Castle doctrine, what SHOULD it mean ?

[jack404]

I'm asking this as the next thing i'd like to run up the flag pole here in Australia is the right to self defence of family and of property , something which we dont have a right of here currently , i've got a lot of info and idea's from you folks and your exercising of your rights and freedoms and applied some of them here via the shooters and fishers political party and other means in the not so recent past , let's see how we go with this one

Castle Doctrine

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine arising from English common law[1] 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 "castle"), and 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.

but we see this argued in courts in the USA and other places daily almost

some say the right to self defence does NOT include the use of deadly force
some state "a use of the minimal amount of force necessary to obtain safety"

what should it mean ? what limits should it have ? do you have the right to defend your home and self against police if you have a reasonable suspicion they are there in error , but the police wont listen ( theres a reference case to this )
is making your house a bunker a anti social act that should be prohibited ? ( possible new EO coming obozo team on it now after UN meeting on arms )

floors open folks

please give your "why" as well

its in the why that the secrets of what can be found often

cheers

[permafrost]

A friend had parked his truck on a side street here ,to wait for daylight ,to make his delivery. He awoke about 2 A.M. to the movement of his truck.He looked out and someone was stealing the batteries out of his truck. This thief had already stolen one from the small forklift on his truck bed. My friend got his 44 mag and went back and asked the thief(who was hooking up his battery in an old pickup) if that battery was worth his life.The thief jumped in his pickup and sped away, without my friend shooting him. When the police came ,they said he should have blown him away, because the truck, where he was sleeping was his residence that nite. That's my idea of the proper use of the Castle Doctrine. It may not be the same in other states in the US, but here if they are stealing your property at your place of residence (nevermind being concerned about personal injury) you can dispatch them with the blessing of the law.

[Juker]

Jack, for all its nonsense with FOID cards, etc., Illinois actually has some outstanding laws on this issue, as follows. Note blue section - can't be sued by bad guy or his estate unless willful or wanton misconduct is proven on behalf of the homeowner. Also note no mention of "DUTY TO RETREAT", which is on the books in some states:

ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 1)
Sec. 7 1. Use of force in defense of person.
(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 defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b - In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

(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:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,
riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

( b - In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7 3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 3)
Sec. 7 3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(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 trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b - In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

[carver]

Jack, the problem is that SD is a God given right, and as most of the world do not believe in God anymore, they don't understand this concept. Man has a tendency to move away from God, and become his own God. The Constitution of the U.S. lists a few of these God given rights, the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, along with the right to keep and bear arms. A lot of folks think that this document, the Constitution, gives us here in this Country, these rights. A Government that can give you rights, can also take them away. I do applaud you, and your efforts! As far as the Castle Doctrines of most States, they do differ, and the basis for this difference is the way these people see the power of Government in our lives, and they do not see, or recognize, the power of God. I like the one we have here in TX, http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html It states plainly that I can defend my property, as well as my life.

[Juker]

The "police at your house in error" is a much-debated issue. There's probably a hundred different scenarios, ranging from a knock to awakening in the dead of night to the sound of a battering ram tearing down your front door.

My father, a former deputy sheriff, told me that the police are always right, and to do what you're told then sort it out later - better than getting shot in error.

So someone's prying open your front door with a car jack, you're inside with a shotgun, and they yell, "POLICE!" You know you've done nothing wrong, and there's no possible reason the cops should enter by force. What then? Do you risk shooting a cop, or do you risk getting killed by a scumbag just because they yelled, "POLICE!" - ? Do you let them know you're armed, to cease and desist until they back away and show badges and warrants?

I know the cops are dealing with issues that were unimaginable not too long ago - meth labs, terrorist cells, much more.

The home fortification issue can probably be tied into this. It's my house, I'll do what I want with it. If I choose to brick up the windows and put concertina wire atop my fence, it's my right. Should that cause suspicion on the part of law enforcement, as to why I'm doing it? It might - but as I have learned, being someone who regularly reports things to the police, they have to have a reason to enter a domicile. Drug dealers? Child abuse? Domestic disturbance? Sure, they can knock at the door, but if no one answers, hmmm.

"Did you see them dealing drugs?"
"No, but when a dozen different cars show up every night in the driveway, and someone comes out of the house to the car, and seconds later that car leaves, I don't reckon they're passing out Amway samples."
"But did you see any drugs?"

[carver]

I live in TX, the only time I would call a cop is if I came home, and found it broken into. If the BG's were still there, then there might be a shooting! After which, I would call the cops. Juker, I got to say that you did a good job with this post! Things like this do happen here, police breaking down a door, but not anouncing themselves. Home owner, not knowing it's the police, opens fire! IMHO, the police, once they have the house surrounded, should give those inside the chance to give up peaceably. No need to bust in un-anounced, and risk getting shot, or shooting an inocent person. I understand that the cops are worried that if given enough time the BG will get rid of all drugs, etc., as quickly as possible. The Constitution states plainly that:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
If the officer has the warent to search that house, then does that give him the right to break in?

[Marlin T]

Great question Jack.


In my opinion it is time for you guys to get down to the VERY basics.

The castle Doctrine comes from what our founding fathers talked about all the time and is all over our founding documents. That is our Natural Rights, our God given rights that apply to all of mankind.

"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."
- James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice).





The primary laws of nature would be in reference to what Thomas Hobbs wrote.





Leviathan by Thomas Hobbs, 1651
PREFACE
The Laws of Nature:
The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.
The Second Law of nature is that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace, and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.
The Third Law is that men perform their covenants made. In this law of nature consisteth the fountain and original of justice... when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust is just.
The Fourth Law is that a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace, endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will. Breach of this law is called ingratitude.
The Fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, forward, intractable.
The Sixth Law is that upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it.
The Seventh Law is that in revenges, men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow.
The Eighth Law is that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely.
The Ninth Law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.




This is a link to James Wilson's , 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals'
It is a fantastic read.

[Juker]

Originally Posted by jack404

[SIZE="1"]

some say the right to self defence does NOT include the use of deadly force
some state "a use of the minimal amount of force necessary to obtain safety"

what should it mean ? what limits should it have ?

Here are some additional thoughts.

I have a legal, Constitutional right to defend my home and my family, without retreating. Not all gun owners share my view, but here goes - if someone breaks into my home, they will not get out alive. We've all read the stories of home invasions, rapes, kidnappings, etc. It is not incumbent upon me to determine the rationale, mindset, mental capacity, or motive of an intruder in my home, because everyone knows it is illegal to break and enter. I don't care why they are there. My home contains everything material I've worked for in my life, and beyond comparison, it contains the lives of my loved ones. I will not risk trading their lives for the life of a criminal. When they step in, they have sacrificed themselves.

I have explained my views to several new gun owners who were finally getting serious about self defense, because I believe it's imperative to have it fixed in your brain the actions you will take if an intruder enters your home. Not running around looking for your gun, or unlocking your safe, or locking the bedroom door, or yelling "I've got a gun!"

The minimal amount of force necessary to obtain safety, for me, is the certainty that the intruder has been completely, totally dispatched. Then I will feel safe, because I will know my family is safe.

If the right to self defense does not include the use of deadly force, what are the intentions of those who claim this? Mace? Pillow fight? Must I determine if the intruder is armed in the dark? Bigger and stronger than I am? High on something? Again, not my responsibility. I bear no burden of warm and fuzzy,takes-a-village, Coke-and-a-smile humanitarianism when it comes to defense of my family.

[Bobitis]

Washington State is not a 'Castle Doctine' state. It's a 'Stand your ground' state.
It's nit picking, but there IS a difference.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

I'm not restricted by my homes walls. I'm not restricted by my 'family' status.

If I fear for the life of another, I'm protected in some sense. As it should be.

Why should it matter if the perp is in my home, or my family only is involved? Why shouldn't I be allowed to protect my neighbor, or anyone else for that matter?

Anything less gives the criminal an advantage. Screw 'em.

[dad2thebone]

some states as in cal have 2 types of warrants, knock and announce and no knock . altho most judges dont hand out no knocks often they still do. IMHO i prefer no knocks as it doesnt give em time to arm themselves and pop ya coming in the door or cranking a few through the door and your first in. Its all double talk and meant to protect the law from any and all lawsuits.

[dad2thebone]

shoot now worry later. if your life is threatened WHAT YA GONNA DO WHEN THEY MESS WITH YOU

[Juker]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

Washington State is not a 'Castle Doctine' state. It's a 'Stand your ground' state.
It's nit picking, but there IS a difference.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

I'm not restricted by my homes walls. I'm not restricted by my 'family' status.

If I fear for the life of another, I'm protected in some sense. As it should be.

Why should it matter if the perp is in my home, or my family only is involved? Why shouldn't I be allowed to protect my neighbor, or anyone else for that matter?

Anything less gives the criminal an advantage. Screw 'em.

Same here in IL.
"(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 defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force."

I've actually asked LEOs and attorneys about this, just to be sure. If a neighbor calls for help, if I see a child being lured into a car, if I see someone prowling around a neighbor's backyard, then (a) above applies.

[jack404]

"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."

this i like a lot ,

thank you all for the thought inspiration , and your reasons why .

now i gotta work this into a UN sounding way that we can throw back at the UN anti gunners and human "rights" mob ( who only talk about rights while they steal em away from you )

[wyoredot]

great post, all you folks have a true uncluttered view of what should really be happening in the world. I like it.