Castle Doctrine

What are people's opinion on this? The recent Florida case has caused some people to question the validity of the law. In essence, it gives individuals the right within their home, car, or personal space to hold their ground and defend themselves from attack. The doctrine manifests itself differently in various States but at its foundation is intended to allow homeowners to use deadly force (with justification) to defend their property. In some States an individual is expected to try and flee their own property if they come under assault, and can only use deadly force if they can prove they had no escape. A recent case in Massachusetts resulted in a man being arrested after he approached a criminal attempting to break into his car in his driveway and a fight broke out. The Police Chief there said that he should have run away and called the Police, rather than attempt to protect his property. In these States defending your property or your physical well-being can sometimes come with a heavy cost, depending on the political statement a given DA wants to make.

What are people's thoughts on this law? Should you be expected to run away when someone else provokes a physical confrontation? If a criminal breaks into your house should you have to run away in order to reduce the chance of violent confrontation?

I don't want to get into the Florida case and would prefer to stay away from the gun debate.

 

Clearly, you should be able to defend yourself from someone seeking to do you harm. If that means you shoot them, then so be it. This would not apply if you initiated the contact and THEY were the ones actually doing the defending.

If someone is on your property (more to the point in your house) you really have no idea if they are just a garden variety, but otherwise harmless, thief or someone out to do real harm. So fire away.

Someone breaking into your car at the grocery store? I'd say shooting them is going a bit too far.

 

No law is perfect. Humans see to that.

I see the Castle Doctrine as a necessity.

I support it 100%.

 

I like the castle doctrine, it should be well publicized on billboards everywhere. It should warn criminals that if they don't want to get shot then leave people's property alone no matter what it is.

Plain and simple, and if idiots are still getting shot for trying to victimize someone or their property then that's their own (*)(*)(*)(*)ed fault.

In my view the more criminals dead the better.

 

On your own property- I have no issue with it.

However, the law has to be carefully crafted so it is not a permit to shoot someone you merely feel threatened by- the danger needs to be imminent and rational.

 

I have no problem with the Castle Doctrine itself, I have a problem with how it has been applied.

For instance, I don't think you should be able to shoot a criminal breaking in to your neightbors house as has happened here in Texas. That's not "a man defending his castle". It's vigilante justice.

 

Unfortunately, the current castle laws in several states, Florida included, aren't carefully crafted and become a license to kill.

 

If someone breaks in to my house there is no question I will attempt to put a bullet in his head with out asking about his intentions, lol.

If I see someone breaking in to my car, I will approach him with a gun but I wouldn't shoot him unless he advanced on me. And then I'd call the police.

I firmly believe that people should be able to protect their property. But killing people for breaking in to your car or for wondering around your neighborhood is a bit much.

 

You should probably have to follow the same general rules as the cops -- warn the intruder that you're armed and that you're going to shoot them if they don't leave, then shoot them if they don't.

I don't really have a problem with the guy in Massachusetts being arrested after shooting an intruder, as long as he was just arrested. Any time you kill someone with a gun, you should probably expect to be held somewhere for a little while until the authorities can straighten out what happened.

 

Pure B.S.

Link?

 

The right of self-defense is limited by law; as many convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

Joe Horn got away with murdering two men via vigilante justice who were not threats to his life or property.

 

I'm well aware of the Joe Horn case.

Making blanket statements about Castle laws not being crafted properly in order to support a personal opinion is disingenuous.

The burglars ran onto Horns property AFTER committing a crime HE witnessed. How was he to know at that moment that they weren't going to attack him?

 

If someone in your garden you would shoot that person? Proportionality of force means nothing to you?

 

How about they were running away as fast as they could?

They ran across the corner of his property while running away.

If the Castle Doctrine allows you to kill someone for that, then I should be able to shoot down anyone on my property that I feel is threatening me.

 

I had a dog that understood the doctrine perfectly with no training. Walk down the sidewalk and act friendly and he'd lick your skin off or beat you unconscious with his wagging tail.. Put a toe ON the property and he'd rip your throat out.

 

It is important to differentiate the "castle doctrine" and Florida's "stand your ground" law.

The "Castle doctrine" is a legal principle grounded in several hundred years of common law.

Florida's law, and other state laws like it, are, to be honest, abominations.

The castle doctrine draws a specific line, your home. not your driveway, or the back fence, but your home and protects actions you may take while defending your home.

The "stand your ground" laws allow you to use deadly force if you "feel" threatened without specifying what circumstances define "threatening."

Here's the statute:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

The statute does not define "attack" nor set a standard for "reasonably believes."

All a person has to do is "reasonably believe" and he can pull out his weapon and start firing away.

The truth is that a person who has both an avenue of escape and the means to escape cannot reasonably believe that force, especially deadly force, is necessary.

There are times when force is necessary but this stature, and others like it, are little more than a license to commit murder.

 

Is there but one interpretation or are there 50 interpretations? One for each state? I'd guess 50, some nearly identical. Why a big difference in a wooden or CBS or glass wall and a property line. The threat is the threat. Don't make the threat, no worries.

 

different states have different laws but all respect some form of the "castle doctrine."

Because someone merely crossing into your property (let's say the line is, as it is in my yard, 200 ft away) may not pose an actual threat. A kid retrieving his frisbee, a man chasing his dog, even a guy walking out there to steal your lawn mower may cross your property line but probably don't pose any threat to your person.

When they cross the threshold of your home (window, door, crash through a wall) they have essentially eliminated your ability to flee or seek shelter and their presence is presumed to pose an immediate threat.

Florida's law, on the other hand, allows the use of deadly force because you "feel" threatened. There is no standard, just "feelings." It has been used as a defense in road rage killings and even a gang fight that resulted in death. In Florida the number of "justifiable homicides" has tripled since the law was passed.

Combine the law with "concealed carry" and you have a ready made licence for anyone wanting to commit murder.

 

Castle laws are freedom in action and represent a fundamental right, keep ones self, family and possessions safe from predators.

The Castle laws have been around for almost a decade and this is the first case of abuse of the law, assuming the far left is right on the facts in the case. over the same period countless folk successfully defended themselves against attack...

 

Why shouldn't the criminal be required to run away? They're the one breaking the law. I'm on my own (*)(*)(*)(*) property. Any place that expects the person who is in the right to acquiesce to the person who is in the wrong is promoting dependency and cowardice not justice.

If you want to require the property owner to take a lesser action before using lethal force, then you should at least make it something assertive rather than submissive. Perhaps a bullet wound in the ass as a friendly way of saying, "You can leave now or the next one will be in your head." Or maybe just take it back to the days of the old west and fire at the ground and make them dance. That would probably freak them out worse since nobody does that anymore. "You want to break into my house? How about you dance your happy ass off my property, punk. DANCE!" *bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang*

 

When a man "crosses" my lawn to steal my mower. He will have a gun by his body when they come to take his corpse away. He will have been armed with a cheap .22 revolver. One that misfires a lot!

 

of course im speaking if they attempt or do attack you or your property, not just some poor person who happens to be near your vehicle.

 

the true lesson is: dont break into someones house or do other stupid criminal activity and you wont be shot.

who really gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) if some house burglars were shot? less criminals on the street or more criminals seriously impaired the better.