Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Castle Doctrine

Posted by on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:09 PM
  • 69 Replies

For those calling for the repeal of SYG which hasn't had a bearing on the Zimmner case yet, what are you wanting to actually take out of law? Do you want to repeal Castle Doctrine?

Edit to add: Some states even without SYG extend castle to anywhere you are or certain places you are without the requirement to flee. I think all people need to go to trial and SYG prevents that but not having to flee is a part of castle as well and we need to address that for real change.

by on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
UpSheRises
by Platinum Member on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Castle doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Castle Doctrine)
Jump to: navigation, search

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend against an intruder -- free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.

The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic.[2] The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle." This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.[3] The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "English" from the phrase, making it "a man's home is his castle", which thereby became simply the Castle Doctrine.[3] The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from his home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.[4]

The term "Make My Day Law" arose at the time of the 1985 Colorado statute that shielded people from any criminal/civil suits for using force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[5] The law's nickname is a reference to the line "Go ahead, make my day" uttered by actor Clint Eastwood's character "Dirty Harry" Callahan (in the 1983 vigilante-policeman film Sudden Impact).

LNLMommy
by Queen K on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:15 PM

 My main problem with SYG is the fact that there is no duty to retreat. Here in NC, that is a big component to any self defense case. You can't pursue someone and when your faced with a situation that you can't handle, have the legal right to use deadly force. As far as the Castle Doctrine goes-from what I remember in Criminal Law, you can't use this defense if the person is leaving and I agree. If a person is leaving, the imminent harm factor is no longer there.

stormcris
by Christy on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Several states extend where the castle is now. 

Quoting UpSheRises:

Castle doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Castle Doctrine)
Jump to: navigation, search

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend against an intruder -- free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.

The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic.[2] The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle." This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.[3] The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "English" from the phrase, making it "a man's home is his castle", which thereby became simply the Castle Doctrine.[3] The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from his home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.[4]

The term "Make My Day Law" arose at the time of the 1985 Colorado statute that shielded people from any criminal/civil suits for using force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[5] The law's nickname is a reference to the line "Go ahead, make my day" uttered by actor Clint Eastwood's character "Dirty Harry" Callahan (in the 1983 vigilante-policeman film Sudden Impact).


stormcris
by Christy on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Most states require no duty to retreat in their Castle Doctrine laws.

Should you be required to flee at all times if available?

Quoting LNLMommy:

 My main problem with SYG is the fact that there is no duty to retreat. Here in NC, that is a big component to any self defense case. You can't pursue someone and when your faced with a situation that you can't handle, have the legal right to use deadly force. As far as the Castle Doctrine goes-from what I remember in Criminal Law, you can't use this defense if the person is leaving and I agree. If a person is leaving, the imminent harm factor is no longer there.


katy_kay08
by on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:19 PM
3 moms liked this

Castle Doctrine and SYG laws are not exactly the same.  The Stand Your Ground law has gone further to cover people in any situation they may find themselves in, even violent situations they instigate and that to me is where the issue comes up.  IMO, the laws should not protect individuals that go out and instigate confrontation/aggression.  

IMO, the law in place could lead to a very serious issue whereas women being followed and threatened with rape could then be killed for fighting back without any consequence to the agressor/rapist.  When we assume only one individual has a right to defend his life it tips the scales of justice beyond what I believe was ever intended.   


LNLMommy
by Queen K on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:20 PM

 I'm not talking duty to retreat in defense of habitation cases. If you enter my home or dwelling it's a whole different ball game. I'm speaking of strictly self defense as in the Zimmerman case. He wasn't defending his home and I don't think he can use any defense of habitation clause because Martin was not entering anyone's home unlawfully. I guess I don't see the two as being interchangeable. And yes, in self defense cases, I do think you should retreat if possible. If the victim then becomes the aggressor and follows you, that changes the dynamics.

Quoting stormcris:

Most states require no duty to retreat in their Castle Doctrine laws.

Should you be required to flee at all times if available?

Quoting LNLMommy:

 My main problem with SYG is the fact that there is no duty to retreat. Here in NC, that is a big component to any self defense case. You can't pursue someone and when your faced with a situation that you can't handle, have the legal right to use deadly force. As far as the Castle Doctrine goes-from what I remember in Criminal Law, you can't use this defense if the person is leaving and I agree. If a person is leaving, the imminent harm factor is no longer there.


 

Sisteract
by Whoopie on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Actually juror B-37 has stated on 2 separate occasions that SYG was included in jury instructions and was utilized in forming their verdict.

Did you see her statement today calling for changing in the law?

LNLMommy
by Queen K on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:22 PM

 Exactly, these laws perpetuate violence. From what I've heard-not sure how true it is-there are gang members using this law to their advantage. Going to seek rival gang members and then killing them. And that part that sucks is if there are no witnesses, the truth is hard to prove.

Quoting katy_kay08:

Castle Doctrine and SYG laws are not exactly the same.  The Stand Your Ground law has gone further to cover people in any situation they may find themselves in, even violent situations they instigate and that to me is where the issue comes up.  IMO, the laws should not protect individuals that go out and instigate confrontation/aggression.  

IMO, the law in place could lead to a very serious issue whereas women being followed and threatened with rape could then be killed for fighting back without any consequence to the agressor/rapist.  When we assume only one individual has a right to defend his life it tips the scales of justice beyond what I believe was ever intended.   

 

 

stormcris
by Christy on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Interesting point. They are not the same. SYG make you immune to trial and Castle Doctrine is what you use at trial. SYG does not allow you to be in commission of any act of crime and use it. So for instance a drug dealer has and can say self defense in shooting but because they were dealing drugs they cannot use SYG. Castle Doctrine on the other hand is a matter of interpretation by a jury as to where it is self defense. Some states such as Florida makes your castle wherever you are, other states limit it to car, business and home and still others just home. Neither protect those in the commission of a crime in any state.

Quoting katy_kay08:

Castle Doctrine and SYG laws are not exactly the same.  The Stand Your Ground law has gone further to cover people in any situation they may find themselves in, even violent situations they instigate and that to me is where the issue comes up.  IMO, the laws should not protect individuals that go out and instigate confrontation/aggression.  

IMO, the law in place could lead to a very serious issue whereas women being followed and threatened with rape could then be killed for fighting back without any consequence to the agressor/rapist.  When we assume only one individual has a right to defend his life it tips the scales of justice beyond what I believe was ever intended.   



stormcris
by Christy on Jul. 17, 2013 at 12:27 PM

I read the jury instructions that were posted, did they change at trial? SYG was not mentioned. 

Quoting Sisteract:

Actually juror B-37 has stated on 2 separate occasions that SYG was included in jury instructions and was utilized in forming their verdict.

Did you see her statement today calling for changing in the law?


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured