home and you ask them to leave and they won't... and when the police show up it's just you still standing, who's to say what the other person's intent was or what they said before they 'expired.'

I know... but I've heard the quote many times and it is always referenced to LEO's... "A dead man makes a really bad witnesses."
Click to expand...


And as a young man, I remember our local Sheriff saying "If ya shoot em outside, just drag em inside"

And many years ago either of those scenarios likely would have ended with no charges being filed, today I believe that forensics, and good investigation are probably going to determine pretty quickly whether the use of force was legitimate. Dead Men can tell their stories.

And just why is it that so many people expect the person to die? Too much television, perhaps? I've read that 80 to 90% of persons shot with handguns survive, and certainly a large number survive long enough to give their sides of the story.
Click to expand...

Good point, and unless someone pumps a lot of lead into the other, (Jerome Ersland style) or delays calling for help,
chances are good that the guy is going to live long enough to tell his side.
 
Good point, and unless someone pumps a lot of lead into the other, (Jerome Ersland style) or delays calling for help,
chances are good that the guy is going to live long enough to tell his side.

Which begs the question....... Will you allow that possibility?

I'm not trying to hijack..... But in regards to castle doctrine is that a concern for any of us?

If I've put 5 rounds in a BG in my house and he had a gun and he's still breathing I'm not sure I could administer the 'coup de grace' even knowing the later issues.
 
Which begs the question....... Will you allow that possibility?
Click to expand...

I will shoot to stop the threat, If the BG is down, and not returning fire, some level of threat may still exist.

If I've put 5 rounds in a BG in my house and he had a gun and he's still breathing I'm not sure I could administer the 'coup de grace' even knowing the later issues.
Click to expand...

After I have fired, I intend to use cover and concealment to keep the situation under control, and myself as safe as possible, until LE arrives. If the BG decides to continue his attack, I will, again, shoot to stop the threat, if that happens to result in his demise, so be it.

As far as the 'coup de grace'? I won't do it unless I have no other better alternative.
 
And as a young man, I remember our local Sheriff saying "If ya shoot em outside, just drag em inside"
Click to expand...


Try this from The Cornered Cat:

No. No. No. Moving the body, or rearranging any other physical evidence about what happened, is called "tampering with a crime scene." And it is itself a very serious crime.

Tampering with evidence isn't just a criminal act. It is also an act which is very likely to be discovered. The science of forensics has advanced to the point where the investigators will definitely know that you have done something to the scene, and will probably know exactly what it was that you did. And the investigators will (very reasonably) assume that the reason you did it is because you outright murdered someone and were trying to hide evidence which shows that the shooting was a murder instead of an act of self-defense.

If you are ever involved in a shooting, it is vitally important that you do not lie to the police. Even one little lie, if caught, can destroy your credibility in court. Without that credibility, you will have a much harder time staying out of jail even if your actions were completely within the law.
Click to expand...

http://www.corneredcat.com/Legal/myths.aspx
 
I am with KSFreeman on this. The law as I read it wraps up a lot of different laws I learned about years ago.

I learned the Castle Doctrine came from common law that said a person's home was their castle and they need not retreat from it.

Outside the home a person had a duty to retreat even if threatened with deadly force if they could reasonably and safely do so.

Finally, there were so-called Good Samaritan Laws which protected folks from civil suit for trying to help others who were injured.

It looks to me like these laws got wrapped up into one package and now you do not have to retreat outside the home if you have a lawful right to be there and if you use deadly force legally you are protected from civil suit.

Does that sound right?

Finally, I would pity someone morally and legally who shot and killed someone for merely entering their house especially if it were a mistake or they asked their Mother-in-law to leave and she refused. I think the law might not protect you then but stranger things have happened.
 
Bad choice of words. If you do it in TN they will lock you up for murder. There is no such thing in SD as "finishing them off".
Click to expand...

I agree 100% As I said earlier;

After I have fired, I intend to use cover and concealment to keep the situation under control, and myself as safe as possible, until LE arrives. If the BG decides to continue his attack, I will, again, shoot to stop the threat, if that happens to result in his demise, so be it.
Click to expand...

I hope I never have to use a weapon defensively, and if I do, I hope It does not result in someones death. But with that in mind, I will fire if there is a clear and present danger.


To OldMarksman, That was my point exactly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top