Argument with Boss over Maine's Castle Doctrine

[Cluster Bomb]

I had an argument with boss over Maine's Castle Doctrine.

She says that is an intruder breaks in, trips falls, or otherwise hurts them self while illegally in my home, that they can sue me or my home owners insurance to pay for the damages.

Also she says that if i shoot a burgler in my home, and lets say he dies on my lawn, since he didnt die im my home that id be charged for murder.

she also goes on to say that if i have a welcome mat or sign, that anyone can come in and negates castle doctrine and a no trespassing sign.

She said that she has her CWP but refused to show me it when when we wer arguing.

All she told me was that a buddy of her hubbies shot a burgler on his law with his tv. I told her the burgler was probably retreating, and he probably shot him in the back. which negates the whole castle doctrine and self defense.


I told her that any unlawful entry and crime committed in a home such as arson or burglary. Would be grounds for Castle doctrine and that aslong as the burgler is not atempting to flee, than home owner could defend them selfs and that it protects home owner from lawsuit if the burgler gets injured or lets say paralized from a gun shot.

she said that i would go to jail. and that the burgler could sue me if he injures himself in the home.
anyways any imput would be nice.

 

[tyeo098]

You got in an arguement with the person that signs your paychecks!?

But from the looks of it, she had no idea what she was talking about.

 

[hso]

First off, she has no basis for her claims where the law presumes you were justified in using deadly force against an intruder, but Castle Doctrine only deals with you shooting someone and not their being injured due to negligence on your part. Of course, there's not much potential that any court would hear a suite from someone that was injured after breaking into your house since they were trespassing and you hadn't created an attractive nuisance causing them to trespass on your property.

Second, she's your boss so you should drop it since she's the only one hurt by her opinion and you can loose your job arguing with the boss.

 

[whalerman]

She may have some sort of point. You may be somewhat liable if the idiot hurts himself. However, you can kill him. Get my drift? If he complains about a cut or a bruise while he's robbing your house or raping your wife, shoot him.

 

[F-111 John]

Remember, she might not always be right, but she is always the boss.

 

[Bobson]

I had an argument with boss over Maine's Castle Doctrine.

She says that is an intruder breaks in, trips falls, or otherwise hurts them self while illegally in my home, that they can sue me or my home owners insurance to pay for the damages.

I've heard of people (or at least one person) who tried breaking into a home here in AZ by entering through a skylight, and ended up falling through and breaking a leg or ankle. Ended up suing the homeowner and won the case. It came from a very reliable source, but that had to be a freak example, and not the rule.

Other than that, sounds like your boss isn't very well informed. Having said that, I'd still avoid arguing with her on the topic (or any other), for the same reasons other people mentioned.

 

[highlander 5]

IANAL but most of the Castle Doctrines that I know of have clauses preventing a person that is injured during the act of being in your home from sueing you for his injuries while commiting a home invasion,burglary or other illegal acts.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

As I recall Tennessee's law, a person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a felony loses the right to sue for any accidental or intentional injures received as a result of perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a felony. That's from tripping on a skateboard to getting shot.

 

[Birch Knoll]

She says that is an intruder breaks in, trips falls, or otherwise hurts them self while illegally in my home, that they can sue me or my home owners insurance to pay for the damages.

Of course they can sue you. Anybody can sue you any time for any thing. It doesn't mean they'll prevail. But an insurer might settle to avoid the cost and risk of a trial.

Also she says that if i shoot a burgler in my home, and lets say he dies on my lawn, since he didnt die im my home that id be charged for murder.

Where he dies is not a determinant of whether you will be charged with murder. That will be determined by what the police and prosecutor think happened. If they believe it was a legitimate case of lawful use of deadly force against a home intruder, then there's little to worry about. If not, then you can worry. Don't worry about whether the bad guy died on the carpet or the front lawn.

she also goes on to say that if i have a welcome mat or sign, that anyone can come in and negates castle doctrine and a no trespassing sign.

That's not right. That's not even wrong. It's just silly.

All she told me was that a buddy of her hubbies shot a burgler on his law with his tv. I told her the burgler was probably retreating, and he probably shot him in the back. which negates the whole castle doctrine and self defense.

It's not really a good idea to shoot a burglar who's not a threat to your life. If he's a threat to your TV, that's a shame, but it's not really a basis for the use of lethal force.

 

[1KPerDay]

And remember what's legal and what you'll be sued for are two different things.

 

[AaronE]

And remember what's legal and what you'll be sued for are two different things.

Boy is that the TRUTH.

 

[SleazyRider]

I worked in a Sunoco station during my high school days, when one would get their car fixed at a gas station and their groceries at a supermarket. A fellow broke into the station during the night and fell into the grease pit, breaking his leg. We found him when we opened up the following morning.

My boss was successfully sued and eventually lost his station. I can still remember what one of his attorneys told him after the trial: "This has got nothing to do with justice; it's a question of who's going to pay."

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

And remember what's legal and what you'll be sued for are two different things.

That bears repeating.

And remember what's legal and what you'll be sued for are two different things.

And remember what's legal and what you'll be sued for are two different things.

And remember what's legal and what you'll be sued for are two different things.

 

[crossrhodes]

You never know

Just an observation from my close ties with the legal community. In the end, it's not the law, but what the judge decides. It's a shame that we have created a system were criminals have entitlements for their illegal activities. Sounds like you work for CBP/DHS...LOL

 

[Ryanxia]

Stick to defending yourself only when threatened or a family member is threatened and you'll be ok.

 

[MtnCreek]

Sometimes it's best to just smile and say 'that's interesting'.

 

[alsaqr]

Don't argue with your boss. Shes not going to change her mind and you could lose your job.

 

[mgmorden]

Stick to defending yourself only when threatened or a family member is threatened and you'll be ok.

True, but remember that in castle doctrine states the mere presence of an intruder into your home is considered be to a threat to your safety.

Your rules on the street are a little more strict, but within your home (in a castle doctrine state), any shoot is a good shoot once they're in the doors.

That said - as with the other suggestions - I'd recommend not arguing with the boss. Sometimes its hard, but at the end of the day her ignorance will only hurt herself, and you stand to lose a lot of if you get on her bad side.

 

[Loosedhorse]

they can sue me or my home owners insurance to pay for the damages.

Sure they can sue you. This is America--be proud!

id be charged for murder.

You might be charged for murder in ANY SD shooting.

Would be grounds for Castle doctrine and that aslong as the burgler is not atempting to flee, than home owner could defend them selfs and that it protects home owner from lawsuit if the burgler gets injured or lets say paralized from a gun shot.

IMHO, you should shoot someone only if you are in reasonable belief that he was about to kill or cripple you or some other innocent. I'd much rather say to a jury "I shot him because I knew he was about to kill me" than "I shot him because I'm pretty sure this here law in ME says that, under this circumstance and that, well, I get to shoot him!"

Despite the Castle Law, you can still be criminally charged. If so, your lawyer can file for summary dismissal based on the law AND EVIDENCE that it applies to your shooting (not just your say-so), and that motion might be granted; same with any civil suit. If the motion isn't granted, you go to trial.

So, lock the door tight so he can't get in and trip; and if all he wants is the TV, don't shoot.

Last thing: as to arguing with your wife, I'd have to recommend an insanity defense on that one.

IANAL

 

[NG VI]

Also she says that if i shoot a burgler in my home, and lets say he dies on my lawn, since he didnt die im my home that id be charged for murder.

That's absurd. I had an ex who was adamant that in defending yourself, you were only allowed to use the same level and type of force that the attacker is using. The fool was convinced that if someone was stabbing you, you could stab them back but could not shoot them. This person is mind-bogglingly dumb, and I am much the worse for our brief relationship.

 

[mgmorden]

That's absurd. I had an ex who was adamant that in defending yourself, you were only allowed to use the same level and type of force that the attacker is using. The fool was convinced that if someone was stabbing you, you could stab them back but could not shoot them. This person is mind-bogglingly dumb, and I am much the worse for our brief relationship.

I know know where they get it from, but I'm convinced it has to be based on some rumor floating around. When I was younger my mother believed something similar, but took it even further.

In her mind it was bad to learn martial arts because if you had to defend yourself you could only use the martial arts stuff if the other person also knew it, else you'd be committing a crime. Since you had no way of knowing if that person was trained, then it was better to not know how to do "any of that stuff".

At the time I was pretty young and I've long since convinced her otherwise (she's even expressed some interest in getting her CWP), but even as a kid I was like "That doesn't make any sense.".

 

[Birch Knoll]

True, but remember that in castle doctrine states the mere presence of an intruder into your home is considered be to a threat to your safety.

While that is the general idea, details matter a great deal. Maine law actually reads:

§104. Use of force in defense of premises

1. A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using nondeadly force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises.
[ 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD) .]

2. A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using deadly force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent an attempt by the other person to commit arson.
[ 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD) .]

3. A person in possession or control of a dwelling place or a person who is licensed or privileged to be therein is justified in using deadly force upon another person:

A. Under the circumstances enumerated in section 108; or [1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW).]
B. When the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other person, who the person reasonably believes:

(1) Has entered or is attempting to enter the dwelling place or has surreptitiously remained within the dwelling place without a license or privilege to do so; and
(2) Is committing or is likely to commit some other crime within the dwelling place. [2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).]
​

[ 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD) .]
​

4. A person may use deadly force under subsection 3, paragraph B only if the person first demands the person against whom such deadly force is to be used to terminate the criminal trespass and the trespasser fails to immediately comply with the demand, unless the person reasonably believes that it would be dangerous to the person or a 3rd person to make the demand.
[ 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD) .]

5. As used in this section:

A. Dwelling place has the same meaning provided in section 2, subsection 10; and [1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW).]
B. Premises includes, but is not limited to, lands, private ways and any buildings or structures thereon. [1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW).]
​

[ 1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW) .]

In other words, to use deadly force, it is not enough that an intruder be present in your home. He must be committing (or about to commit) arson, or committing (or about to commit) criminal trespass, and is committing or is likely to commit another crime within the dwelling, and must refuse a demand to leave the premises. (The section 108 referenced is the usual deadly force in response to threat to life or limb language).

So you can't shoot your drunken neighbor who mistook your house for his, just because he's standing in your living room.

 

[TonyDedo]

Your boss is the kind of idiot who reads headlines a thinks they know everything on the subject, and gets their information from beauty salon conversations and internet chain emails.

But if I were you, I wouldn't tell her that...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mgmorden: Your rules on the street are a little more strict, but within your home (in a castle doctrine state), any shoot is a good shoot once they're in the doors.

I'm afraid that's a potentially dangerous layman's interpretation.

Many state laws contain the provision that the entry must have been made with force, or must have been "tumultuous".

Then there is the fact that the presumption of imminent danger that is provided for explicitly or implicitly in the law is rebuttable. Shoot someone with whom you have had a dispute and see whether his or her having been "within your home" keeps you out of trouble. Or shoot someone who has surrendered or who is trying to leave.

Where I live, the state law seems clear enough: deadly force is said to be permitted if the person has entered unlawfully (defined as having entered without invitation an area not open to the public ) or refuses to leave. However, the jury instructions approved by the State Supreme Court impose upon the occupant the duty to explain why he or she reasonably thought that imminent danger had existed.

 

[Jim NE]

You got in an arguement with the person that signs your paychecks!?

But from the looks of it, she had no idea what she was talking about.

Agree on both of these counts.

Sometimes political debates in a work setting are taken personally. Especially when you're arguing with your boss...who happens to be of the opposite gender (presumed). Not saying you shouldn't argue at work. Just keep it in mind.

Based on the boss' lame counter-arguments, I'm assuming the OP doesn't work at a law firm. On the other hand, the "welcome mat" defense sounds like something right out of the slimey lawyer handbook.