Your Thoughts, Castle Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlexanderA said:
Everything has its place. It's a well-known tactic among gun collectors to "dress down" and act like hicks when attending gun shows and negotiating on guns. The last thing you want to do is give the impression that you have money.

Studies have shown that the long-time wealthy (as opposed to the newly rich) tend to have lifestyles far below their means. Ostentatious display of wealth is tasteless as well as stupid.

Getting back to the subject at hand, that sign -- and the condition of the house in front of which it's posted -- bespeaks volumes about the mental and financial condition of the occupants. I'd lay odds that they're paranoid, as well as not having two nickels to rub together. To a smart thief, that would be the main reason to bypass that house, not the implied threat of being shot.
Click to expand...

As strange as it may seem houses like this get robbed a great deal. Older mobile home parks have alot of rental units and they see a lot of turn over, and get their share of lowlifes living in them. And many of them are just looking for enough to get a quick fix
 
BigBore44 said:
Uhh, assuming they can read, it would tell them there may be far greater consequences for breaking in than just a night in jail. Most people breaking in to a residence are looking for a quick score. Not a fight for their life. They’re opportunists. Kind of like the old saying “Wonder why no one tries to rob the bag man for the mob?” Because there will be consequences far greater than jail if you’re caught.
Click to expand...
It's more effective to just make your house harder to break into than others nearby. Security doors are one of my favorites, they go in front of the regular doors, perforated steel with long bolts into the frame, hinges that can't be opened from the outside, and a good deadbolt or two, they cannot be kicked in by even a huge BG. They are available in a variety of attractive designs. Go to Home Depot or Lowes website and search "security doors".

Pricier but worth it for peace of mind, 3M security film on the windows, takes 58 seconds to get in instead of 3. (And they make a thermal version also, save on utility bills.) Here are a couple of videos:
-> a real-life cctv video of an attempted break-in:

-> 3M test comparing attempt through glass door with and without the film:


I also have special manual locks on the inside of my garage doors so nobody can get in by jimmying the automatic door opener, they are bolts that go through the opener frame:
garage door lock, right side.JPG garage door lock, left side.JPG
 
So I knew this couple that lived on a rustic rural road where regrettably, some of the older residents had died off or sold off their family homes on nice big lots, so some of the homes were being rented, a couple abandoned, and a few became known drug houses. Weed was sold (widely known around the area, before it was legal here) out of one nice old farmhouse, and a few of the more ramshackle older homes were overtaken by meth-cookers, tweakers and just turned into drug dens. There were more than a couple large-scale law enforcement raids on some of the properties, as well as a high-profile home invasion and perhaps a raid that hit the wrong house. Too bad, too, it was a nice area near a cool lake.

My friends put up a huge sign at the mouth of their driveway stating, "This is NOT a drug house. They are down the road. NO drugs manufactured, used or sold here. Please depart. Thank you."

(Apparently, a lot of vehicles came down their drive at all hours, which quite unnerved them. They've long since moved.)
 
From where I sit, there are two different issues involved here:

1) Legal--ironically, this sign is not that problematic. I notice that a lot of folks get all bent out of shape about how "anything" put out in the public square will be used to unjustly convict someone which is usually based on news media reports that prefer to emphasize the colorful rather than the boring.

In trials, there is a FRE Rule 404 (and its variant in state courts) that more or less forbids use of prejudicial information if it is more prejudicial than probative. There are similar rules regarding character evidence which generally requires notification of the other side before introduction, and so forth. The key words are to act in conformity therewith which means that the evidence must reflect the essence of the person or most probably dismissed as prejudicial. The basic legal principle is that you do not want a jury's decision based on emotions rather than evaluation of the evidence. Leaving aside the whole rules of evidence argument, there are also practical reasons that a prosecutor would probably not want to base their case on the whole castle doctrine sign.

One of the key strategies to win at trial is to distill the pure argument supported by enough evidence to win over all of the jurors while avoiding stuff that might or might be viewed as extraneous/boring/confusing/stupid to the lowest common denominator on the jury. In almost all jurisdictions, they only need one juror to be confused, upset, etc. to wreck a straightforward prosecution case.

If the prosecution goes into the castle doctrine signage in their presentation, it is an indication that they have a weak argument with little witness or physical evidence support. Doing so risks a case win because the defense will then be able to go into what the castle doctrine means, what it meant to the defendant, and hire a relatively low cost professional to muddy the waters, and so forth. Thus, any physical evidence, direct and cross of testimony by witnesses, etc. might be discounted versus the shiny castle doctrine thing where any defense lawyer worth their salt should be able to pound the prosecution with it and turn the trial into a philosophical debate rather than an evaluation of evidence.

I've seen similar arguments employed over other signage, use of reloads, mental illness, loose talk on internet forums, etc. where the we are doomed advocates argue that the presence of such single piece of evidence (of what they generally do not like) spells a loss in the courtroom. Part of it is the distorted perspective on the legal process by movies/tv/fiction, and another part of it is crappy media coverage on most things legal.

A single piece of evidence like castle doctrine signage is not going to give the prosecution an easy victory. The less spectacular reality is that generally a whole train of the defendant's dubious behavior exists and the signage/extra special mercury tipped reloads/blood thirsty threats on social media borgland/etc. gets summarized in media reports as the macguffin indicating the stamp of guilt on the convicted. Then whatever the objectionable by the doom brigade gets correlated with instant guilt in the legal system.

Fictional depictions are generally even worse as who would really want to watch a legal show where 90 percent of a heroic defense lawyer's clients are guilty and that the defense lawyer relies on SODDI or TODDI to get them off or the rather sordid plea bargaining negotiations. Note, there are no famous fictional legal series dealing with appellate law (a few like First Monday in October did not even last a season) because without the human drama and spectacle of a trial, the dry legal formalisms of appellate law appear more like a graduate seminar in the law. While we now have televised House and Senate proceedings and audio of Supreme Court oral arguments, few like to listen or watch, even lawyers or lobbyists for cases/hearings out of their field, because one has to do their homework prior to watching these to even understand what it going on.

Like most things, signage/reloads/social media/etc. discouragement has a grain of truth to it. No defense lawyer likes complications to presenting their case; and in the rare case where the lawyer believes that the client is innocent, no lawyer likes their case weakened by some stupid action by their client. A trial lawyer that likes to lose is not one that I would hire and thus lawyers tend to discourage actions that might complicate litigation later.

The major issue with signage is that if it is combined with other dubious actions in the past of the client such as having a reputation and past actions of being hot headed, emotional, impulsive, vengeful, and so forth, the signage could provide a tipping point in a close case for conviction. This is especially true if the prosecution offers lesser and included offenses as sometimes the jury will satisfice in the middle (like manslaughter versus murder). It also means extra prep for the defense lawyer in rounding up character witnesses etc. to combat such and clouding perhaps favorable evidence into a debate over the defendant's character for the defense lawyer. Any complication generally means more legal expenses for the defendant.

The second issue is that of OPSEC (military term--Operational Security)--how much do you want someone to know about you. On the plus side, it might scare off the weaker souls (if they understood it) from committing a crime. On the negative side, it might encourage the bolder idiots whose actions might well be chemically enhanced. Those who commit robberies or burglaries for the most part are not generally known for their high IQ. Some might not understand the castle doctrine reference at all, some might and think it was a challenge, others might understand it and wonder if there is something there worth getting shot over. I would think the general type that would go on despite the signage would be the desperate or the macho thug. The other more rational cats figuring little reward for much risk might go elsewhere. But, there is nothing that a castle doctrine sign will do that a simple no trespassing sign would not do with the advantage is that no trespassing signs raises the implicit costs to a potential wrongdoer with less chance of blowback. Anything that increases the risk that the cops might be called or there might be resistance from the occupants is general deterrence to criminals. Thus, alarm and camera systems, dogs, hardened entry points, fences, no trespass signs, etc. act in part to discourage the impulsive (of which petty criminals generally are) and raise the potential costs versus any benefit to those using cost-benefit analysis.
 
Last edited:
boom boom said:
Like most things, signage/reloads/social media/etc. has a grain of truth to it. No defense lawyer likes complications to presenting their case and in the rare case where the lawyer believes that the client is innocent, no lawyer likes their case weakened by some stupid action by their client. A trial lawyer that likes to lose is not one that I would hire. The major issue with signage is that if it is combined with other dubious actions in the past of the client such as having a reputation of being hot headed, emotional, impulsive, vengeful, and so forth, the signage could provide a tipping point in a close case for conviction especially if the prosecution offers lesser and included offenses as sometimes the jury will satisfice in the middle (like manslaughter versus murder).
Click to expand...

My evidence professor explained the concepts of relevance and probative-ness to us like this: "A brick is not a wall. A brick doesn't have to be a whole wall in order to be part of a wall. Proof of whole cases or claims usually requires a lot of bricks to build a wall. A piece of evidence doesn't have to be a wall to be admitted. But it does need to be a brick that fits the wall one side is trying to build."

That sign could be a brick in the right/wrong kind of case.

And I like the old mosaic better, anyway. Everyone knows juries hate Latin, so they'll ignore it if the prosecutor brings it up. Perfectly safe.
 
When I was in my 20's and got my Harley I thought it would be cool to put a big winged bar and shield decal in the window of my pickup saying Harley Davidson. A riding partner nixed the idea as it advertised I had a Harley, something rather uncommon in the mid '70's and would let the light fingered know that there was a Harley there when my truck wasn't. Ever since then I don't advertise what I have or do.
I did find this sign humorous, however.
tresspasser.jpg
 
ATLDave said:
My evidence professor explained the concepts of relevance and probative-ness to us like this: "A brick is not a wall. A brick doesn't have to be a whole wall in order to be part of a wall. Proof of whole cases or claims usually requires a lot of bricks to build a wall. A piece of evidence doesn't have to be a wall to be admitted. But it does need to be a brick that fits the wall one side is trying to build."

That sign could be a brick in the right/wrong kind of case.

And I like the old mosaic better, anyway. Everyone knows juries hate Latin, so they'll ignore it if the prosecutor brings it up. Perfectly safe.
Click to expand...

Nice metaphor used by your professor.

The problem with using Latin is that I doubt it would work in the second instance--in that a warning must be decipherable by its intended recipient for it to have any effect. A burglar or robber targeting that particular home would probably not be the sort of person that understood Latin aside from possibly habeas corpus. They might, however, understand a slavering Rottweiler in the front yard with a Beware of Dog sign. But then again, one would have to worry about civil suits from the dog getting loose and biting someone.

Most of the wealthy simply use wall, fences, gates, call boxes for entry, and sometimes ostentatious security cameras and personnel to screen out the bad'uns. A vulgar sign is simply not done.

A simple no trespass sign is simpler and gives little usable intelligence to the recipient of what might be obtained in the dwelling. Not really very usable in a court of law to impeach one's character either regarding self defense either.

However, if one is in a certain state of mind, many heraldic signs and mottos serve as warnings such as nemo me impune lacessit or perhaps Clan Chattan--touch not a cat bot (without) a glove. Scottish and Gaelic sayings are full of all sorts of warnings about possible bad outcomes for bad people.
 
"Make my day laws" are great. Oklahoma may have been the first state to enact such a law. Home invasions and burglaries declined dramatically after the OK law was passed:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...Day-law-cut-epidemic-of-violent-burglary.html

i don't do signs. Methinks they are childish. Our place is well protected by a surveillance/security system. We also have manual locks on our garage doors.

Off topic:

A neighbor was routinely stealing our newspaper. That stealing ended after the person found a photo of themselves, caught in the act, in their mailbox. There was a note promising to place the same photo in the neighbors mailboxes if the stealing did not cease.
 
We have a piece of land that is detached from the majority of our property and earlier this year a game camera was stolen.

Knowing that often thieves often com back I set up another one about 20ft above the same trail.

I wasn’t surprised that they came back but was that it was to return the camera. Looked like a dad involved with the return. This is where the kid is wiping off his finger prints. They kept the memory card too as it undoubtedly contained photos of them trespassing before the theft.

D255984D-55C8-44FF-B9ED-25C5BAEDED51.jpeg

Nothing since, so I chalked it up to a learning experience for the kids.
 
jmorris said:
I wasn’t surprised that they came back but was that it was to return the camera. Looked like a dad involved with the return.
Click to expand...
This underlines the importance of neighborly relations. Sometimes it's better to be tactful rather than confrontational.
alsaqr said:
A neighbor was routinely stealing our newspaper. That stealing ended after the person found a photo of themselves, caught in the act, in their mailbox. There was a note promising to place the same photo in the neighbors mailboxes if the stealing did not cease.
Click to expand...
What I would have done is gifted him a subscription to the newspaper. And made sure he knew who gave it to him, and why. The guilt and embarrassment would eat him alive, but he would end up respecting you more.
 
old lady new shooter said:
It's more effective to just make your house harder to break into than others nearby. Security doors are one of my favorites, they go in front of the regular doors, perforated steel with long bolts into the frame, hinges that can't be opened from the outside, and a good deadbolt or two, they cannot be kicked in by even a huge BG. They are available in a variety of attractive designs. Go to Home Depot or Lowes website and search "security doors".

Pricier but worth it for peace of mind, 3M security film on the windows, takes 58 seconds to get in instead of 3. (And they make a thermal version also, save on utility bills.) Here are a couple of videos:
-> a real-life cctv video of an attempted break-in:

-> 3M test comparing attempt through glass door with and without the film:


I also have special manual locks on the inside of my garage doors so nobody can get in by jimmying the automatic door opener, they are bolts that go through the opener frame:
View attachment 846883 View attachment 846884
Click to expand...

Not when the idea of the sign is to try and warn someone not to break in. You just posted videos of people making the decision, and then some trying to break in. I prefer not to live in a prison. Which is what a home like that would feel like. You lived in California. I chose a free state. And I won’t refuse to fly my flags out of fear. People where I live tend to get pretty upset when someone messes with Old Glory. Again, we live in different worlds. You can keep yours.
 
BigBore44 said:
Not when the idea of the sign is to try and warn someone not to break in. You just posted videos of people making the decision, and then some trying to break in. I prefer not to live in a prison. Which is what a home like that would feel like. You lived in California. I chose a free state. And I won’t refuse to fly my flags out of fear. People where I live tend to get pretty upset when someone messes with Old Glory. Again, we live in different worlds. You can keep yours.
Click to expand...
First of all, I *LEFT* California because I didn't want to live in such a place. I was born and raised there but I left. Here in Arizona where I live now it's a completely different environment and I'm very happy to be here.

Why does it feel like a prison to have an attractive security door instead of a regular flimsy screen door? Why does it feel like a prison to have security film on your windows? Would it feel like a prison if you had the thermal film without the security feature?
 
I personally don't have any signs on my property. but I do enjoy seeing funny signs. a neighbor has one on his gate that says "TRESSPASS NOT LEST YE BE SHOT'. a guy a few miles away has one that says "TRESPASSERS WILL BE VIOLATED'. another sign I have seen says "TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT AND SURVIVORS WILL BE PROSECUTED'.

by far what I think is the most effective was a simple yellow smiley face with "SMILE YOUR ON CAMERA' below it.

I once met a old man who would hang small animal skulls and cow bones from trees in his yard with trotline cord. when I asked him about it, "he said you think im crazy dontcha?" when I answered yes possibly. he said "good that's what im shooting for".
 
as far as break ins go I have hardened my house from the inside out. any thief breaking into my house and seeing my meager possesions,20 yr old tv and 30 yr old appliances might just leave a 20$ on my scarred up coffee table and go home.

never mind there is 200k of heavy equipment sitting in the yard. that stuff is hard to fence.
 
old lady new shooter said:
First of all, I *LEFT* California because I didn't want to live in such a place. I was born and raised there but I left. Here in Arizona where I live now it's a completely different environment and I'm very happy to be here.

Why does it feel like a prison to have an attractive security door instead of a regular flimsy screen door? Why does it feel like a prison to have security film on your windows? Would it feel like a prison if you had the thermal film without the security feature?
Click to expand...
I regularly leave my front door open and my screen up on my screen door when I’m home and it’s nice outside. I don’t want to be locked in my house when I’m home. There’s a difference between feeling safe in your home, and feeling trapped. All those security measures would make me feel trapped. I don’t fear the outside world. Even the bad things it may contain.

A month or so ago I lost a very dear friend to cancer. A week later his wife had their two children at her parents house to ride out some bad storms we were having. Lightning struck the house and it caught fire. Grandpa grabbed oldest daughter. Grandma grabbed youngest daughter. Grandpa barely made it. Grandma and youngest daughter didn’t. Had grandpa had to break a window with that film on it to get out, he wouldn’t have made it. Had he had to mess with the locks on the front door while holding his granddaughter, he may not have made it.

If the doors and security film you posted are what you need to feel safe and secure in your house, that’s fine. It’s just not what I need to feel the same way.
 
old lady new shooter said:
It's illegal to break into a house. Even BG's know this. Posting a sign indicating you're going to shoot them if they break in accomplishes what exactly?
Click to expand...

Nothing because average person let alone a criminal will most likely be clueless regarding what the sign means.
It's an expression of something we used to have but now is almost gone the First Amendment. The politically correct crowd and the eliminate hate speech crusaders will get rid of whatever is left. One way to find out who is in the drivers seat is to learn who or what group can no longer be criticized.
 
Last edited:
Deanimator said:
Ohio has castle doctrine. If an unlawful intruder doesn't know that, shame on him. He neither needs nor deserves a warning.

Kick in my front door and you'll be shot. Consider it a kinetic learning experience.
Click to expand...
Even CALIFORNIA has castle doctrine. Worded a little differently, but clear, if someone breaks in the homeowner gets the presumption of being in fear for his or her life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Castle Doctrine definition
Replies
11
Views
794
AKGuy
A
S
  • Locked
Castle Doctrine (HB40) to be Heard in PA House
Replies
0
Views
738
Straight Shooter
S
B
  • Locked
Michigan Castle Doctrine becomes law
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Thin Black Line
T
A
  • Locked
Castle Doctrine, getting close.
Replies
12
Views
697
Linda
L
J
  • Locked
Discussion of Castle Doctrine on FoxNews.
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
BobbyQuickdraw
B
Back
Top