The Castle Doctrine

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Joe Horn is a hero - pure and simple.

I've served with heroes in the military. Joe Horn is not in their universe. He is in no way whatsoever a hero. He was a guy who got mad and wanted to play cop and needlessly killed two men and now desperately regrets he did it. I think calling him a hero demands some relooking at one's values. Burglarly does not merit the death penalty.

So any right to intervene is not by any means absolute, and one would be well advised to be thoroughly familiar with the applicable law wherever he may be.

This is from a lawyer csmsss. I would listen to that advice. Joe Horn was lucky that a cop testified for him (that cop's presence further showing the stupidity of Horn firing) or Joe Horn would be in jail right now. Might want to remember that before you attempt a "citizens arrest".

 

[MLeake]

Tennessee Gentleman...

... burglary doesn't merit the death penalty, and I'm not surprised Horn is unhappy with the outcome and would do things differently next time.

However, burglary isn't what got those two the death penalty; their decision to close on Horn in a threatening manner is what did that. As you noted, the police officer confirmed Horn's description of events.

So, while I'm not happy they got shot, I also wouldn't have voted to indict nor convict Horn.

What almost got Horn in trouble with that whole scenario, though, was that he was defending his neighbor's property, not his own. As I understand it, that was the critical legal issue that would have come into play in Texas, if there hadn't been a witness to corroborate that the two burglars actually attempted to engage Horn.

If the burglarly had been on Horn's property to begin with, in Texas, I don't think indictment would have even been in question.

Again, not endorsing Horn's approach, for a number of reasons I don't have time to go into at the moment, but from a Texas legal scenario I think the only chink in his armor was the fact that the property he initially sought to defend wasn't his own.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

However, burglary isn't what got those two the death penalty;

No, it was Horn deciding to play cop and going out there to confront them when he didn't need to. Also, he shot those guys in the back and probably surprised them when he stepped outside. Maybe at that point he was justified in SD but what got him to the point that he needed to defend himself is the problem.

If the burglarly had been on Horn's property to begin with, in Texas, I don't think indictment would have even been in question.

And we wouldn't be talking about it. However, they were not burglarizing his property and they would have been caught by police responding to the scene.

Maybe in Texas Horn does not have a "legal" problem but in my mind AND his own mind he has a real moral problem that will hound him for a long time.

The real truth is that Horn got into that situation because he was mad that two guys were burgularizing a house next door and the police coming was not enough for him so he foolishly injected himself into the situation and killed two men who should be locked up now.

I agree with Mas Ayoob that the Joe Horn affair is not a good example for the rest of us to learn.

 

[Tom Servo]

I'd feel much worse about letting harm come to my dog, for instance, than I would feel about kicking the crap out of some stranger who tried to abuse her.

Yep. Fortunately, animal cruelty is a felony where I live, and though I wouldn't use deadly force, I'd certainly be...uncharitable with someone who harmed my dogs.

I think we can all agree (well, most of us) that Horn made a number of bad decisions. In another locale, he could have been charged with murder. Telling the dispatcher at length about how he wasn't going to let it pass? Legal suicide almost anywhere else.

What's more, Horn's actions weren't covered by Florida's notion of castle doctrine. There are many provisions in the various castle doctrine laws that recognize our rights to protect ourselves from harm, but nothing that allows us to play junior law-enforcement.

 

[OuTcAsT]

No, it was Horn deciding to play cop and going out there to confront them when he didn't need to.

Spot on !

Maybe in Texas Horn does not have a "legal" problem but in my mind AND his own mind he has a real moral problem that will hound him for a long time.

Again, we agree.

All this talk of vigilantism is absurd on its face. It's also a total non sequitur. As a citizen, we each have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to intervene if we observe a crime being committed, and to do everything possible to end it and ARREST the person(s) committing the crime(s) under the common law principle of citizen's arrest. The power of arrest is NOT the exclusive monopoly of law enforcement agencies, though it appears that several posters above are assiduously misleading others into thinking that is the case.

No, It is, in Fact, not the case in all but the most strict circumstances and, you would do well to heed this advice;

Originally Posted by fiddletown
So any right to intervene is not by any means absolute, and one would be well advised to be thoroughly familiar with the applicable law wherever he may be.

This is from a lawyer csmsss. I would listen to that advice. Joe Horn was lucky that a cop testified for him (that cop's presence further showing the stupidity of Horn firing) or Joe Horn would be in jai right nowl. Might want to remember that before you attempt a "citizens arrest".

 

[Al Norris]

So then, If I understand what some of you are saying, is that anything I do, other than dial 911 and wait inside my domicile for the police, is escalating (or aggravating?) the level of violence? I should never confront the BG about his unlawful actions?

There must no longer be any civic duties that the citizen is responsible for. No wonder they no longer teach civics in school anymore!

N.B. The above was entirely sarcastic in nature with a bit of well placed irony thrown in for good measure.

 

[Tom Servo]

So then, If I understand what some of you are saying, is that anything I do, other than dial 911 and wait inside my domicile for the police, is escalating (or aggravating?) the level of violence?

No, no, no...you're still getting it all wrong!

Even the act of calling 911 could lead to a confrontation between the perpetrators and the police, and someone could get hurt! Won't someone think of the children?

I do think there's a balance to be found here. Still, I'm the sort to err on the side of caution, if that is a viable alternative. I'm not going to sit inside and dial 911 if someone's lighting my house on fire.

Likewise, I have a right to verbally confront someone who's defiling my property. Yelling, "hey, stop!" is not escalation. Waving a gun and yelling, "hey, stop!" may be, depending on circumstances.

Every situation is unique, and it's unlikely any of us will be there to coach someone when they're in the soup.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There must no longer be any civic duties that the citizen is responsible for.

Calling 911 and giving police the description and movements of BGs breaking into your neighbor's house is fulfilling a civic duty. That is rather than just looking the other way and saying "None of my business".

Going out to try and "capture" two bad guys with a shotgun while the police are on the way (and in one case already there) might be an unnecessary escalation.

I like to holler, so why not holler at the guys that the cops are coming and you are armed. Most probably they will run away. Again situation dependent but the question is kind of like shooting in SD. Do you shoot to stop or shoot to kill?

Are we trying to stop the property crime or capture the bad guy? If the guy runs away is that enough civic duty or do we need to do the Dudley DoRight thing and subdue the BG at the risk of having to shoot him? Can we fulfill our civic duty to report and help stop property crime without shooting?

 

[OldMarksman]

Calling 911 and giving police the description and movements of BGs breaking into your neighbor's house is fulfilling a civic duty. That is rather than just looking the other way and saying "None of my business".

Yes indeed.

Going out to try and "capture" two bad guys with a shotgun while the police are on the way (and in one case already there) might be an unnecessary escalation.

Not to mention mighty unwise. I'm reminded of the Texas airline mechanic who went outside with his shotgun at night not too long ago to investigate a noise. He was jumped by two perps, shot and stabbed, and had to have his arm amputated.

I'm not trained as a law enforcement officer; I'm not indemnified; I am not sworn to uphold the law; and my authority to effect an arrest, subdue a perp, and display a weapon, among other things, are far more limited.

The arriving LEO can do all of those things and take the perps into custody even for probable cause for a crime not serious enough to make a citizen's arrest lawful. He has the training; the approved procedures; the indemnification; the authority; the tools, including less than lethal weapons, radio, etc., with which to do it; and he has the duty. He's also part of a larger force.

Will he "confront" a thief, and base his next actions on the thief's "subsequent actions"? Not where I live, unless the perp somehow presents a serious immediate danger. No, you'll see two of 'em show up, and they'll be in constant contact with others as they close in on the guy.

Might we learn something from that about what might be the wisest thing to do?

 

[Al Norris]

The thread has wandered from the original theme. Nonetheless, it is still related, as "Castle Doctrine" is intertwined with the "No Duty to Retreat" laws.

We seem to be focusing more on the latter than the former, so...

No, no, no...you're still getting it all wrong!

Not at all, Tom. First, didn't you notice the sarcasm tags? Secondly, since this was my first post in this thread, I hardly think I can "still" get anything, right or wrong.

But bare with me, a moment. I will explain more fully.

Calling 911 and giving police the description and movements of BGs breaking into your neighbor's house is fulfilling a civic duty.

A civic duty. Singular. There are others.

As you implied, it is the citizens duty to stop the crime. Whether or not the Bad Guy is arrested (captured?) is not the imperative, here.

We have some, here, who cry the meme, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away," in order to emphasize the point of owning defensive firearms.

We have others who have shown in scenario after scenario, that firearms are not the be-all and end-all of defensive posturing. This is a good reminder, as there are other tactics and tricks that should be in our bags of self-defense.

Combining the two are necessary for well rounded personal defense. That should be a given. But here, we began talking about what happens outside the domicile, and some of you would rather not take any risks. You espouse the idea of retreating to the supposed safety of your house and calling the police... Let them handle it. Afterall, isn't that what we pay them for?

In doing this, we have just shirked our duty and responsibility to our society. We have given the criminal all he needs to complete his current activity and empowered him to commit more crime. Afterall, we didn't do anything to curtail his activity, did we?

Oh.... we called the police. :barf:

Civic Duty requires that you take a risk and get involved. How you do that is up to you, but perhaps refreshing your history of the Father of Civic Responsibility might help: Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. I don't know what they teach today, but Cincinnatus was the role model my civics teacher used.

A modern example can be found in my posts, here (see posts #32 and #33 of that thread). So, I have drawn my line in the sand, and defended that line.

To the scumbags of the world, I say: You. Will. Not. Cross!

 

[Tom Servo]

First, didn't you notice the sarcasm tags? Secondly, since this was my first post in this thread, I hardly think I can "still" get anything, right or wrong.

Sorry, I was being snarky too. Should've probably used an emoticon. We're largely in agreement.

 

[OldMarksman]

But here, we began talking about what happens outside the domicile, and some of you would rather not take any risks. You espouse the idea of retreating to the supposed safety of your house and calling the police... Let them handle it.

Take any risks? We take risks whether we don't even call or whether shoot at them. It's a matter of likelihood and of the severity of potential consequences. I, for one, find the risks of severe injury, criminal charges, and civil suits totally unacceptable. I don't want to lose property, but that consequence is far more acceptable to me. I'll reluctantly accept that risk to mitigate the other, more serious ones.

Afterall, isn't that what we pay them [the police] for?

It's not that. We train, equip, authorize, and indemnify them. And they'll bring the necessary number of people.

In doing this, we have just shirked our duty and responsibility to our society. We have given the criminal all he needs to complete his current activity and empowered him to commit more crime. Afterall, we didn't do anything to curtail his activity, did we?

I'm not sure what you would recommend that I do. Unlike what happens on television, I cannot arrest them for simple theft, I cannot even point a gun at them (much less shoot them), and where I live I do have a duty to retreat. Probably would not go very well for me if I tried to play cop.

As far as physical risks go, those who have been involved in auto thefts and thefts from autos this summer in and around my neighborhood have ranged from youngsters in groups to adult, hardened criminals operating in threes and fours. Not for me to try to bluff alone.

No, it's not that I'm unwilling to take any risks, it's just that I will select which risks to willfully assume as wisely as possible.

As Tom Servo said, it's going to depend on the circumstances. If someone is trying to set either my house on fire or my neighbors' occupied house, I will not depend on first responders from 911. Nor will I likely confront anyone and see what he does next.

 

[RDak]

So then, If I understand what some of you are saying, is that anything I do, other than dial 911 and wait inside my domicile for the police, is escalating (or aggravating?) the level of violence? I should never confront the BG about his unlawful actions?

No, no Al, I'm not saying that.

I have confronted people like that with a long gun before but I didn't shoot. (I didn't have to, they ran away. But I didn't shoot.)

Where I live, I cannot shoot unless they threaten me or someone else with deadly, or severe, physical force.

That's all I was saying.

In every instance, the police never made mention of the long gun. No mention at all. I was surprised by their lack of interest in my gun but it was never mentioned. They just asked me for details as to what had happened at the neighbors' homes.

I told them I had the long gun and they never asked anything more about it other than one time asking if it was a rifle or shotgun. Nothing else was ever said about it.

But I didn't shoot. I just told the police they ran away after confronted.

ETA: One time I was with the neighbor and we both went out back to see what was going on. But the other time I was by myself and on the neighbor's property when I chased off the probable burglar.

The police NEVER made any negative mention of the long gun in either instance.

I posted this question at the MGO site and they advised me to not even do this any longer. I have decided to heed their advice because I don't want to get into trouble if the wrong policeman gets involved if you get what I mean.

Sorry to the guys at MGO, but if I see a neighbor in "deep, deep trouble", I'll still help with my firearm.

I don't know, maybe I'm just an old guy who grew up in a different time?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

but if I see a neighbor in "deep, deep trouble", I'll still help with my firearm.

Good on you then. But that is a bit different from shooting them over a bag of your neighbor's loot.

 

[OuTcAsT]

As you implied, it is the citizens duty to stop the crime.

OK, but what type of crime ?

You have used a particular word in several phrases:

We have some, here, who cry the meme, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away," in order to emphasize the point of owning defensive firearms.

We have others who have shown in scenario after scenario, that firearms are not the be-all and end-all of defensive posturing

This is a good reminder, as there are other tactics and tricks that should be in our bags of self-defense.

Combining the two are necessary for well rounded personal defense.

See the theme here? There is a difference between using a weapon defensively and, fighting crime offensively.

So again, I ask, What crime it is the citizens duty to stop, and to what end ?

Most of us own firearms to protect ourselves and, our families from BGs, or in other words as defensive tools.

Will I use it to stop myself, or my family from being killed ? absolutely!

If I am walking down the street and see a woman getting attacked/raped ? If necessary, absolutely!

If I see Al Norris being beaten or robbed to the point I fear he may be killed ? Absolutely!

If I happen to live next door to Al Norris and see someone carting away his flat screen TV ? Nope. Gonna call 911 and be observant, and a good witness.

I don't think (most) anyone here disputes that we have some obligation to help those in need, but not over property.

Unless I catch someone in the act of committing a crime that is going to cause great injury or death to me, or someone else, then my first responsibility is to myself, and my family, I will call 911, and be vigilant, but not a vigilante.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

OuTcAsT, I agree with you!

I really think the demarcation as it pertains to violent intervention as a civic duty lie between property crime and violent life-threatening crime. Killing over personal property seems to be a poor justification of lethal force morally and in many states legally. However, intervening to save another's life might pass muster. Doing absolutely nothing ('ala Kitty Genovese) in either case would constitute bad citizenship.

 

[MLeake]

A question for those who think killing over property is never justified...

From some of your posts, I gather some of those who argue that deadly force to protect property is never morally justified are former active duty military.

Did you ever get assigned sentry duty? If so, did you let your superiors know that you had moral qualms about shooting at somebody just because they intended to destroy government property?

If it's not morally wrong for government or military agencies to authorize the use of deadly force to protect non-human assets, then why is it morally wrong for private citizens to do so?

If it is always morally wrong to use force to protect non-human assets, how many of you have pointed this out to your representatives with regard to the conduct of DOD and Federal agencies?

 

[EK and KK in FM]

What IF...

Hypothetically.

What if EVERY citizen was mandated to CCW? (Except convicted felons. Note I said CITIZEN.)

Would there be MORE crime or LESS crime?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

From some of your posts, I gather some of those who argue that deadly force to protect property is never morally justified are former active duty military.

I have been retired a while now but IIRC most guard duty went the way of Kitchen Police and is now performed by contractors. Nevertheless, keep in mind what is being guarded with deadly force. Weapons(like crew served ones and rocket launchers), explosive ammunition, nukes, etc. Things that bad guys could use to kill lots of people. Not a couple of shotguns and some stereo equipment or the family silver. Not quite the same thing. Plus a lot of the so-called sentrys back in my day weren't even armed with live ammunition.

 

[MLeake]

Tennessee Gentleman...

... Try approaching any aircraft on the flight-line without authorization, no weapons necessary, and see how Air Force security responds. You'll be spread-eagled on your face, with a rifle at your back; the SP's will shoot if you don't comply with commands.

Actually, I've had a flight engineer end up spread-eagled on his face just for crossing the solid red line between our hangar and our own aircraft; for some obscure reason, the Air Force set up the red line so that the dashed, ok to cross area did not line up with the hangar doors.

Gate security is contracted these days. Flight-line security is not. Some other security functions are not.