|
What is the Castle Law?
|
Re: What is the Castle Law?
I would guess they are talking about this or a version of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_..._United_States Castle Doctrine in the United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search <!-- start content -->A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that arose from English Common Law<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0 sizset="14" sizcache="3">[1]</SUP> that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine. A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force � including deadly force � against an invader of the home.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1 sizset="17" sizcache="3">[2]</SUP> The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day." This legal doctrine concerning the rights of homeowners to bear arms for self-defense, was recently argued in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller which addressed its relation to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. <TABLE class=toc id=toc sizset="23" sizcache="3"><TBODY sizset="23" sizcache="3"><TR sizset="23" sizcache="3"><TD sizset="23" sizcache="3">Contents [hide]
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used. In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business. [edit] Immunity from civil lawsuit In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many versions of the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the use of lethal force. Without this clause, it is possible for an assailant to sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender, or for their next-of-kin to sue for wrongful death in the case of a fatality. Even if successfully refuted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) must often pay thousands of dollars in legal costs as a result of such lawsuits, and thus without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a defender acting lawfully. The only exceptions to this civil immunity are generally situations of excessive force, where the defender used deadly force on a subdued, cooperative, or disabled assailant. A situation meeting this exception generally invalidates the criminal "castle defense" as well. In addition, someone who uses deadly force in self-defense is still liable for any damages or injuries to third parties who were not acting criminally at the time of the defensive action. [edit] Duty-to-retreat "Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-2 sizset="49" sizcache="3">[3]</SUP> Therefore, any state that imposes a duty to retreat while in the home does not have a "Castle law": the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. For states that do not require the announcement to be "verbal", other indicators may be used. These are typically not defined by statute, and would be left to the court's interpretation, but may include things such as laser sights or the cocking of a firearm, such as a shotgun. Care should be exercised in studying applicable individual state laws. In the majority of jurisdictions warning shots are illegal, and even brandishing the weapon in a threatening manner can result in criminal charges. [edit] Stand-your-ground Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that the shooter has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the shooter may legally be.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-multiple_3-0 sizset="51" sizcache="3">[4]</SUP> Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly. "Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-4 sizset="54" sizcache="3">[5]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-5 sizset="55" sizcache="3">[6]</SUP> In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905) where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated: The doctrine of "retreat to the wall" had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-6 sizset="56" sizcache="3">[7]</SUP>Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-7 sizset="58" sizcache="3">[8]</SUP> Most anti-gun right groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign denounce "Stand-Your-Ground" clauses as "Shoot First" laws (as in "shoot first, ask questions later"), asserting that the presumptions and other protections afforded to gun owners allow them virtual carte blanche to shoot anyone who is perceived to be trespassing. They also claim it will lead to cases of mistaken identity, so-called "shooting the milkman" scenarios. Pro-gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association claim that such scenarios are unlikely and are not protected under most Castle laws; the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither. [edit] Adoption by States Alabama,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-8 sizset="64" sizcache="3">[9]</SUP> Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-9 sizset="65" sizcache="3">[10]</SUP> West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-10 sizset="67" sizcache="3">[11]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-11 sizset="68" sizcache="3">[12]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-multiple2_12-0 sizset="69" sizcache="3">[13]</SUP> Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" legislation already are considered "stand your ground" in their case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had "stand your ground" case law and passed "stand your ground" statutes due to possible concerns of the case law being replaced by "duty to retreat" in future court rulings. Other states, including Washington, have "stand your ground" in their case law but have not adopted statutes; West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-13 sizset="70" sizcache="3">[14]</SUP> before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self defense in their previous self defense statutes. Utah has historically adhered to the principles of "stand your ground" without the need to refer to this new legislation. The use of deadly force to defend persons on one's own property is specifically permitted by Utah state law.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-14 sizset="71" sizcache="3">[15]</SUP> The law specifically states that a person does not have a duty to retreat<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-15 sizset="72" sizcache="3">[16]</SUP> from a place where a person has lawfully entered or remained. In Oklahoma (according to the Oklahoma State Courts Network), the amendment changes a number of other aspects of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, the statutes concerning justifiable homicide. As 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1289.25 now lists circumstances in which it is presumed that a person who uses deadly force "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." In addition, it helps to protect law-abiding citizens from arrest when using deadly force. Law enforcement agencies must now have probable cause to believe that the use of deadly force was unlawful before an arrest can be made. [edit] Delaware Justification�Use of force in self-protection.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-16 sizset="74" sizcache="3">[17]</SUP> (a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion. (b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action. (c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat. (d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful. (e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if: (1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or (2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that: a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed. [edit] North Carolina Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence. (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-17 sizset="76" sizcache="3">[18]</SUP> [edit] New Mexico Section 30-2-7A NMSA 1978 provides that a homicide is justifiable when committed in the necessary defense of property. Although this statute has been a part of New Mexico law since 1907, the New Mexico appellate courts have never given the statute a broad interpretation. The New Mexico courts have consistently held, not always referring to the statute, that one cannot defend his property, other than his habitation, from a mere trespass to the extent of killing the aggressor. State v. McCracken, 22 N.M. 588, 166 P. 1174 (1917); State v. Martinez, 34 N.M. 112, 278 P. 210 (1929); State v. Couch, 52 N.M. 127, 193 P.2d 405 (1946). [edit] Washington The statute in Washington state appear to be very simply and broadly stated.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-18 sizset="79" sizcache="3">[19]</SUP> The law allows use of deadly force in the lawful defense of oneself, a family member, or any other person, when there is reasonable ground to prevent action(s) of the person slain to commit a felony or to do injury or harm, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, on those in their presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which they are. Washington state doesn�t have a specific Castle Doctrine law, but has no duty to retreat as precedent was set when the State Supreme Court found "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-19 sizset="83" sizcache="3">[20]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-20 sizset="84" sizcache="3">[21]</SUP> [edit] West Virginia �55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary. (b)A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker in the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section. (c) A person not engaged in unlawful activity who is attacked in any place he or she has a legal right to be outside of his or her home or residence may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker: Provided, That such person may use deadly force against an intruder or attacker in a place that is not his or her residence without a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that he or she or another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he or she or another can only be saved by the use of deadly force against the intruder or attacker. (d) The justified use of reasonable and proportionate force under this section shall constitute a full and complete defense to any civil action brought by an intruder or attacker against a person using such force. (e) The full and complete civil defense created by the provisions of this section is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing or escaping from the commission of a felony; (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, herself or another with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or (3) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, herself or another, unless he or she withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. (f) The provisions of this section do not apply to the creation of a hazardous or dangerous condition on or in any real or personal property designed to prevent criminal conduct or cause injury to a person engaging in criminal conduct.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-21 sizset="86" sizcache="3">[22]</SUP> [edit] Wisconsin A Wisconsin "Castle Doctrine" bill, 2007 Assembly Bill 35, passed the Assembly on Friday, May 11, 2007; it died in the Senate and, therefore, did not become law. The bill would have created immunity for an act of self-defense for any person who uses deadly force while in his or her residence and is not engaged in illegal activity. [edit] Origins The American interpretation of this doctrine is largely derived from the English Common Law as it stood in the 1700s. In Book 4, Chapter 16<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-22 sizset="89" sizcache="3">[23]</SUP> of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he says: And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-23 sizset="92" sizcache="3">[24]</SUP> quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-24 sizset="93" sizcache="3">[25]</SUP> For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principal it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.As described in the Torah, the ancient understanding of the prohibition of murder made an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. �If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.�<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-25 sizset="95" sizcache="3">[26]</SUP> A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.[edit] State-by-state positions For the states with a Castle Doctrine, an external link is provided to the text of the specific statute, if available. If a direct link is unavailable, for example if the destination website uses Java, the statute name and/or number is listed. This list was last verified to be current on June 21, 2008. [edit] States with a Stand-your-ground Law No duty to retreat anywhere. <TABLE class="metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-style" sizset="100" sizcache="3"><TBODY sizset="100" sizcache="3"><TR sizset="100" sizcache="3"><TD class=mbox-image>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-clear.svg.png </TD><TD class=mbox-text sizset="100" sizcache="3">This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. <SMALL>(August 2007)</SMALL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
No duty to retreat if in the home.
The duty to retreat is not removed, but deadly force may be used to end invasion of home without presence of immediate lethal threat.
[edit] In other countries Israel passed a law, commonly known as the 'Dromi Law', defining opposition to intruders as legitimate self-defence in response to the trial of Shai Dromi, a farmer who shot intruders on his farm late at night. <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-32 sizset="165" sizcache="3">[33]</SUP> In addition, Italy passed a "Castle Doctrine" style law in 2005.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-33 sizset="166" sizcache="3">[34]</SUP> [edit] See also
Categories: Criminal defenses | Homicide Hidden categories: Articles needing cleanup from August 2007 | All pages needing cleanup <!-- end content --> Views
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> if (window.isMSIE55) fixalpha(); </SCRIPT>Navigation
<FORM id=searchform action=/w/index.php><INPUT type=hidden value=Special:Search name=title> <INPUT id=searchInput title="Search Wikipedia" accessKey=f name=search autocomplete="off"> <INPUT class=searchButton id=searchGoButton title="Go to a page with this exact name if one exists" type=submit value=Go name=go> <INPUT class=searchButton id=mw-searchButton title="Search Wikipedia for this text" type=submit value=Search name=fulltext> </FORM> Interaction
<!-- end of the left (by default at least) column --> http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/co...wiki_88x31.png http://en.wikipedia.org/images/wikimedia-button.png
Quote:
|
Re: What is the Castle Law?
|
Re: What is the Castle Law?
Castle law is alive and well in many countries...... the availability of guns for defence may not be so alive and well. In Australia there is, as far as I am aware, no codified castle doctrine, however there are many examples of people being shot or otherwise disabled by home owners with no charges against the home owner, because they acted lawfully. The common law clearly supports castle doctrine, even if statute law or codes might attempt to extinguish it.
In the last 2 years in my home town, there have been 2 cases that made the media. One was a 65+ year old man (I think he was about 70) and his wife who's house was being broken into. He barricaed himself and his invalid wife in their bedroom and verbally warned the assailants he was armed and would shoot. They busted the door down and he shot them. They survived and he was not charged because he acted "lawfully". A couple of weeks ago, a woman was attacked in her bed, not far from my area. She fought the attacker off with a knife she apparently sleep with under the pillow or something. No charges against her for that. |
Re: What is the Castle Law?
If I shot someone that broke into my house I'd probably just keep my mouth shut. It's not like they told a lot of people where they were headed...
|
Re: What is the Castle Law?
Quote:
What are you going to do with the dead body? |
Re: What is the Castle Law?
Quote:
|
Re: What is the Castle Law?
Ash Williams should know you have dismember the body with a chainsaw or it could come back.
|
Re: What is the Castle Law?
Quote:
From the previously cited Wikipedia article... California Penal Code � 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC � 197[1]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'� |
Re: What is the Castle Law?
Goldberg,
I thought that only the head needed to be removed to keeps zombies down. |
Re: What is the Castle Law?
What a koinkidink...I just finished putting up a fence around my entire home today...will be getting some of those signs soon..... :36_1_30:
|
Re: What is the Castle Law?
Indiana has castle doctrine law. It covers home and car.
One of the few things our lawmakers have done that is good. |
Re: What is the Castle Law?
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM