The Castle Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheKlawMan I also read your response in the shotgun forum and followed to continue this discussion. I applaud you for creating a new thread. Now back to the discussion at hand:

You initially took the original thread OT by your assertion that two shots on an aggressor with a shotgun could be argued as an excessive or uneccessary use of force. I get annoyed when I see these arguments brought up without supporting facts to justify them. That argument can be used to justify almost any harebrained position. For example:

-The use of a .45 could be seen as excessive force
-The taking of multiple shots when using a .22 could be seen as an intent to kill
-The act of shooting in an of itself could be seen as excessive force

If a person still presents a threat, you deal with that issue first, using the force neccessary. The subsequent crime scene and forensic examination along with the statements of those present will be used to "tell the story" of what took place.

I really wish that people wouldn't be so quick to assume the mantle of expert or being more knowledgeable by using the "could" argument.

Part II- Yes, those who live in states with the Castle Doctrine need to understand that it only covers the lawful and reasonably neccessary use of force (all force, not just deadly force).
 
Castle Doctrine or not?... Type of weapon used in a SD situation?... doesn't matter.

A perp breaks into your house, house is dimly lit but you've I.D.'d person as a BG. You have no gun but you use a baseball bat on him(or just your fists), beating him till the imminent threat is gone.
COULD there be a potential 'excessive force' claim brought against you.
You bet.

Same as if you're on the street in a SD situation.

You can bet that somewhere in the court proceedings the question will come up, " Why did you feel the need to hit perp 20 times when he went down after the first 2 hits in which he was probably unconscious?... probably being the key word.

You can also bet that if you have shoot someone one time, you'll answer the question as to why you had to.

I'm not an attorney, but as I read through the CD and SD laws as a whole, I don't see anywhere in them condoning shooting one time or ten, using a ball bat or bazooka. What I do see is that we have the right to defend ourselves with whatever means necessary till there is no longer an imminent threat.

There have been cases where people have been shot with a shotguns as well as handguns which have continue'd to fight. Too, people that have died from one shot with both. Or, in the baseball bat scenario above, people have died from one hit to the head and lived with many.

Through this 'continued' thread there have been many scenario's(including mine) and some strong/heated opine's that have been tossed about, but, if (God forbid) a perp breaks into my house in the middle of the night and I have to go on the defensive with a weapon, it will be at a rate that I see fit till I feel the imminent threat is gone.
A single shot, DT, or multiple shots...each one of you will more than likely do the same.
 
I think there has been a pretty good accross the board exchange of thughts now.

I will try to clarify some confusion as to what I am saying and/or may have arisen.

The Castle Doctrine is nothing new in law having developed as part of English Common Law. California not only follows it, but IIRAC was the first state to codify th doctine in its Penal Code. Florida has drawn a lot of praise and criticism for its "Home Protection" statute and other "Justifiable Use of Force" statutes which arguable go further than the laws of other states.

This discussion was generated by the suggestion that the use of the double tap or controlled pair of shots in a home defense scenario was justifiable. My point was that depending on the facts that second shot may subject the homeowner to criminal prosectution and civil liability. Even if you succesfully defend each you may find yourself bankrupt.

Back to the Florida law. While I do not know enough about its laws or these particular ones, those of you who believe it is very broad may be correct. some things I have come across indicate its interpretaitions by the Florida Supreme Court effectually render it a grant of immunity in a home intrusion situation.

Some experts are concerned that the immunity converred by Florida not only extends to the bad guy, but to criminal or civil action for the injury and killing of innocent bystanders as long as it is due to force being used to defend against ann intruder. I do not know if it goes that far. It may read like it does but ambuguous laws are usually interpreted so as to fulfill the intent of the law makers and I would hope that the record supuports that the intent of the law was to immunize the shooter as for shooting the intruder.

My personal feeling is if I or my family are in danger I will protect them but I will use reasonable force even if I err on the side of protection. I will do so even if in my state, California, I may have to deal with criminal and civil matters. I will not go so far as to advocate a double tap.

As for Florida, I don't have to deal with its laws, but if I was a Floridian I would be wondering what kind of nuts are running the state.

And yest Blanco, while I have focusedd on the codification of the Castle Doctrine much of what I have said applies to the defense of persons outside the home, in vehicles, public places, and to some extent the defense of property.
 
I bet there ain't 2 dozen INNOCENT homeowners in florida prisons due to mis-use of force under a delusion of immunity from prosecution...

Brent
Click to expand...

You are probably correct. Florida's justifqble homicide statutes pretty much is a free pass to play judge and executioner. Myself, I don't consider a homeowner innocent when they execute someone away that that is anything but a threat. They may be NOT GUILTY by reason of Florida law, but that homeowner is far from INNOCENT.
 
My point was that depending on the facts that second shot may subject the homeowner to criminal prosecution and civil liability
Click to expand...

How so? If the state has codified the Castle Doctrine, how could they be subjected to criminal prosecution? If multiple police shoot a suspect upwards of 40 times, how then would a person be prosecuted for protecting their safety in a manner consistent with the law?
 
TheKlawMan said:
Please explain how this is not so. Force was definiteley being used against a person who had or was unlawfully and forcibly entering John's home.
Click to expand...
I never said it was not so. It is so ... that is what the law says. It was YOU who initially proposed this as if it was a radical concept that only a few people in Florida believe to be the case.

Personally, I think this is the way the law should be. If a criminal sets out to rob a bank and anyone is killed as a result -- a bank teller, and innocent bystander, even the robber's partner -- it is legally construed that it is the robber who is guilty of murder even if it was not he that was the immediate cause of death. Why? Because, absent his commission of a felony, the victim would not have been killed.

How is this different from your example? The guy who broke into the house committed a criminal act -- breaking and entering. The guy IN the house has a right to defend his castle. The law does not require him (nor, IMHO, should it require him) to be an expert marksman in order to be allowed to defend his castle. The responsibility and the liability should not lie with the guy defending the castle, but with the guy invading the castle.
 
Blanca,

The guy who broke into the house committed a criminal act -- breaking and entering. The guy IN the house has a right to defend his castle. The law does not require him (nor, IMHO, should it require him) to be an expert marksman in order to be allowed to defend his castle. The responsibility and the liability should not lie with the guy defending the castle, but with the guy invading the castle.
Click to expand...

Let's just say that we agree that a person has a right to defend themselves and their loved ones, but we do not agree that a homeowner should have be permitted to execute an intruder. I also noticed that not one person had a word to say regarding immunity where the homeowner greviously injures and perhaps maimes or kills a perfectly innocent bystander.

Under your theory a homeoner should be immune from liability, criminal or civil, for shooting a drunk who foolishly confused the homeowner's home with the inebriates, even if the homeoner shoots them as they lay peacefully passed out, for all purposes dead to the world, and totally helpless.

Do you honestly think that the ioccupant of a dwellilng should have the right to take the drunks life? Assume that the premises are well lit, the homeowner knew that the intgruder was passed out, and the homeowner recognized the intruder as his friend and neighbor, Charlie, who in the past has made the same mistake and passed out on the homeowner's couch thinking it was Charlie's. Add to the hypo the fact that the homeowner and the other three occupants of his house are expert sniper instructors assigned to a local Navy base and each one is awake and armed with conventional small firearms plus cans of mace.
 
Aguila Blanca,

I want to make sure I understand you and that you believe that a homeowner should bear no criminal of civil liability for the shooting an innocent bystander, including their death, regardless of how reckless the homeowner may be and whether or not their resort to deadly force was in fact and indisputably unreasonable and you so believe BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT FLORIDA LAW SAYS. I know of no test case, but it is far from clear that is what Florida law says. A slug or shot striking an innocent is not clearly force used against the intruder abd that ambiguity should open the statute to interpretation to give effect to the meaning of the Florida lawmakers.
 
Last edited:
TheKlawMan said:
Do you honestly think that the ioccupant of a dwellilng should have the right to take the drunks life?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. How could any sane person argue otherwise?

If I am the occupant of a home, and someone breaks into my home, busting the lock or kicking in the door, I don't know what his intentions are but I think it is logical, reasonable, prudent, and SMART to assume that he probably means to harm to me and/or my family. Since I have a gun for self-defense, it would thus be logical, reasonable, prudent, and SMART to use the gun to defend myself.

If people don't wish to be shot by home owners, people shouldn't break into other people's homes. I don't have drunk neighbors named Charlie who break into houses to pass out on other people's sofas. You are, of course, entitled to have whomever you wish as your friend.

TheKlawMan said:
I want to make sure I understand you and that you believe that a homeowner should bear no criminal of civil liability for the shooting an innocent bystander, including their death, regardless of how reckless the homeowner may be and whether or not their resort to deadly force was in fact and indisputably unreasonable and you so believe BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT FLORIDA LAW SAYS.
Click to expand...
Why do you care what I believe?

I do believe that a person who is lawfully defending himself or herself should NOT be criminally or civilly liable if someone is injured or even killed in the process. If I am the victim (meaning the person being attacked and forced to defend myself) I didn't ask to be assaulted, so if something happens to a bystander why should I be liable? Why shouldn't the assailant, the person who set the events in motion, be responsible and liable?

And I don't believe that because Florida law says that. I believe that because it's the only way that makes any sense.
 
Last edited:
Look, friend. I don't have a drunk Charlie for a neighbor and who said anything in the hypothetical about him being the homeowner's friend. It seems you want to make this personal.

I believe you said something to the effect that a homeowner shouldn't have to have some expertise to use deadly force in defense of their home. I disagree. If you are going to get a gun you should learn to use it and to use it with care for innocent bystanders.

That you feel shooting a passed out drunk is justified by the fact that he broke in to your house says much.

Why do you care what I believe?
Click to expand...
If there are only a few that think like you, I guess I don't care. Unfortunately, there may be many and that is scary.

I should add that the criminal is generally liable for injury to a third person, but that should't excuse the homeowner if they recklessly injure the innocent bystander. Both should be held liable, but any liability of the homeowner should be usually be junior to that of the bad guy. In the case where the neighbor was totally harmless I would make an exception if the recklessness amounts to wanton and willful misconduct.
 
Last edited:
If people don't wish to be shot by home owners, people shouldn't break into other people's homes.
Click to expand...

This seems pretty reasonable to me.

And drunk is no excuse. I'll admit to being drunk in the past but I have always maintained a modicum of reason even in my "fuzziest" hours. Being drunk is no excuse for drunk driving per law, it should not be an excuse for B&E. Drunkenness has never been a legitimate excuse for ANY criminal action. Driving, rape, murder, etc.

Look, friend.
Click to expand...

If you are someones friend, you generally don't need to tell them you are their friend. I'm not sure you are Aguila's friend...
 
No, he doesn't act like AB's friend.

He acts like a frustrated tort attorney, who wants to be able to go after homeowners more easily.

And he puts words in people's mouths. AB said nothing about executing a passed out drunk. AB said a drunk, breaking into his home, and appearing to be a threat, would not get special treatment for being drunk.

Nowhere did I read AB say he would shoot the drunk if AB did not feel threatened; nowhere did I read AB say he would shoot a passed out person.

As far as hypotheticals go, I would feel badly for an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire, but I think the criminal liability and civil liability should attach entirely to the intruder, unless it could be proven that the homeowner had behaved in a reckless manner. Please note that shooting under justified circumstances, but missing the target, does not in my view constitute recklessness so long as the homeowner is under threat.

Have that homeowner keep shooting at a fleeing BG and hit a bystander, and things change.
 
TheKlawMan said:
I believe you said something to the effect that a homeowner shouldn't have to have some expertise to use deadly force in defense of their home. I disagree. If you are going to get a gun you should learn to use it and to use it with care for innocent bystanders.

That you feel shooting a passed out drunk is justified by the fact that he broke in to your house says much.
Click to expand...
First, Sir, I am not your friend, so kindly do not use that term in a derogatory fashion. I don't know you and you don't know me. We are two strangers engaging in a long-distance discourse.

And you seem to keep changing the parameters of that discourse. First we were discussing Florida's "stand your ground" law. Then it somehow morphed to a homeowner defending his house against someone breaking in. And now you have again changed the parameters, so that good ole drunken Charlie is NOT breaking in -- now you have me discovering him already asleep on MY sofa and murdering him as he sleeps.

Believe me -- if Charlie or anyone else is breaking into my house, he is NOT going to sleep on my sofa. Since we don't know each other, we obviously do not know one another's religion. I'll just say for the moment that I am a Christian, and not a Roman Catholic. But I am willing to concede that Roman Catholic theologians have devoted a considerable amount of study to the purpose of trying to determine what's right and moral. If you are willing to agree to that, perhaps you'd be interested to read what the Roman Catholic catechism has to say on the subject:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."[65]

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.[65]

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]
Click to expand...
YOU began this discussion by asking if others agree that it's "right" for Florida law to absolve a person who defends himself or herself from liability if an innocent third party is killed by accident. I have stated that I think this position is reasonable and logical. I also think it is moral. You are free to disagree.

But kindly don't then shift from there to having me murdering sleeping drunks. It's a common trick of politicians when they're losing the argument to shift the parameters. I think the other participants in this thread can see your tactics for what they are. If you choose NOT to defend your home against someone who is breaking in through the front door, that's perfectly fine with me. Kindly respect my right to engage in lawful self-defense, and stop changing the ground rules to fit your perceptions of what's right or wrong. If you didn't want to hear the answer, why did you ask the question?
 
Last edited:
The one good thing to be gleaned from this discourse is that I am not AB's friend and have no desire to befriend the likes that would execute a helpless person. Don't give me this nonsense that AB didn't mean that he would shoot the guy who was passed out on his couch. I made those facts quite clear in the hypthetical and if that isn't what he meant he should say so for himself. As for the fool that thinks I want to make it easier to sue homeowners, how does that work when the law I am complaining of is Florida's and I am in California? As for the stand your ground law, AB is the one that is changing the parmeters I made it abundantly clear that I was taliking about Castle Doctrine law and I even cited Florida's statute as well as Califonia's in post #1. The Floridian statute entitled "Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm".

Regardless, I see that AB has stooped to dragging religion into a discussion of legal rights. Open your eyes, AB. Everything you highlighed concerns taking the life of the agressor; NOT THE INNOCENT BYSTANDER.

As for having amplified the facts of the hypothetical, I just wanted to make sure that you thought that you had a right to execute an intruder even though they no longer posed any kind of a threat.

I also see that he is treating the reckless killing of a bystander as an accident. Depending on the degree of recklessness, for instnace if the defendant acts with a complete and utter disregard for human life, such a shooting is generally not treated as an acdident but intentional homcide.

Anyway, I see no purpose in futher spending time on this thread.
 
Last edited:
As far as hypotheticals go, I would feel badly for an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire, but I think the criminal liability and civil liability should attach entirely to the intruder, unless it could be proven that the homeowner had behaved in a reckless manner.
Click to expand...

MLeake, The bolded point is exactly what I have been talking about. As enacted, the Florida statute confirms immunity on a homeowner who's home is unlawfully and forcibly entered and some are concerned that such immunity extends to the shooting of an innocent bystander by a reckless homeowner. Personally, I am not convinced that Florida law will be construed as such.

By the way, wouldn't you say it was reckless to discharge a firerm in a densely populated area where there was no need, such as when the bad guy is incapacitated, whether they are passed out drunk or had been incapacitated by a previous shot to center mass?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top