Talk:Castle doctrine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edited Criticism Section

A sentence made some judgement of the Prosecutor's "thoughts and feelings" without any interview sources, etc. For all intents and purposes it was the writer's opinion and NOT relevant to the case.

I removed the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.157.236 (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edit

Castle Doctrine also applies to one's vehicle as well as domicile. The edit has been made. Please refer to NRA/NRA-ILA literature before ignorantly reverting. Thanks. Haizum 02:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that the US description of Castle Doctrine is very inadequate if not altogether incorrect via its inadequacy. I'm not suprised that the typical Wikipedia editor knows nothing about gun rights. Haizum 02:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this page

Link to South Carolina legislation on this topic is broken. Aderylak (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the state of Colorado in this article? Colorado has probably the easiest to understand castle law in the country, which is comprised of 4 short statements that can be summed up "any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling".

The 2nd paragraph of this article is totally erroneous! Colorado is where the movement for modern castle law began in 1985. For 23 years Castle law or doctrine has been in place in the state of Colorado. The Colorado "Make My Day Law" is formally known as the "Colorado Homeowner Protection Act", and is encoded in the Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-1-704.5. That section of the Colorado Statutes is titled "Use of Physical Force Against an Intruder". You should also note that this law was enacted within 2 years of the Dirty Harry - Sudden Impact film that featured the catchphrase "Go ahead, make my day." With this catchphrase on people's lips at the time this ground-breaking legislation was proposed and enacted, it was no surprise the Colorado law was aptly nicknamed the "Make My Day Law"!

As a reference check this article from the New York Times: The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force -including deadly force - against an invader of the home. It is commonly called the "make my day" law.

Second nit to pick. The section "Expansion to other states" begins with "Since the enactment of the Florida legislation,"... Please tell me, what "Florida legislation" are you yammering about??? There is no mention of Florida in this article until you plunked it down with no rhyme or reason at the start of the section "Expansion to other states"! UpeopleRidiots (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

An important point missed by the earlier article on the Castle Doctrine is the issue of liability. Before Castle Doctrine came into effect in Texas, a person using deadly force to defend his/her home could be sued by the perpetrator or perpetrator's family for harm done to the person breaking into the home. This, of course, is ludicrous - but it happened multiple times. Now with the Castle Doctrine in force since September 1, 2007, we are supposedly protected from such abuses of the courts.

One of the more recent contributors to this page seems to misunderstand how the US legal system works. Compiling a useful list here will consist of far more than just enumerating the states with certain self defense statutes.

In all US States, the law is a mix of common law and statute. In states without "castle doctrine laws" there is often no duty to retreat because that is what judges have decided in the absence of any legislative guidance.

We need to specify, for each state:

-duty to retreat: none, outside car and home, outside of home, everywhere including home?

-where it comes from: common law, statutes, common law with some clarification from statutes?

-bonus-summarize what common law and statutes say with a brief history

I will be happy to research this, but I warn you that I am very very busy right now (1st year of law school) and it will take considerable time to do all 50 states plus the US territories. Beerslurpy 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, According to Merriam Webster (m-w.com), "adverence" is not a word.

Please indicate which contributor is misunderstood. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally there is no mention on the policies of the state of Vermont 128.230.149.71 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Before Castle Doctrine came into effect in Texas, a person using deadly force to defend his/her home could be sued by the perpetrator or perpetrator's family for harm done to the person breaking into the home. This, of course, is ludicrous - but it happened multiple times."

Could you please cite an instance where this has been the case? As far as I know, the "burglar who sued the homeowner and won" is pretty much an urban legend. It stems from a case in which a group of kids were playing a school gymnasium during the afternoon (arguably trespassing, not burglary), and one of the kids went to fix a light, fell, and sued the school. This was morphed in the popular mythology, and somehow people came to believe that fully grown burglars burglarizing private residences and then suing the owners was a common occurrence.98.95.154.85 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Update

[1] indicates some state laws may have changed on Jan 1, 2007. -- Beland 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits and cleanup

I made some minor changes

• converted inline links to REF tags so they are listed at the end of the article properly
• removed the REFERENCE tag. This article is heavily referenced
• removed the EXPAND tag. No one has stated how the article should be expanded (REQUIRED)

IzaakB(my Talk)contribs 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the page updated

If a third party source can be found that is up-to-date on Castle Doctrine states, would it be reasonable to link to that page? Perhaps link to a number of pages that show the current list?

This entire article is biased towards the gun lobby view that everyone should be able to buy any gun, anytime and use it as freely as possible by law. The consequences of this type of legislation made popular by the gun lobby contributions to state legislators, are not addressed in the article. The castle doctrine, if there is such a thing, would benefit from a discussion by the legal scholars on the non gun lobby side of the argument. Plenty of arguments are made against making guns more available to people particularly in urban areas. We have made progress since " a man's house is his castle" was literally interpreted in old English law. After all, this concept of "home" was extended to home and chattel (personal possessions) not so long ago. Should you be able to shoot someone in bed with your wife? Wives were chattel not so long ago. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imahog (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree about the overemphasis on firearms. How about using a knife, sword, bow or crossbow, blunt object, or good-old-fashioned hand-to-neck? You may think I am making a jest, but there are plenty of case examples out there. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The primary method used by the average US homeowner is a firearm for self-defense. In practice, the laws generally utilize the term "lethal force", rather than a weapon class. But, to be quite honest, if someone breaks into my home, he'll be shot by a firearm, as I'll not risk engaging an intruder, who may well have a firearm. The saying "you don't bring a knife to a gunfight" is operable with the substitution of sword, bow or cross boy, blunt object or hand.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

While a conscious decision to be armed for home defense may include selecting a firearm, many cases involve non-gun weapons. A recent Stand Your Ground case in Florida involved a defender who used a knife against a thief who swung a bag of car radios at him. The defender was not jailed (with loss of income, legal expenses, etc.) until adjudicated as justified, which is one of the social benefits of these laws, particular for low income working class defendants. Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine is about not being jailed if the evidence indicates a justificable use of force.--Naaman Brown (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Complete and utter re-write

Okay, since this article was out-of-date, not well-rounded, lacking tons of information, and requested for a copy-edit, I am in the process of going through and entirely re-writing it. I am very open to suggestions, but would appreciate the courtesy of people not rushing in and making changes until after I've been able to finish, which will take me a day or two. Since there is no repository of states with a Castle Doctrine, and since the exact parameters vary by state, I'm having to find the state statutes for each of the 50 states and dig through them. I am making a link for each state, to the exact text of the relevant statute on the state legislature's page.

For anyone who is concerned that I'm a hippie liberal who might try to harm this gun-related article rather than help it: This is a picture I took of the sign on my front porch. Yes, I had signs custom-made which cite the Castle Law. :-)

Citation of North Carolina's Castle Law (N.C.G.S. 14-51.1).

Piercetheorganist 18:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That picture doesn't help anything. It ignores the conditions of use. You're only making yourself more liable with that sign. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true at all! I live in an extremely poor, high-crime neighborhood. Out crime rate is over double the US average. That sign lets people know that my house will not be an easy target. Since putting it up, I have not had one break-in or arson issue, despite them happening to all the houses around me. And anyhow, under NC law, that sign is totally irrelevant to my criminal liability. But thanks for your input! Piercetheorganist 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"You will be shot" and "you may be shot" are entirely different. You are only protected by castle doctrine laws if you obey the conditions of use. When your sign says "you will be shot if you trespass" you're opening yourself up to a civil suit if an ambulance chaser decides you didn't properly apply the conditions of use. Where would his proof be? In that sign. I like the idea though. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. An ambulance chaser stomping up and down and swinging his little fists is harmless if black-letter law opposes him, end of story. NC's defense of habitation statute is very short and clear, and amazingly blunt, about what it means (unlike some states, where the thing is a page long and requires that conditions from other statutes be met before castle law can be considered valid). I live alone, and intentionally do not associate with my neighbors or anyone else in town. I run a business from home; I am the sole employee; I am not a member of a church or any other local organization. It's just me and my dogs. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should ever be on my property, unless they are a USPS/UPS/FedEx/DHL carrier, a uniformed law enforcement officer, or a uniformed utility guy reading the meter on the side of the house. Since no one has cause to be here, I immediately (and, obviously, reasonably) take a very cautious stance towards people being on my property. NC law is very lenient when it comes to the circumstances in which I get to kill, and the local prosecutors are very lenient in their interpretation of it. But again, I [happily] don't know anyone here, so no one should ever be here, period. And there is some degree of good judgment in it. If it's broad daylight, there's a broken down car outside, and a well-dressed businesswoman knocks on my door and says her car died and may she call a towing company, then I'm obviously not going to shoot her. If it's night, and a group of colored boys swinging tire irons step so much as one toe on my property line, I'll fill 'em so full of lead we won't know whether to use them as charcoal or pencils, no questions asked. It's a basic question of risk-assessment and risk-response. Anyhow, none of this is at all relevant to the article, so let's get back on-topic. Piercetheorganist 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something? I saw no reference to any "property line" in the NC statute.--Bodybagger 05:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the property line; that's the house. Piercetheorganist 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It calls the usage of that image into question. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The image illustrates a citation of a castle doctrine, making it very relevant to the castle doctrine article. The fact that you don't like what's depicted in it is wholly irrelevant. Piercetheorganist 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's inaccurate, and that's relevant. "You will be shot and killed," is not a reasonable display or interpretation of the law. I sympathize with your living situation, but it still isn't a reasonable display, and therefore not reasonable for usage in this encyclopedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The police, and my local attorney, disagree as to the accuracy issue. And you, sir, you do not appear to be a lawyer, a police officer, or a North Carolina resident -- so I don't know what you think makes your statement credible. You haven't backed yourself up at all. Besides, the picture exists simply because it shows a citation of a castle law. Piercetheorganist 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying "the sky isn't blue and you aren't a scientist." "You will be shot and killed," is not the law, and it's not a proper interpretation of the law- not according legal standards, but the standards of the English language. I don't know how else to explain it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does it even matter to you? It's not your sign, and it's not on the side of your house. I see no valid bearing on the Castle Doctrine article here. Again, I checked with the cops, and they said it's okay. You're wrong, and it's all irrelevant, so we're done here. Your contributions to the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 23:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the police say; what matters is how you act. According to that sign, you will shoot and kill someone for a simple trespass. Now you're free to put a sign up and have it say whatever you want, but this is an encyclopedia and that sign does not reasonably reflect NC Castle Doctrine law. Find a better picture because you can bet someone else will. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC

To Pierce, I think you would be all around better served getting a block association, a block watch, meeting all your neighbors- even the drug dealers- and taking down the sign. ---- Unsigned Comment by Imahog

Good thing you're not the one making the laws then. I'll be keeping my sign as well, it serves the general public as fair warning. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To Piercetheorganist, seems to me that that there are really four categories here (as I have revised): stand your ground (not duty to retreat anywhere); castle (no duty to retreat in home, and maybe car); what I've called weak castle (you are allowed to used deadly force in your home in situations--e.g., non-lethal attack or "tumultuous entry"--where deadly force would be impermissible outside the home); and you must always retreat if possible. We may be splitting hairs: Eugene Volokh, of recent DC v Heller fame, has written regarding the duty to retreat that "given that the duty generally requires retreat before using force only when a safe retreat is possible, the duty does not—assuming the factfinder’s judgments about safety are correct—materially interfere with the ability to defend life." (I think that his assumption is awfully large--there's a huge difference between justification without retreat being presumed via statute, and having to prove you had no safe retreat at trial.)--Icammd (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Shouldn't this page be called "Castle doctrine"? It's not a proper name. 199.71.183.2 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

I re-added the picture of the sign because while it is arguable whether or not the occupant of the home can indeed shoot someone for mere trespassing, it most certainly is relevant to the article as it is a example of individuals using said legislation to protect their homes. This includes the simple fear that this type of legislation may instill in a potential home invader. 69.1.140.14 (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide View

I've added the Globalise tag to this article because it provides a primarily American viewpoint, and uses certain facets exclusive to the United States to explain itself. --Muna (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Castle Doctrine in the US." If you want to create one for the rest of the world, go ahead. This one is intended to be US-specific. That's the whole point. Chaparral2J (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, you will see that this article was moved from Castle Doctrine to Castle Doctrine in the US on the day that you made your comment - whereas when I added the tag, the page was still Castle Doctrine. --Muna (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

There is no criticism of the Castle Doctrine in this article. Should there be? It mentions that these are called "shoot first" laws by their critics, but not much is said about it. It'd probably be better to integrate it into the article rather than a seperate criticism section, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

California

Considering that a large portion of the United States lives in California I think it would be prudent to specically mention California. Even if there is no castle doctrine it would be nice to explain the current situation in California, even in a sentence. Could someone do this for me? I will check back in a few days if anyone has any questions/needs a barnstar. Thank you Wikipedians =) --12.155.20.214 (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best to answer this, though I think it might be arguable if California has a "weak" or strong castle law when one takes case law into account. --Dynaflow babble 08:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oregon Legal Precedence

Oregon does not have a Castle Doctrine however we have legal precedence stating there is no "duty to retreat", negating the need for a separate law. In their decision, State of Oregon v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court correctly notes that Oregon law contains no requirement to retreat from an attacker . [2]

The Court noted "On a purely textual level, ORS 161.219 contains no specific reference to "retreat", "escape," or "other means of avoiding" a deadly confrontation. Neither, in our view, does it contain any other wording that would suggest a duty of that kind." [3]

I'm not sure where this information should go in the article, but it would nice to have my state included.Byerss (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I could have saved myself so much work by checking the Talk page first. My feeling is that, if the highest court in the state thinks of that area of the ORS (I just blanket-included all of 161.209-229 because of possible applicability to this article's subject) as constituting a de facto castle law, then it is. --Dynaflow babble 08:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly NOT an Oregon Castle Doctrine, or any de-facto one. While it's true that you don't have to retreat, this has nothing to do with the home and nothing to do with Castle Doctrine. It applies exactly the same to all self defense cases. Oregon does NOT allow you to shoot intruders or thieves. You are allowed to use deadly force when a reasonable person in that situation would have imminent fear for his/her life, or another person's.

Example: Person climbing through your window at night, and it's dark and he's holding some unknown item. NOT imminent danger, deadly force in this case would be murder unless you were scared to the point of incompetence and then it would be manslaughter.

Example: Person climbing through your window with a knife. In this sort of case, you cannot shoot somebody in Oregon. You have to tell to freeze. It's not enough that they just move. They can run away, they can insult your mom, or whatever. They would have to move towards you with the weapon, or motion to throw it. If they keep coming after you tell them to freeze, then you can use deadly force.

Example: Walking down the street and somebody pulls out a gun and yells, "you're going to die!" He points it away from you across the street at head level. You can't see what he's aiming at, but you're legally carrying a loaded firearm. You can shoot to kill without warning in this situation.

Example: You enter your home and turn on the light. Somebody wearing a black mask is putting your DVD player into a sack. You shout "Stop!" and pull out a gun. He picks up a baseball bat from the door, and runs toward the back door. You're not allowed to shoot him. You are allowed to chase him and grab him, though. If he swings the bat at you when you get close, you're allowed to defend yourself, but not to use deadly force. There is no requirement to retreat, but also at this point your life isn't reasonably endangered, he's trying to retreat. There is no reasonable reason to think he would stop and kill you. Now, if you grab him, he knocks you down and is standing over you with the bat, rearing back for a powerful blow, you can finally shoot him. And it doesn't matter that at that this point you're potentially off your property.

In conclusion, please remove Oregon from this list, this addition seems to have been from somebody supporting the Castle Doctrine wishing to get their state added, and this was complied with without any research into the actual state of the law in Oregon. And furthermore, simply reading what was quoted from the court, it doesn't say anything about a Castle Doctrine and this should be immediately obvious anyway. 24.22.50.193 (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

I tried to summarize Pennsylvania's castle law, such as it is, but I'm not happy with my summary. Could someone else take a look at it and see if they can improve on what I put together? --Dynaflow babble 09:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

why the obsession with shooting?

Castle law is related to use of force in self defense which is not limited to shooting with firearms.

Also, State of Tennessee law does not allow a person attempting to perpetrate a felony on the property of another to sue for any intentional or accidental injuries received as a result of attempting to perpetrate a felony. A burglar cannot sue if someone shoots him out of fear of imminent death or greivous bodily harm; nor can a burglar sue for injuries from falling through a skylight while crawling across your roof while attempting a burglary. In that sense, castle doctrine is not limited to intentional injury from a defensive action, shootings or otherwise, but extends to accidental injury by a trespasser attempting a felony. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rhetoric like calling Castle Doctrine laws "Make My Day Law" or "Shoot the Avon Lady" (or milkman) ignores the fact that Castle Doctrine does not override the common law on self-defense: that justification for threatening or using lethal force relies on the test that a reasonable person in the situation of the defender would be in fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm if they did not act. Such rhetoric reflects more on the state of the gun control debate than on the facts of self defense law. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can African-Americans (or other minorities) break in my house with impunity?

In the Castle Doctrine article, it states under Conditions of Use, as the first condition that "Deadly force cannot be used on any male or female of African American decent." Is this a joke? When encountering an intruder breaking down your door at night, is it required to ask "Before you harm my family... are you of African descent?", wait for a response, then act accordingly? What would that act be? "Oh, you're African - please come in and kill us for we cannot lawfully protect ourselves against you. Would it be legal to protect myself from an AA if I myself am an AA, perhaps living is a rough area in Detroit? This is incredibly bigoted. This MUST be somebody's idea of a joke. I am an equal-opportunity defender. Enter with intent to harm and you will be shot regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation etc.I have a big headache (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a joke, also known as vandalism. Another editor has fixed the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave Thurman

Can you expand the section in the article on "weak Castle Laws" that makes use of the discussion offered here. I only recently learned that clarification can be found on the discussion page. Others, might not know that either. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.215.205 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Vermont Laws?

Although the article mentions most, if not all, other states, no mention is made of Vermont's laws in this area. Can someone please update this article with information on Vermont's law on this subject?24.17.183.46 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed same thing. I need information for my project. --88.114.153.239 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Arkansas Law

Arkansas has a Castle Doctrine. Ark. Code Ann. 5-2-607. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.253.7 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Arkansas does have most of the Castle Doctrine features and is strong where home intrusions are involved, but there is a requirement to retreat, if possible, if you are attacked in a public place. In the long run the Arkansas statute may prove to be wiser and better written than, for example, the Texas castle law, where the "...anywhere you have a right to be..." provisions have apparently encouraged unwarranted shootings (e.g., the shooting of a child for what was thought to be a trespass: "Liberty couple indicted on murder charges in boy's death," Houston Chronicle, June 5, 2009). Jrwright72626 (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Montana Law

Montana is mentioned twice - under both the 'States with a Stand-your-Ground Law' and 'States with weak Castle Law'. This seems a little contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.144.200 (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)