Talk:Castle doctrine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Canada

The article erroneously states that in Canada, a defender has the obligation to retreat if possible before using deadly force. This stipulation in fact only applies if the 'defender' initiated the assault, had at no time any desire to maim or kill, and subsequently believes reasonably that his life is in danger from the individual he/she attacked. In this very specific case only, there is the obligation to retreat as much as is safe to do so. This is found in section 35 of the criminal code.

The sections around it (sections 34 to 42) clearly outline the rights of Canadians to defend themselves, their home, their property (both land and portable goods), and any persons under their care so long as the minimum required force was used. Force up to and including lethal force may be considered justified. One may also so defend someone else's goods, property, etc if "lawfully assisting" them or "acting under their authority."

This ought to be made clear in the article, somewhat more clearly and less argumentatively than I have written here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.186.55 (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of case law this in.

R. v. Abdalla, 2006 BCCA 210 R. v. Proulx, 1998 CanLII 6317 R. v. Jack (1994), 91 C.C.C. (3d) 466 (B.C.C.A.) R. v. Irwin (1994), 49 B.C.A.C. 143 R. v. Jack, 1994 CanLII 1649

These are some of the cases that support the home as castle doctrine.

I don't see how, assuming the cases I found are the ones you cite (the citations that you offer seem to be cribbed from a blog, and I can't find exactly matching cases). For example, R. v. Abdalla appears to be about self-defence, not defense-of-home (the incident happened in a nightclub), and R. v. Proulx is about conditional sentencing -- it has nothing to do with defence against assault. aja (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the link in footnote 37 to http://redensign.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/castle-law-stand-your-ground-2/ is very questionable. The person who wrote this seems to be quite bias and seems to have a very limited legal understanding. Several of the cases he cited to prove that the castle doctrine isn't a defense in Canada or UK miss the point. These are cases where a person either shot a gun in a way that could have harmed another person and another was there the person chased a robber into the garden and beat him to a point of being brain damaged. I believe this citation should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.42.127 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothings been done about this in the several months since the issue has been raised, so I've gone ahead and fixed it, though it could use some expansion perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.126.243 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the section, as its brief claim that using deadly force to protect property in Canada seems is directly contradictory to the plain reading of the criminal code (section 38, in particular). Canada, in general, has a duty-to-retreat and minimum force requirements (section 36, IIRC). While there is case law that seems to allow some latitude in this, I don't feel it comes even close to justifying a simple claim that Canada has a Castle law -- it would be easier to argue that Canada specifically does _not_ have such a law. If someone wants to write an article about assault law in Canada and some of the controversies around defense of home and property, cool with me. But confirming that such interpretations have happened and that there is controvesry is different from justifying a claim that Canada has a law of the type that is the subject of this particular article. aja (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Had Canada not codified law restricting options of the resident of a home, the castle doctrine would exist, as inherited common law from the UK. As Canada DID restrict the options, one can safely consider Canada to have a weak Castle law in place. My home state of Pennsylvania originally had a full duty to retreat, at home, at work, from one's vehicle or on the street. The first modification was to move toward a Castle law, removing the duty to retreat. That was due to several cases of elderly persons using a firearm to defend themselves against a burglar (in one case, the burglar literally climbing in a window and over the elderly person), where near riots broke out around the arresting officers police station and in the instance I mentioned in some detail, the neighbors threatening to burn the police station to the ground, as they did NOT want that kind of law enforcement. Burglars DID sue homeowners who shot them and didn't kill them, I heard it a few times in my life on the evening news, which further outraged citizens. So, the current laws have been passed, as a strong castle law, as the duty to retreat on the street has been removed. Even so, the average citizen of Pennsylvania, myself included, would tend to retreat on the street, rather than escalate a bad situation to the point of causing severe harm or death, is at all reasonably possible.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Effects on Burglary/Crime

I came to this article hoping there would be some research into whether or not these laws have had a significant effect on crime towards one's home or personal property. Has there been any academic research on this? While the laws may make people feel safer knowing they can vigorously defend themselves, in practice are people better off? Are more or less innocent people hurt in situations caused by these laws? Inquiring minds want to know! 58.34.64.114 (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this page isn't really for discussing the material itself. Most burglars attempt to burglarize while the owner is away, so the castle doctrine wouldn't make a difference. In the case of "hot burglaries", in which someone barges in with a gun and attempts to rob the owners while they're in the house, you'd already have the ability to use deadly force without the castle doctrine. I guess it may make a difference in the case of armed or unarmed burglars who attempt to burgle while the owner is home but don't directly try to confront and "rob" the owner, or perhaps those burglars who were mistaken in their belief that the owner wasn't home, but that's not a large percentage burglaries burglaries. The castle doctrine deals more with bogeymen than actual criminals.98.95.154.85 (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The article says that John Lott's book is the "only published, refereed academic study" of these laws. What's the WP:RS for that? --Nbauman (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch. If you get to it before I do, have a look at this Stanford Law Review article, particularly note 3. GaramondLethe 22:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

New York state not included in State-by-state positions

In the State-by-state positions, there are three subsections: "States with a Stand-your-ground Law", "States with a Castle Law", and "States with weak or no specific Castle Law". Altogether they list 49 states and Washington DC, but none of the three subsections includes New York. It probably belongs under "States with a Castle Law", but someone should verify that to be sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.238.234 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This page desperatly needs re-written

There are a number of factual issues with this page, starting with the very definition of castle doctrine being incorrect, or at best incomplete. It ignores the removal of the "reasonable man" standard, which is the bread and butter of many castle doctrine laws. The page seems to be a copy and paste from a legal site, which is wrong more than it is right. All of the state information should be pulled until someone actually checks the relevant state codes. I looked into a few of them, and they weren't correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.165.52 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

North Carolina Law Changes

Folks,

New laws have taken effect as of 12/1/2011 in North Carolina that fundamentally affect the NC castle doctrine. Previously, we had a duty-to-retreat in many circumstances, which has now been removed. The law now states, among other things, "A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence"

Also, "The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:" -- and then it lists the conditions, etc.

I am not qualified to edit the article myself; there's too many rules to violate. Someone more familiar with Wiki-editing than I am should take a look at NC House Bill 650 (available online at numerous sites) to see the CURRENT state of things. This was signed by our governor back in June and took legal effect on 12/1/2011.

Thanks,

Michael S. michaelsalley@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.93.67 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PA Law

Hi, I've added a section on Pennsylvania. It summarizes the new PA law (signed by Gov Corbett in June 2011, after former Gov Ed Rendell had vetoed similar legislation during his term).

Anyone who is interested in the text of the bill can find it here: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0040&pn=1038

The section I added is somewhat outside my comfort zone so please feel free to make all manner of well-intentioned changes!

Thanks, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 20:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

An Englishman's home is his castle

I'm surprised there's no mention of this common dictum of English law, from which "Castle Doctrine" clearly derives. I've added the historic background but I think it's important to flesh out the origins and history some more.Gymnophoria (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a million! Many US citizens are unaware of English common law and its being inherited in the US legal system. Your contribution has substantially improved the educational quality of the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Minnesota Law

The one sited case that the duty to retreat applies in the home was reversed (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1207575.html). What are the other three cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.3 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision in State v. Carothers, 585 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. App. 1998)(imposing a duty to retreat even in the home) in State v. Carothers, 594 N.W.2d 897(Minn. 1999) and in doing so, give a complete history of the evolution of the Castle Doctrine in Minnesota, including the three other cases you were looking for. No duty to retreat was extended to co-residents in State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001). Minnesota is not a statutory castle doctrine state, its a common law castle doctrine state. The statute cited in the article 609.065 is Minnesota's deadly force statute and simply creates a division between defense of self (or others) and defense of dwelling, but does not address duty to retreat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.56.108 (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Florida

Here's a frequently-cited article about the Florida law.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece Five years since Florida enacted "stand-your-ground" law, justifiable homicides are up By Ben Montgomery and Colleen Jenkins, Times Staff Writers In Print: Sunday, October 17, 2010

--Nbauman (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good article by a journalist/lawyer that explains the "stand your ground" law with reference to a law journal article. BTW, this article says that Florida was the first state to have a "stand your ground" law -- which this Wikipedia article doesn't even mention.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/03/why_george_zimmerman_trayvon_martin_s_killer_hasn_t_been_prosecuted_.single.html Why Trayvon Martin’s Killer Remains Free Florida’s self-defense laws have left Florida safe for no one—except those who shoot first. By Emily Bazelon|Posted Monday, March 19, 2012, at 5:29 PM ET

--Nbauman (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good Q&A which describes the law in layman's language. This is useful because it's a WP:RS secondary source, which is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be built on.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-qanda-trayvon-martin-shooting-20120317_1_law-enforcement-castle-doctrine-deadly-force 'Stand Your Ground' law: What's legal? March 17, 2012| By Henry Pierson Curtis, Orlando Sentinel

--Nbauman (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Adoption by states" violates WP:RS

This entire section on "Adoption by states" seems to violate WP:RS and WP:NOR, which are two of the strongest Wikipedia guidelines.

According to WP:RS,

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Most of this section is based on primary sources, and the editrors' summaries and interpretations of these sources. Other citations are to blogs or web sites that don't meet the standards of WP:RS. We don't know how reliable those summaries and interpretations are. We don't know whether those editors were lawyers or laymen trying to make their own point. Furthermore, it claims to have last been updated in 2008.

It mostly cites statutes. You can't cite statutes without looking up the cases that interpreted and modified those statutes. The statutes may have been thrown out by a court. There may be a section that you missed that completely changes the significance of the wording of the statute. Or the statute may not mean what a layman would think it means. That's the trouble with using primary sources.

Most egregiously, the section doesn't even mention Florida, which according to Emily Bazelon http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/03/why_george_zimmerman_trayvon_martin_s_killer_hasn_t_been_prosecuted_.single.html passed the first Stand Your Ground law in 2005.

I propose blanking the entire "Adoption by states" section. It seems to be a lot of work, and it's too bad, but it simply violates Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS and WP:OR. --Nbauman (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I would never have thought that a law's text would not be a good reference as to what the law in a given state actually is. But thinking about it, none of the statues come out and say "Iowa has a Castle Doctrine" for example. Someone had to interpret the law in that way.

As to blanking the section, I disagree. This section is very informative. As a worst case, we should at least retain the links so people can make their own interpretations. Best case, we can find some court case or other analysis of each law.

By the way, the article does not claim the list was last updated in 2008. It only claims the list was last verified in 2008. I'm guessing that's a statement that somebody in 2008 went through state-by-state and made sure they were correctly categorized.

Florida is mentioned, as a "stand your ground" state...although perhaps that happened after this comment was written.

—Fritzophrenic (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Adoption by states" issue

Its only been violating the guidelines recently as a rash of people have been editing the page to fulfill a conservative agenda to defend a child murderer. I propose we roll the page back to how it looked last week and lock it for the time being.

No, recent events have brought "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws into public view. Normally nobody thinks about them. People hear about recent events, become curious what "stand your ground" really means and/or whether their own state has such a law, and come to wikipedia seeking information. I see nothing in this section promoting one viewpoint or another, only a collection of laws as they stand in various states without any other commentary. The only potential problem I can see (aside from the "primary sources" issue mentioned above) is the use of the word "weak" in the last subsection title. —Fritzophrenic (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

IL, OR, NV and Federal Case Law

Based on the information in this and similar Wikipedia articles, shouldn't Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, and "cases in federal jurisdiction" be added to "States with a stand-your-ground law"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.138.45 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

From skimming the linked Nevada law, it seems that Nevada only suspends the duty to retreat if defending a home, place of business, or motor vehicle. What information are you referring to for these states which indicates they should be "stand your ground"? Nevada at least seems to be only "castle doctrine" not "stand your ground". —Fritzophrenic (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On the page it says in the explanations Illinois does not have a duty to retreat (although I don't know if it has to be written a specific way to count). I think you are right about Nevada though. Also on the page for "Stand-your-ground-law" it says that "'Stand your ground' governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide", although I'm not sure if case law only counts for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.138.45 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Effect of Castle Doctrine (and Stand Your Ground) on Justifiable Homicide

The effect is more reporting of justifiable homicide.

The FBI UCR annual crime reports have a table of justifiable homicide, defined as killing of a felon during commission of a felony by a citizen, as adjudicated in a police crime report (the small type notes that the statistic does not reflect eventual adjudication by medical examiner, coroner, district attorney, grand jury, trial judge, trial jury or appellate court) plus the number of states actually reporting justifiable homicide adjudicated by police report to the FBI varies between 30 to 35 of the 50 states each year, and may not be the same states reporting as the previous year. Eventual adjudication as self-defense further up the judicial system than the police report level may be four to seven times the number reported in the FBI UCR table, or even more if cases were tracked in the 15 to 20 states that do not report justifiable homicide in police reports to the FBI.

Critics of Castle Doctrine claim that the number of justifiable homicides has trebled in Florida. What has really changed is the number of homicides listed as justifiable in police reports. The total number of homicides eventually adjudicated as self defense may be going up, down or remaining the same (overall homicides are declining in total numbers even as police reports of justifiable homicide trend up), but if more police jurisdictions are allowed to release people if the evidence indicates self-defense under Castle Doctrine, then police reports of justifiable homicide will go up, without necessarily any real increase in justifiable homicide.

When I got my handgun carry permit, I was warned that a justifiable homicide would be a life-changing event. You would likely be arrested for voluntary manslaughter at the least, and first adjudication as justifiable or criminal homicide would probably be the grand jury level. Legal costs would be the ruination of the typical working class citizen; loss of job, savings and home were not uncommon outcomes. One was supposed to take solace in the fact that they were still alive and their attacker was not. --Naaman Brown (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Indiana - changes

Indiana - now spells out when Indianans may open fire on police http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html ArishiaNishi (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Notable Cases

Surely there should be a "notable cases" section - i think there was one before. e.g. Tony Martin from Norfolk, Sarah McKinley from Oklahoma, etc. Not a full list of everyone that's ever been in such a situation, obviously, but notable ones that have had various different outcomes, along with a brief recap of the reasons. BigSteve (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Its not restricted to castle cases, but there is List of defensive gun use incidents that covers a lot of this ground. A "see also" link is probably appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)