Deadly force and Castle Doctrine

[Bulletski]

Hi all:
I've had a very heated "discussion" with a friend of mine concerning Castle Doctrine.

He thinks that if someone breaks in to your house uninvited, you have the right to kill that person. He thinks that's what Castle Doctrine means.

I've read about Castle Doctrine and what I get out of it AND I think it's perfectly clear is that if someone breaks into you house and threatens you WITH a weapon, you have the right to use deadly force to DEFEND yourself, but not if the person is unarmed.

Is it possible he's right?

 

[Bulletski]

I forgot to add that we live in South Carolina, if that makes any difference.

 

[.38 Special]

It's possible. I think individual laws - and various political climates - play a key role. There are places where your friend likely is correct, and places where he demonstrably is not. Overall, though, I suspect it goes on a case-by-case basis, and anyone who says "always" or "never" is sometimes going to be mistaken.

 

[.38 Special]

I do recall a line from Ayoob's "No Second Place Winner" to the effect that "If there is an intruder in your home, and he has a gun, shoot him. In the back, if you have to."

I think that probably is still good advice - though one has to assume the grand jury might disagree.

<Edit> The book is "In the Gravest Extreme". Thanks to @chilehed for the catch.

 

[TarDevil]

You never have the "right" to kill someone.

 

[entropy]

Castle doctrine was a reassertion against "duty to flee" laws in certain States.

 

[Blue Jays]

Killing someone should be the truly last-ditch effort.
It will invariably lead to legal headaches and big expense.
Seek every other avenue possible if it can be done.

 

[HollowDawg]

Laws vary geographically and sometimes just by who happens to be the local DA, mayor, sheriff, Governor, etc, etc.
I have always considered myself as the LAST line of defense between an intruder in my home and my family. With that in mind, it seems reasonable to me and even necessary to assume a worst case scenario. I must assume the intruder is armed because it is unlikely that I will have time to confirm that one way or another. Additionally, I must assume the intruder has the worst possible intentions. Remember, I am the LAST line of defense. I go down and my family becomes victims and or statistics. I'm willing to die to protect my family, but the bad guy needs to join me for my family's sake. My only responsibility is to avoid shooting one of the "good" guys. Very real discussions about comings and goings late night in my house are a must with family members and even friends. I know real world isn't so cut and dried but like many on this forum, I've thought long and hard about this particular subject. Many different opinions I'm sure. Mine is the one that counts in my house.

To quote Robert Heinlein, "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

 

[TomVA]

Every case is different. In general, shooting another person is the last resort taken when you truly believe you or other innocent parties are in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured. I believe (not a lawyer) that if a stranger breaks into your home at night that you have a valid presumption that your life is in danger, whether he is armed or not. And you do not shoot to kill, you shoot to end the threat. Once the threat is over you stop - executing the bad guy after the threat is over is wrong and will land you in jail.

 

[chilehed]

I do recall a line from Ayoob's "No Second Place Winner" to the effect that "If there is an intruder in your home, and he has a gun, shoot him. In the back, if you have to."

I think that book was written by Bill Jordan.

In the back might be hard to justify, it probably would depend on where he's headed.

 

[Kleanbore]

"Castle Doctrine" refers to laws that obviate a duty to retreat that would otherwise exist before using necessary deadly force. The scope--where it applies and to whom--varies according to jurisdiction.

 

[.38 Special]

I think that book was written by Bill Jordan.

In the back might be hard to justify, it probably would depend on where he's headed.

You are of course correct. I was thinking of "In the Gravest Extreme".

As far as the quote, I can see it both ways. The concern, of course, is that "Drop the gun!!!" is likely just going to cause the guy to whirl around with a gun in his hand, and now you've turned what could have been a "shooting" into what can easily become a "gunfight". I know which one I'd rather be in - at least until the lawyers get involved.

 

[chilehed]

As far as the quote, I can see it both ways. The concern, of course, is that "Drop the gun!!!" is likely just going to cause the guy to whirl around with a gun in his hand, and now you've turned what could have been a "shooting" into what can easily become a "gunfight". I know which one I'd rather be in - at least until the lawyers get involved.

No argument there. Tough call that I hope none of us ever have to make.

 

[HankB]

Here's a link to an analysis of Texas' Castle Doctrine laws, provided by Texas Law Shield, a business providing self defense insurance. (I have NO association with this group.) It's too long to repost here, but I've included a link:

https://www.uslawshield.com/castle-doctrine-texas/

The bottom line is that Castle Doctrine is a very good layer of protection for people who are doing no wrong - in the words of the writer, "Essentially, the Castle Doctrine stops the prosecutor from legal second-guessing or “Monday morning quarterbacking.”"

But it's NOT a "get out of jail free" card.

And TX law doesn't apply in other states.

 

[Kleanbore]

I believe (not a lawyer) that if a stranger breaks into your home at night that you have a valid presumption that your life is in danger, whether he is armed or not.

Varies among jurisdictions. That's not Castle Doctrine per se, but some states do have other laws that provide a defender with a legal presumption (which is rebuttable) that unlawful entry under some circumstances proved a basis for a reasonable belief that a threat of imminent harm exists.

That presumption ceases to be in force if the intruder flees.

A fine point: if the presumption requires forcible entry. the defender mus know that the entry had been forcible before using force, for that presumption to apply.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I asked a state police officer. If i have the right to cuff and intruder. And hold him/her until the police arrive. He said as far as he's concerned. If they broke into your home. They intend to harm you or your family. Shoot them he said. That would be the last thing i want to do.

 

[Kleanbore]

I asked a state police officer.

find a better source.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I agree.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Unfortunately in my State, Massachusetts, your home is not your castle and you have a requirement to flee instead of stand your ground in the event someone breaks into your house. Complete BS. Caveat is if you have no way to flee, then it is possibly reasonable to shoot. Though depending on the DA, your prosecution is almost imminent in these cases.

 

[Kleanbore]

Unfortunately in my State, Massachusetts, your home is not your castle and you have a requirement to flee instead of stand your ground in the event someone breaks into your house.

Not true. "There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

 

[patmccoy]

Not true. "There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

Nice quote, but I wonder where it comes from.

 

[Kleanbore]

Nice quote, but I wonder where it comes from.

Massachusetts General Laws, Part IV, Title II, Chapter 278, Section 8A (Killing or Injuring a Person Unlawfully in a Dwelling: Defense)

 

[TarDevil]

Shoot them he said.

There should be higher standards of employment in his state.

 

[Blue Jays]

"…I asked a state police officer if I have the right to cuff an intruder <to> hold him/her until the police arrive…"

My goodness that would be a very dangerous path to explore.

 

[Craig_AR]

No private citizen ever has a right to kill anyone. Period.
However, if the legal requirements for self defense (imminence, innocence, avoidance, proportionality, and reasonableness) are met, we all have the right to use deadly force in the face of an imminent deadly threat. And we must stop using that deadly force once the threat is gone, which may or may not be when an attacker is dead.
Castle Doctrine laws eliminate the "duty to retreat" requirement (Avoidance) in Branca's list of five requirements when in one's residence, and in some states those laws may offer a presumption of deadly threat when the home is entered violently.