Castle Doctrine

[rahmota]

Well Ohio is finally probably going to join the rest of the enlightened and intelligent states who have the castle doctrine for their citizens to help defend themselves.

For those who are not aware of what this is let me explain, no that would take to long, let me sum up: The castle doctrine is that your home and car are your territory and if someone breaks into that you may use leathal force to defend youself just because they broke in. Before this you had to proove that your life was in immediate and leathal threat and danger or you would be criminally charged for defending yourself.

Even though the police and prosecutors are against this I am all for it. Any tool we can give to the citizens to defend themselves is a wonderful step towards an enlightened and decent society. If criminals get the clue that breaking into a home may get them shot dead then maybe they will think again about doing that B&E job.

[Greenday]

That's pretty bad-ass. Please tell me NJ has the same thing. Some moron breaks into my property, he best be expecting at least an ass-kicking. And if he's armed, he won't be the only one.

[rahmota]

Sorry my quick check of NRAILA shows that NJ is not one of the castle states. Write your local legislator and ask them about it. Tell them you would like to be able to defend yourself in your own home.

[Amethyst Hunter]

That's one thing I dislike about my state (Illinois) - we're limpdicks on gun issues. We are the ONLY state in the nation that require a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card (to the best of my knowledge).

Florida, on the other hand, is likely one of these 'castle' states as I remember from my time there that it was considered legal to shoot trespassers on your property; my dad even applied for and got a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Still, castle ruling or no, you (generic you) mess with me and mine, I'm shooting your ass on the spot, jail be damned. Prison time is easy compared with spending the rest of your life maimed or killed because of some shithead.

[Shangri-laschild]

That's one thing I dislike about my state (Illinois) - we're limpdicks on gun issues. We are the ONLY state in the nation that require a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card (to the best of my knowledge).


Agreed. I like living in Illinois except for it's gun control. We also can't conceal carry.

[Slytovhand]

<sigh>


I'll just point you all off to the gun control debate.....

I fear for the drunken teenagers coming home late at night, trying to keep quiet and not awaken their family... copping a shot in the head cos no-one asks questions first, and dad is paranoid about having his TV stolen......


Slyt

[rahmota]

That's one thing I dislike about my state (Illinois) - we're limpdicks on gun issues. We are the ONLY state in the nation that require a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card (to the best of my knowledge).
Yeah that is one of those scary fascist dictatorship moves that I find very very bad and wrong with this country. The swastika wearing jack booted thugs who passed that law need to have some reality checks.

I fear for the drunken teenagers coming home late at night, trying to keep quiet and not awaken their family... copping a shot in the head cos no-one asks questions first, and dad is paranoid about having his TV stolen......


Always there for the cheery paranoia eh? 1: A responsible teenager who has been properly parented would not be trying to sneak into their own home.
2: No one who has anyn real firearms training tries for a headshot as those are incredibly difficult. Most firearms training calls for main mass shots. Survivable.
3: Having the ability to defend oneself does not absolve one of making proper targeting solutions including such thigns as shingin a light or listening to determine target type and location.
4: firearms owners are not as loose cannon irresponsible as you like to make us out to be.

[the_std]

4: firearms owners are not as loose cannon irresponsible as you like to make us out to be.

No, firearm owners are normal, every day people. Normal, everyday people can lose their temper/become distracted/make hasty decisions all the time.

You can say all you like that responsible gun owners are honour-bound to assess the threat, take perfect aim, etcetera. But not all gun owners are responsible. And everyone, even if he is the perfect gun owner, makes mistakes.

So, say little Timmy is in a bad group. Hanging out with some real shady characters. One day he gets into a fight with his parents, tells them he's leaving and he'll get some friends after them. His parents assume that he's bluffing out of anger, but father has a gun in the house anyways and now they're paranoid, as some of Timmy's friends have been in jail for violent charges. Timmy is gone for three days, and the parents get more and more paranoid. Finally, one night, Timmy and two friends come barging into the house at 2am, drunk off their asses, screaming and hollering. Dad, on edge and panicking, shoots Timmy in the gut.

I wouldn't blame Dad, nor would I blame Timmy. And saying, "well, they should have raised him better" doesn't work, because not everyone will turn out to be a good person. It just doesn't work like that. You could be the best parent in the world, and your kid could still turn to the dark side for any number of reasons.

Mistakes happen all the time. I see this law as giving them more opportunities to happen in. But then again, I'm from Canada. A very high-crime and -murder city, per capita, sure, but a city in Canada none the less. I simply don't see the need.

[daleduke17]

That's one thing I dislike about my state (Illinois) - we're limpdicks on gun issues. We are the ONLY state in the nation that require a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card (to the best of my knowledge).


"Limpdick" is putting it mildly. The main reasons Illinois is so screwy on gun laws is that city abutting Lake Michigan.

Aaron Schock (who is trying for Ray LaHood's seat in the US Congress) was/is trying to get a CCW law passed while he is still in Springfield. I don't know how many votes he's gotten though.

[protege]

No, firearm owners are normal, every day people. Normal, everyday people can lose their temper/become distracted/make hasty decisions all the time.

If they were, you wouldn't have to be covered in "safety orange" during hunting season. Too many idiots in the woods shoot first, and ask questions later--every year, (locally) a few people get shot.

Hell, my dad was nearly one of them! He was somewhere in the hills above my grandmother's farm...when a shot landed a few inches from him :eek: Keep in mind that he was always covered in orange. Needless to say, he didn't hesitate to return fire!

Instances like that are rare, though. Most firearm owners are responsible people who know what they're doing. However, just like some drivers, you get some idiots who either don't care, or don't realize the consequences about what they're doing. Unfortunate, but true.

[Dreamstalker]

MA has a "stand-your-ground" clause, which according to the ex is not a castle doctrine (he claimed that MA has no legal justification whatsoever for the use of lethal force in self-defense...he has an irrational hatred for Britain and us colonies anyway). I've looked at the law and he may have been talking about duty-to-retreat (which would still make him wrong as MA does not have that clause).

Castle Doctrine in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine)

[Slytovhand]

Always there for the cheery paranoia eh? 1: A responsible teenager who has been properly parented would not be trying to sneak into their own home.
2: No one who has anyn real firearms training tries for a headshot as those are incredibly difficult. Most firearms training calls for main mass shots. Survivable.
3: Having the ability to defend oneself does not absolve one of making proper targeting solutions including such thigns as shingin a light or listening to determine target type and location.
4: firearms owners are not as loose cannon irresponsible as you like to make us out to be.

I'm just a happy-go-lucky sort of person :D

(as for 'paranoia'...I'd say it's more paranoid to needing to be armed in case their government decides to become too dictatorial??)

But...

1. the setting was that the teenager is drunk... thus not as responsible as you'd like.

2. No argument... :D

3. As per Gun Control Thread, I did mention various options, including calling out that you are armed. You said that that tells the invader where you are, and thus shouldn't be done... Listening would be good...but you do seem to indicate not waiting around to get attacked...

4. I'll let it rest with Protege & STD's posts.

Duty to Retreat sounds...sane!

Yeah that is one of those scary fascist dictatorship moves that I find very very bad and wrong with this country. The swastika wearing jack booted thugs who passed that law need to have some reality checks.

I do want to address this issue though, in general (as in.. not specifically this post, and not specifically yourself...)

False Arguments (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.htm)... quite often you will use particular terms to exaggerate your position.. Look up the Emotive Language and Straw Man arguments listed there. I know you are quite intelligent, and express some good ideas (such as the biodiesel post), but throwing in 'swastika wearing jack booted thugs' really destroys your credibility when arguing. Iknow you are passionate about a few things that have shown up on these forums, but using emotive terms means just that.. they come from emotion.. and by definition, are un-reasonable and irrational... and thus aren't debatable. Much better to make a compelling point, than leave a taste in the mouth.

I presume, in this instance, you have an issue with a gun-owner requiring a license to have said weapon, for some reason??


Slyt

[the_std]

I didn't mean to sound like we don't have a right to defend what's ours. I just meant to say that legalized lethal force such as the castle doctrine is excessive and gives license to paranoid, jumpy people to justify their itchy "trigger fingers". And it's not just gun owners, although a gun is the easiest way to kill someone without putting yourself in close personal danger. This could easily apply to someone going nuts with a hockey stick or a chair, well after the intruder has been disarmed/knocked out as well. But, let's face it, shooting someone is a hell of a lot easier than bludgeoning them.

[crazylegs]

I just meant to say that legalized lethal force such as the castle doctrine is excessive

Absoutely agree with you there.

UK law states you may use "reasonable force in the circumstances", if someone breaks into your house you may use force to defend yourself/property/others, smashig them over the head with a skillet until you see grey matter is excessive. If Johnny Burglar only has a cosh then shooting him is again excessive, (there are plenty of other options available in the US at least). If he has a bladed article then I'm all for shooting him if, and only if, he is presenting a direct threat to you, if he's climbing OUT of the window there is no threat to you, however (if I'm reading this right) with castle docterine you could shoot him with no repurcussions.

[Slytovhand]

Not surprisingly enough... I'm with the previous 2 posts...

[Dreamstalker]

Beating an intruder to a pulp once he's already down (or chasing him down and shooting him after he'd fled the property) would be excessive; if you do kill them and can prove there was no other option that is a legal defense.

The ex claimed that a homeowner can shoot anyone coming onto their property (he made it sound like even setting one foot on the grass was grounds for guns blazing) and they don't need to give any warning...that to me does not seem legally defensible.

[Boozy]

The castle doctrine will make for some trigger-happy accidents, I think.

Shoot first, ask questions later.

[BlackIronCrown]

The ex claimed that a homeowner can shoot anyone coming onto their property (he made it sound like even setting one foot on the grass was grounds for guns blazing) and they don't need to give any warning...that to me does not seem legally defensible.

It isn't. One of the fun items about castle doctrine is that you have to reasonably prove you felt that you were in danger of your life. It's not an exceptionally high standard - if there were 3 teenagers in my home at 3AM ransacking the house, I'd feel in danger, armed or unarmed.

But level your shotgun at a 13 year old walking on your grass, like that guy in....um...Ohio did? Not defensible under castle doctrine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/22/usgunviolence.usa

[Difdi]

But, let's face it, shooting someone is a hell of a lot easier than bludgeoning them.


I disagree. My home defense weapon is a broadsword with a long hilt. Sortof a hybrid between an assegai and a glaive. Within the sort of ranges you'd expect to use a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun at, it's more lethal than any pistol. Sword VS pistol at ranges of 10-15 feet, favors the swordsman by about 3-1. :D

No risk of overpenetration, and it's damned scary looking. :cool:

[Slytovhand]

I disagree. My home defense weapon is a broadsword with a long hilt. Sortof a hybrid between an assegai and a glaive. Within the sort of ranges you'd expect to use a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun at, it's more lethal than any pistol. Sword VS pistol at ranges of 10-15 feet, favors the swordsman by about 3-1. :D

No risk of overpenetration, and it's damned scary looking. :cool:

Say What?????

Your asigari (almost) is more lethal than a pistol at point-blank range? What sort of pistol are you referring to?

And then there's the issue of ease of use... fine if you've got plenty of room to move, or trying to impale ...


Anyways... back to the 'debate'.

I just posted in Slippery Slope, so I won't repeat it all, but....

Criminals usually aren't looking for a fight, and certainly not a murder (yes... there are exceptions...).

And they don't want to be caught.

So... they invade your home (presumably in the wee hours of the morning) the best thing you can do (other than ring the police) is to turn on a light, call out that you know they're there and that you've already called the police.

Most will run straight away... it's not worth hanging around for... and not worth the time and trouble to try to get stuff on the way out.

The exception might be your psychopath out to murder you (for whatever reason). And in that case - it won't really matter what you've got, you're almost gone if they really want you dead. (yes.. ok... I can see how a gun is going to help here... but this is still a very extreme case... and far more unlikely than accidental shootings).


Your stuff can be replaced with home and contents insurance. No life insurance policy in the world is going to bring back a life.


Slyt

[Boozy]

Your asigari (almost) is more lethal than a pistol at point-blank range? What sort of pistol are you referring to?

Maybe I misunderstood, but did Difdi not say a range of 10-15 feet? That's not point-blank range. Most people can't hit shit with a pistol at that range.

[Slytovhand]

Boozy... I was using the technical meaning for 'point blank'.. as in - distance til bullet deviates downwards...not just the real up close and personal (3').

But people can't hit a large (1foot by 2 foot) target at 15feet??? Damn... I was shooting at about 10 meters (30') or more and hitting ok...(slightly wider target, though).


Oh... and I did think about what he said...yeah... I didn't take into consideration the tearing and rending effects... only the single thrust.


Slyt

[Difdi]

Say What?????

Your asigari (almost) is more lethal than a pistol at point-blank range? What sort of pistol are you referring to?

And then there's the issue of ease of use... fine if you've got plenty of room to move, or trying to impale ...

Most people who are not skilled swordsmen drastically underestimate the effective range of a sword lunge, as well as overestimate the time it takes to perform one.

Likewise, most non-swordsmen underestimate the amount of damage a properly sharpened blade can do to an unarmored opponent.

I can cleave through a 4 inch thick piece of oak without much difficulty. A wrist is nowhere near that tough. Soft tissue damage is even nastier. Seeing someone coming at you with a blade as long as your arm has psychological impact too, which is far greater than most firearms, since the novelty of it has an effect as well.

The amount of force exerted by a broadsword exceeds that of a 9mm round in a lunge, and the entry wound is larger. The amount of damage such an attack inflicts is more consistent with a 12 gauge shotgun than a pistol, especially if the swordsman follows through on the attack. Granted, it's messier than a pistol or even most shotgun wounds, but that guy is going nowhere afterwards. Both stopping power and killing power in spades.

[Slytovhand]

Yeah... fairy floss...

I tend to think of 'pistol' as something more akin to .357 than .22. (granted... I also prefer rapiers :D)

I'm not a skilled swordsman, only slightly trained... so I've been on the receiving end of both speed and range :p

4" oak? Really?? I've not really tried to imagine it, but since they cut through bits of plate armour, it's not surprising....


But it's all academic.... I hope :p


Slyt

[Difdi]

I tend to think of 'pistol' as something more akin to .357 than .22

<snip>

But it's all academic.... I hope


It's my home defense weapon. Some people favor baseball (or cricket) bats, some people like guns. I own a decidedly non-period weapon that never existed in history. Take a naginata-style blade, scaled up to glaive proportions, stick it on a balanced hilt with a sturdy guard on it, like a long twohand sword hilt. Basically an assegai that you can use like a broadsword.

It's not the least bit academic, I train with the thing (that's my label for it, the thing...it's the platypus of melee weapons :D)

[Slytovhand]

It's not the least bit academic, I train with the thing (that's my label for it, the thing...it's the platypus of melee weapons :D)

I meant as much as using on an assailant...

And wouldn't it be a pain using in confined spaces?


Back to the regular program... (here and elsewhere...)

Wiki has a nice easy way to link to all the US states with CD, and even then links to the specific areas of the state legislature where it is written...
This is the Stand Your Ground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#Stand-your-ground) lot, from which we get nice little bits such as:

Alabama:
A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is: ..... (3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

Georgia:
A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force."

Idaho:
18-4009. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY ANY PERSON. Homicide is also justifiable
when committed by any person in either of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or

Illinois:
(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if: ... (2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.



And I couldn't be bothered going through all the rest.

Some states in between do make it quite clear that defense of property only is not reasonable grounds for lethal force, or that there must also be an act of violence or 'tumultuousness' in accessing the property (ie - break in).

So.. the concept of shooting someone in the back as they leave the premises with your tv being legal isn't so hard to imagine.

There was one I saw (and can't be bothered going through them all... they aren't always an easy read...) which basically stated that as soon as they are in your house without your permission (and aren't entitled to be there) then you have the right to shoot to kill.

So.. in these states (and others), if someone is in your home who you don't identify, then you can reasonably presume they are there to at least steal something (burglary or robbery), and thus you have the right to shoot them dead without any form of warning.

For that matter, I could see a case where the intruders could be on their knees and executed, and it still being 'legal' in some places.

At the very least, I'm in support of a Duty to Retreat (which, according to Wiki, no US state has enacted). That'd mean you have an obligation to raise your shotgun - but give a warning first to give them a chance to leave. (of course - even with this, when it comes to trial, I'd bet everyone gives a warning before killing them... but maybe I'm just cynical :p).

Slyt

[Difdi]

And wouldn't it be a pain using in confined spaces?


If it were a classic broadsword, yeah, it'd be a pain in a confined space. But an assegai is a thrusting weapon (Zulu spear). Mine just happens to have an unusually long edge. Lunge, twist, withdraw is how a standard assegai would be used, and that takes about the same amount of room as a standard shotgun. Replace withdraw with turn and upward slash, and you have my home defense weapon. And like an assegai, my weapon is balanced properly for throwing; I can hit a moving man-sized target 50 feet away every time, and reliably at 100 feet.

People are used to guns. They see them in movies all the time. While looking down the barrel on the wrong end of a 12 gauge shotgun is plenty intimidating, it's also a familiar thing. People don't encounter swords and spears as serious weapons all that much -- Realizing that you're about to get cut in half by a knife longer than your arm has considerable psychological shock value.

At the very least, I'm in support of a Duty to Retreat (which, according to Wiki, no US state has enacted). That'd mean you have an obligation to raise your shotgun - but give a warning first to give them a chance to leave. (of course - even with this, when it comes to trial, I'd bet everyone gives a warning before killing them... but maybe I'm just cynical.


Actually, most states that don't specifically have a stand your ground law do have a Duty to Retreat. The problem is, such a Duty has been used to jail people who for whatever reason felt they could not. If the court, which was never present at the time, disagrees, the result will be a ruling that it was not self defense. Are you injured and can't run? Is your family about to come home, but is not actually present at the time of the break-in? The court may not believe you were too impaired to run. If you stand your ground since you know your family will be home any minute, you're guilty of a felony. And so on.

[Zyanya]

So.. the concept of shooting someone in the back as they leave the premises with your tv being legal isn't so hard to imagine.

Find me a case where it's happened and the shooter wasn't in trouble.

For that matter, I could see a case where the intruders could be on their knees and executed, and it still being 'legal' in some places.

Find me a case where it's happened and the shooter wasn't in trouble.

At the very least, I'm in support of a Duty to Retreat (which, according to Wiki, no US state has enacted). That'd mean you have an obligation to raise your shotgun - but give a warning first to give them a chance to leave. (of course - even with this, when it comes to trial, I'd bet everyone gives a warning before killing them... but maybe I'm just cynical :p).

Actually, the wiki is wrong, or at least misleading. Until Castle Doctrine made headway, there was a duty to retreat. That being, the VICTIM had to try to retreat. Castle Doctrine is a result of people getting fed up with being punished for not fleeing criminals fast enough and having to defend themselves.

[Zyanya]

People are used to guns. They see them in movies all the time. While looking down the barrel on the wrong end of a 12 gauge shotgun is plenty intimidating, it's also a familiar thing. People don't encounter swords and spears as serious weapons all that much -- Realizing that you're about to get cut in half by a knife longer than your arm has considerable psychological shock value.

There was a study done a few years back on the psychological response to weapons. People were more inclined to run from a knife than a gun, as it provoked a more primal response. They were more inclined to run from a snarling dog than human wielding a knife or a gun.


They were also more inclined to run from a larger man holding a weapon, it seems many people just don't think the small woman is willing to use a weapon, which sadly, means it's more likely the small woman will have to use her weapon.

[tropicsgoddess]

In FL, we have a law where if anybody breaks in/trespasses in your home and if you feel they are a threat, you have the right to use deadly force.

[the_std]

I was wondering what people thought of this article in relation to this thread?

http://www.krem.com/news/northwest/stories/krem2_061908__intruder_shot_killed_.1e1d02d3.html

If he was actually asleep or unconscious on the couch, did that give the startled homeowner the right to shoot him?

[protege]

If he was passed out, I don't really see a threat there. Shooting the intruder was a bit extreme. I'm sure plenty of people, myself included, wouldn't have shot him, but grabbed the duct tape from the garage, and tied his ass up. A nice little package for the police :D

[crazylegs]

If he was passed out, I don't really see a threat there. Shooting the intruder was a bit extreme. I'm sure plenty of people, myself included, wouldn't have shot him, but grabbed the duct tape from the garage, and tied his ass up. A nice little package for the police :D

I think it would have been more proper to phone the police and cover him with your weapon until they arrived, they're the people trained/paid to roll on the floor and restrain someone, if you don't know what you're doing you're putting yourself and others at risk.

[Boozy]

I think it would have been more proper to phone the police and cover him with your weapon until they arrived

Or how about just leave the house and go to a neighbour's?

Does anyone know if this is legal under castle doctrine laws? I suspect not, but I haven't been following this thread very closely.

[rahmota]

Hmm. I'll even agree that if the perp was out on the couch shooting him was a bit much. Maybe call 911 and hold the firearm on him from across the room that way if he woke up before the cops got there you could shoot him.

As for if it would be legal under castle doctrine that would very much depend on the exact wording of the law as to how vague or precise it was worded. Some states/areas I believe it would be legal as the mere presence of an intruder in your home is sufficient threat to shoot them.