Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm 100 percent sure the cops have to yell "it's the police, open up" or something like that most of the time.
Now if it's a case where someone's life's in danger and the cops need to be quiet; then Castle Doctrine WON'T protect the perp because there was probable cause of a felony going down.
Even if police have a search-warrant, you will KNOW they are coming in. There's a reason they wear gear with SWAT written on it in huge letters.
Even if police have a search-warrant, you will KNOW they are coming in. There's a reason they wear gear with SWAT written on it in huge letters.
Wearing official uniforms is not always enough of an indicator. Especially in the dark or if you've been in the dark room. That's why well trained squads surround the home then knock and announce who they are before forcing entry.
If you knock down my door and I have no clear indication of who you are are, you're likely to get shot. I'm not letting someone who breaks entry near my family. It's too risky.
There is no state where you don't have the right to defend yourself, the major difference in states without the Castle Doctrine is you have the "Duty to Retreat". In States like this if it's is possible for you to avoid the conflict(e.g. running out the back door) LE could potentially second guess your actions after shooting an intruder. This of course is unacceptable.
It's the dead of night. My house is dark. How do I KNOW that its a dumb teenager breaking in and not some heavily armed serial killer. How can I possibly know their backstory without risking my life? I'm not omniscient.
It's not safe to give a dumb teenager a pass......they are more than capable of killing you.
Not long ago, in a town near me, an elderly woman was viciously beaten to death by a neighborhood teen who used to rake her leaves. He got drunk, broke into her home and beat her to death.
By the way, he wasn't armed either, didn't need to be.
Sure there's an argument for "castle doctrine"... but there IS an argument against it too. Beyond the potential for abuse, there's a moral belief that human life is more valuable than property. Maybe the dumb teenager breaking into your house for his first and last crime can turn his life around and later become a good and productive member of society? Maybe not... but how are we to know if it's OK to kill him at first sight, even if he flees or surrenders?
"et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium": every man's home is his safe refuge,
While state laws vary widely, the castle doctrine generally speaking only justifies the use of deadly force again forceable felonies, with some exceptions, crimes that could lead to imminent death, or grievous bodily harm (murder, assault, rape, or kidnapping) rarely does it protect one from pure property crimes although the assumption is that even a property crime can lead to a crime of violence.
As for abuse, that is for a jury to decide because use of the castle doctrine is not automatic (dependent upon state statute) and depending on the circumstance the use of deadly force, as in your example, can and has lead to convictions for degrees of homicide. So I don't see what the problem is. If you choose to retreat that is your right and privilege. If you use choose to employ deadly force such force should be used judiciously because not only place you in jeopardy of criminal proceeding it can also place you in jeopardy of a civil tort.
....If you use choose to employ deadly force such force should be used judiciously because not only place you in jeopardy of criminal proceeding it can also place you in jeopardy of a civil tort.
Not always.
In many states where the Castle Doctrine is in effect, the homeowner is automatically given immunity from civil lawsuits related to the shooting.
I personally am I big supporter of gun rights and self-defense. I think a lot of issues like abortion for example have reasonable arguments on both sides. I may not agree with one side or the other, but I can see the logic behind each side's argument.
With the Castle Doctrine, I cannot see a reasonable counter-argument. If an intruder enters my home, my personal property, with malicious intent, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to use lethal force to take them down. No one breaks and enters a house just to say hi and be friendly, If someone comes in, they're going to commit a crime.
What is the counter-argument? Let them back me into a corner and kill me?
The castle doctrine guarantees that I can shoot first and talk later, that element of surprise may save my life. A house isn't a battlefield, there isn't a lot of space to cover and have a drawn-out firefight.
I just can't see any reasonable counter-argument to it, but yet people oppose it.
The argument is that the maximum legal penalty for breaking and entering is not death. The home owner would still have self defense as a cause, but self defense requires that a reasonable person would be in fear for their life or the life of their loved ones.
Let's create a hypothetical. Your neighbor, whom you hate, gets drunk and when returning home walks into your house by mistake. You get out of bed, arm yourself and walk into your living room. You find your neighbor peacefully sleeping on your couch. With the light on you recognize him and decide this is your chance to get rid of him. The Castle Doctrine allows you to kill him. Does that seem right?
I think a lot of people are against the castle doctrine because they don't have a good understanding of the implementations in the United States.
Take my state of Texas for example. We have the castle doctrine as law but you cannot simply fire a gun at someone who steps on your lawn or even if someone is trying to steal your car from your driveway. However if this person forcefully enters your home while you are in it, you may use your judgement in determining whether this person is a deadly threat and it would be reasonably justified to make use of a firearm on such a deadly threat.
It's important to note that the castle doctrine doesn't just let you shoot anyone on your property without permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
The argument is that the maximum legal penalty for breaking and entering is not death. The home owner would still have self defense as a cause, but self defense requires that a reasonable person would be in fear for their life or the life of their loved ones.
Let's create a hypothetical. Your neighbor, whom you hate, gets drunk and when returning home walks into your house by mistake. You get out of bed, arm yourself and walk into your living room. You find your neighbor peacefully sleeping on your couch. With the light on you recognize him and decide this is your chance to get rid of him. The Castle Doctrine allows you to kill him. Does that seem right?
While state laws vary widely, the castle doctrine generally speaking only justifies the use of deadly force again forceable felonies, with some exceptions, crimes that could lead to imminent death, or grievous bodily harm (murder, assault, rape, or kidnapping) rarely does it protect one from pure property crimes although the assumption is that even a property crime can lead to a crime of violence.
Exactly, and with the Castle Doctrine LE cannot second guess your actions when you use deadly force. Unless you have some extraordinary set of circumstances such as that case in Colorado where the guy baited that kid with the purse it's pretty much cut and dried, enter someone's house illegally and they can shoot with impunity.
Let's create a hypothetical. Your neighbor, whom you hate, gets drunk and when returning home walks into your house by mistake. You get out of bed, arm yourself and walk into your living room. You find your neighbor peacefully sleeping on your couch. With the light on you recognize him and decide this is your chance to get rid of him. The Castle Doctrine allows you to kill him. Does that seem right?
Let's say some kid comes into my house unarmed with the intent of stealing stuff, I wake up and decide to confront him instead of walking out the back door. I end up shooting him and I'm charged with murder because I chose to confront him instead of fleeing. Does that seem right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
