Law protects armed homeowners

Discussion in 'Firearm Related News' started by GGReporter, May 13, 2008.

  1. GGReporter

    GGReporter Moderator

    7,251
    1
    Georgia and more than 18 other states have similar versions of a "defense of habitation" law, sometimes known as the Castle Doctrine law.

    More...
     
  2. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    Castle Doctrine

    GGReporter: Sir, NC shelved this particular last year. We have worked to wake the "defense of habitation", Right now it is lying quietly somewhere
     

  3. AKHunter

    AKHunter G&G Newbie

    Hopefully soon, all states will have such a law, and it should include immunity from civil suits as well.
     
  4. patrick70

    patrick70 G&G Addict

    Florida has the castle doctrine
     
  5. tlarkin

    tlarkin Guest

    4,449
    0
    We have it here in MO, and my friend is a public defender, and I asked her opinion on the matter. She said, that really that law really only protects criminals in some sense. She said as almost all laws interpret self defense of anyone who is illegally in home. Some states have regulations like you must warn them first and others have shoot first ask questions later. None of which was against the law to begin with, you have always had the right to defend yourself in your home. All of this is coming from my lawyer friend.

    She said what it does do, is gives criminals defense against killing other criminals. You invite someone over, kill them inside your house and claim castle doctrine. She has actually used it in defense of criminals (it is her duty to defend everyone according to the law).

    It was never against the law to defend yourself ever, so this law is nothing new but it opens the doors to many legal loop holes that criminals can use against you, or other criminals.

    The only time it ever becomes a legal issue is if they flee your home, and you follow them and hunt them down and shoot them, then it becomes illegal because you were no longer in danger.
     
  6. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    Respectfully, TL, some day you have to let me know what you're smoking -- it must be some powerful stuff !

    You're friend's wrong

    The only people who could be against Castle Doctrine laws are Criminals, Ambulance Chasing Lawyers, politicians who want to make problems worse, and politically ambitious prosecutors. Those who would unjustly hurt folks.

    Castle Doctrine laws prevent homeowners from frivolous lawsuits, and being pursued by prosecutors like the guy who went after the Duke LaCrosse players with no evidence. They basically prevent bad things from happening to good people making good decisions. Not all DA's look at a shooting an intruder who breaks into a home as justifiable (despite the intruder being a threat to life and limb). Castle doctrine laws prohibit these type of people from hurting honest citizens. Even in TX, the Harris County prosecutor was illegally going after people with firearms in ther vehicles (despite the legislature changing the law allowing permit free concealed carry in cars). It took another very specific law to reel the guy in. Look at the Alvarez case in Florida (a LEO being hung out to dry by one politically ambitious Janet Reno for political and racial reasons with no basis in fact whatsoever).

    Castle Doctrine laws don't change the decision making matrix one uses when defending himself/herself or one's home. They just stop bad things from happening to the person who legitimately did so. This has happened to people in the past. People have legitimately defended themselves in their homes, yet later been prosecuted because they "didn't retreat" even though this made no sense given the tactical situation. Compliance with the "retreat" duty within the home was arbitrarily left up to the whim of local authorities or a prosecutor, and potentially a jury who had hours to analyze something that happened in seconds. Homeowners have been sued in civil court for shooting burglars (even in a justified shooting situation by the way) -- I personally know of one of these cases; although the plaintiff didn't make any $ the homeowner spent quite a bit of legal fees and time and resources defending himself from a frivolous lawsuit after 3 people followed him home and invaded his house.

    Castle doctrine laws protect law abiding citizens, and hurt criminals. They also help decrease crime.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2008
  7. tlarkin

    tlarkin Guest

    4,449
    0
    I am at work and being on the influence of anything would be irresponsible while at work.

    Look, I don't know how to explain it to you other than she is a public defender for KC, MO, and defends lots and lots of murders and now has the castle doctrine to use in these criminals defense, and these defense attorneys use it.

    They must be doing something right if they are using it, and getting a less sentence or getting people off of murder charges. I am referring to a specific part of the law that allows for things like shoot first and ask questions later. It does in fact give some people a defense that was unnecessary before.

    I am not saying all of the legislator is bad, but there is definitely a duality for it. I just know for a fact defense lawyers are using it on all sides.
     
  8. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    ^^I was speaking figuratively due to what I believe to be a very strange and somewhat indefensable outlook on this and some other subjects.

    I'd suggest the ability to "shoot first and ask questions later" is fairly limited in the Castle Doctrines, and it would be pretty hard to use these to justify offensive criminal activity. I thus dispute the extent it can and has been used to successfully defend criminals trying to invite others over to their house to kill them.

    Anyway, good luck to you.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2008
  9. tlarkin

    tlarkin Guest

    4,449
    0

    I am not a lawyer, I just know they use it to defend criminals is all. I bet if you go talk to a criminal defense lawyer they could explain it a lot better than I could.
     
  10. I doubt we'll see it in Wisconsin anytime soon...