The Castle Doctrine

[flcjinflorida]

I want to know what everyone thinks about the Castle Doctorine that has been put into law in Florida.

[MLeake]

... or countries, such as the UK...

... where a homeowner is expected to abandon his home if it's invaded, and allow a burglar or robber to take whatever he likes without interference.

Beats the heck out of the laws of some countries such as Kuwait and Italy, where you can only defend yourself against a pickpocket or thief using open-palm slaps, because a fist is considered an aggravated assault on your part.

This is one of those things that people don't seem to grasp: the reason so many of us worry about each restriction placed on our RTKBA, or to defend ourselves and our property, is that there are places in the world where all those "chicken little" predictions have already happened.

So I'm quite happy with Florida's Castle Doctrine, and would be quite happy to see more states adopt similar laws.

Cheers,

M

[flcjinflorida]

the castle doctorine states that if a person comes into my house, i dont have to give them a warning to leave, and I can use my weapon automatically without any recourse from the police, because that person was on my property.

[MLeake]

Do you need a law in place in order for you to follow common sense?

Do you want to criminalize a person who's awakened by the sounds of a break-in, for not doing everything perfectly?

If not, then the Castle Doctrine is fine. Laws should be written to be the least restrictive that they need to be, and not vague.

Common sense says we should identify targets, and make sure they aren't simply the drunk neighbor opening the wrong door. I don't need a law to tell me that.

Cheers,

M

[Mello2u]

If the Florida Castle Doctrice is what the quote below says it is, I like it.

The following is a quote from the link below:
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

[Kreyzhorse]

There are now several states with the Castle Doctrine including my home state of Kentucky.

The Castle Doctrine allows a person to defend himself in his home when his life is in danger. It is a good law and I doubt that many on here will disagree with it.

[hoytinak]

I really like ours here in Texas...hopefully I'll never have to use it.

[OuTcAsT]

the castle doctorine states that if a person comes into my house,

Actually it is a bit more complicated than that;

It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle

The forcible entry standard must be met for the protection of the statute to be realized.

I can use my weapon automatically without any recourse from the police, because that person was on my property.

Again, there is a stipulation that must be met;

who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle

Unless the statute includes your grounds/yard then it will be confined to your dwelling and vehicle. You should contact an attorney and have these details clarified so that you know exactly where the law applies. It is a small investment that may save you a lot of grief later.

The Castle laws here in TN are quite similar, and give the homeowner the advantage in a worst-case scenario.

[MLeake]

I had thought about making the same points earlier, but had to go meet somebody.

I lived in FL previously, and had read up on FL Castle Doctrine. The restrictions that OuTcAsT cites from TN are similar to some in the FL version.

Cheers,

M

[Dave P]

the castle doctorine states that if a person comes into my house, i dont have to give them a warning to leave, and I can use my weapon automatically without any recourse from the police, because that person was on my property.

Maybe you could give some useful examples. If the pushy salesman steps thru my front door am I OK to just blast away, then go back to World Strangest Threads TV show?

[MLeake]

... does sound an awful lot like an anti's deliberate misrepresentation of what a Castle Doctrine allows, doesn't it, Dave P?

[skydiver3346]

It is a doctrine that should probably be on the books in each and every state, (especially nowadays). I live in Florida, so its fine with me.

Bottom line: You can do anything you want as far as retreating or warning a home intruder (if you want to), however, here in Florida we aren't required to do so if someone forcibly enters your residence. Think about it...(in some instances, warning an intruder could prove to be very dangerous to the home owner.

[flcjinflorida]

Trust me on the fact that I think that anyone, besides a criminal, should be allowed to carry, and I add that I think the Concealed Permit is against my Constitutional Rights.

I know that I cannot just shoot someone for the fun of it if they come on my property. I know that the law is there so that if anyone comes into my house to rob me, or hurt me, I can lawfully use my weapon up to the point of deadly force, without being punished, as long as the circumstances were there.

I want to know if people think that this Doctorine is a good idea, or if they think it should be revised in certain ways.

[shooter01]

All things considered this has to be in principle, a good thing. Defence of one's property, within reasonable circumstances, is a basic right as far as I am concerned and is in keeping with the principles of natural justice, as it is sometimes called. HAving said that of course, the Law would hopefully require that any act considered as self defense or defence of property was done as a last and not first resort.

Although in this country firearm laws are extremely strict [but at least better than in UK or South Africa etc.] our firearms legislation not only recognizes the "castle doctrine" in principle, it even recognizes that, in extenuating circumstances, a law abiding firearm owner may also use his weapon in the defence of another's life and property, but must be able to prove or demonstrate that such cause was to his mind, justified.

It's pretty gratifying to me that here, the population as a whole and the Police Service, are overwhelmingly pro - self defence and there are very few anti-firearm advocates, and this in a so called developing nation. Maybe, given the manner that excess liberalism and political correctness has permeated so many nations, it can safely be said that in theory, a nation could well become too "civilized" for its own good!

[orangello]

I like what i know of the Castle Doctrine. I am not sure if it has been put on the books here or not, but that would not change my actions very much in the event of a home invasion or carjacking situation. I would still yell at the person before shooting them, Castle or no. I do like the protection from civil liability bit.

I do have one concern: a few weeks ago in the town nearest my home, the local police executed a "no-knock" warrant on the wrong house, a house with some elderly people in it. The police have apologized profusely & sincerely (i believe), and even returned to repair a damaged door. The residents were not overly upset after their initial shock, because they wanted the suspected meth dealers next door OUT, and the raid scared the suspected dealers into vacating the neighborhood by all accounts. Overall, no great harm, nobody got hurt, so no huge problem for anybody involved.

However, i wonder if the home that was raided had been in a confirmed Castle Doctrine jurisdiction (may be, not sure about MS), could the owner have opened fire on the policemen before they established their ID/office and been protected by the Castle Doctrine as being in fear of physical harm? If so, would the resulting shooting of the home owner be a wrongful death or a murder/manslaughter?

I should say that i've never had a "no knock" warrant executed on a home i was occupying, so i do not know how quickly/clearly the officers identify themselves. This question came more to mind after hearing a report of a home invasion-style robbery in which the robbers dressed in tactical gear similar to that used by some police forces for some operations.

It would certainly suck to shoot an officer who had the wrong house number, but i'm thinking it would not suck as much as being shot by a home-invading, tacticooled-up robber.

[OuTcAsT]

However, i wonder if the home that was raided had been in a confirmed Castle Doctrine jurisdiction (may be, not sure about MS), could the owner have opened fire on the policemen before they established their ID/office and been protected by the Castle Doctrine

In most jurisdictions you would not be protected from firing at LE, While they may not announce who they are until it is too late, you can be certain that the "official" report will show that they were clearly identified.

If so, would the resulting shooting of the home owner be a wrongful death or a murder/manslaughter?

Morally, yes, it is a murder pure and simple, however when this very scenario happened here in my town (in a castle doctrine, no-retreat state) The homeowner (an older gentleman) was shot, and killed, before he could fire at the officers who had kicked in the door at the wrong house.

An officer and his commander were fired, and a small civil settlement resulted, but the murderers had no criminal charges brought against them. It was ruled a "Tragic Accident "

Some are more equal than others, that is the tragedy.

It would certainly suck to shoot an officer who had the wrong house number, but i'm thinking it would not suck as much as being shot by a home-invading, tacticooled-up robber.

It would, I am certain, "suck" just as much to be shot by a home-invading LEO who cannot read an address correctly, IMHO. Just because a projectile was paid for by tax dollars does not make it any less lethal.

This is one area of the law that should cut both ways.

[raimius]

Frankly, there is the possibility of wierd things happening (Joe Horn case anyone?). However, I like the idea of giving the surprised homeowner the benefit of the doubt. You should not need to prove that the guy hiding in the shadows with something in his hand had a deadly weapon, after he broke into your house at 3AM.

[madmag]

This just happened in my area.

Here is an incident of a home owner shooting and killing a suspect outside of this home after a forced break-in. You will see from the story that the the older gentleman actually followed the BG out into the street after they (BG's) forced entry and then later fled from his home. I found this very interesting because NC does not have the Castle Doctrine. I live just across the border in SC, and we do have the Castle Doctrine. They did rule the shooting as justified. But I do think the older gentleman stretched the limit of home defense. Glad it turned out OK for him.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/top...ry/956958.html

The death highlighted issues around the rights of homeowners to protect themselves and the limits of those rights outside the home.

When a homeowner shoots an intruder, N.C. law allows prosecutors to rule it justified. But McClure drove after the robbers, plunging the case into a gray area, legal experts told the Observer

[hogdogs]

If the pushy salesman steps thru my front door

Past me or the Mrs.? Sumbuck is gonna be real lucky I am armed with only a couple hamhocks permanently attached to the ends of my arms... He is getting cold cocked and I will put the boots to him when he hits the floor.
NO ONE!!!! Repeat.... NO ONE pushes into my home with out retribution... If they are anything more than a pushy salesman... I will elevate the response accordingly!
Brent

[Dwight55]

When we look at laws, . . . we have to understand that they are "man made" and as such, . . . like their maker, . . . are prone to faults and un-intended consequences.

The castle doctrine, I believe is good.

Like any other law, . . . their could be a wierd exception, . . . but the exception should go back to personal responsibility. A drunk or pushy salesman who kicked, pushed, broke into my house against my wishes, . . . probably won't have a good day that day, . . . but he will be the one who initiated entry into my home/vehicle against my wishes and voiced demands. I think the saying goes something like "as ye sow, . . . so shall ye reap". Personal responsibility !

May God bless,
Dwight

[orangello]

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.

[flcjinflorida]

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.

[OuTcAsT]

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.

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.

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.

[madmag]

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.

[blume357]

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.