Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Does your state have a "castle doctrine"?

Unfortunately, Wisconsin does not. We are a "duty to retreat" state.

Personally, I disagree. I'm going to assume when someone breaks into my house that they have nothing but bad/violent intentions and would use all force necessary to protect my family. I've heard of a few stories of people shooting home intruders up here, and while they may have caught some flak I don't think any were formally charged.

Texas has "castle" doctrine, a pretty decent CHL program, and recently passed the "Motorist Protection Act" that established criteria for lawfully having a concealed handgun in ones personal vehicle without having a CHL license.

There is even a bill to allow CHL's to carry in colleges and universities currently in the house. Don't know if it will pass though...

We've got some pretty good defense laws down here imo, as does most of the south.

FL has "Castle Doctrine" and it extends to your occupied vehicle*, your place of business, or most public places where you are legally. You can also use deadly force to defend someone else as if you were in their shoes.

Here brandishing a firearm will get you 3 years minimum. So if someone ticks you off and you show them your gun just to get your point across you will be put away for a few years.


*If you are in your house and you see someone breaking in your car outside you can not use deadly force to stop that person.

Texas has "castle" doctrine, a pretty decent CHL program, and recently passed the "Motorist Protection Act" that established criteria for lawfully having a concealed handgun in ones personal vehicle without having a CHL license.

There is even a bill to allow CHL's to carry in colleges and universities currently in the house. Don't know if it will pass though...

We've got some pretty good defense laws down here imo, as does most of the south.

I thought Texas had the "my neighbor told be to watch his house and these two punks just robbed it so I'm going to shoot them in the back as they run away while the detective watches while waiting for backup" doctrine?

I thought Texas had the "my neighbor told be to watch his house and these two punks just robbed it so I'm going to shoot them in the back as they run away while the detective watches while waiting for backup" doctrine?

You post as if there's something wrong with that?

:biggrinjester:

Texas has "castle" doctrine, Yeah, our Castle Doctrine is named poorly. It did not do near as much as most people think. There are three parts to it; 1) pertaains to establishing a presumption that your believe that deadly force was immediately necessary if certain criteria are met in your habitation, vehicle, business or place of employment, 2) If you are ANYWHERE you have a legal right to be there is no duty to retreaat (called a "stand your ground law" in most places, and 3) made immunuty in a civil case if you were justified under the penal code. (it does not prevent a civil suit from being filed, despite what many think)


a pretty decent CHL program, I am an instructor. It is a pretty good program.
and recently passed the "Motorist Protection Act" that established criteria for lawfully having a concealed handgun in ones personal vehicle without having a CHL license. Actually it is for any motor vehicle under your control. Gang bangers not eligible. lol


There is even a bill to allow CHL's to carry in colleges and universities currently in the house. Don't know if it will pass though... The bill is moving along quit nicely, currently you can carrry with a license on campus, just not in the buildings. The bill would correct that.

I thought Texas had the "my neighbor told be to watch his house and these two punks just robbed it so I'm going to shoot them in the back as they run away while the detective watches while waiting for backup" doctrine?

That is not exactly how it happened. When Joe Horn ( the man who defended his neighbor's property) went outside, the two burglars turned on him, one with a crow bar.

To my knowledge, Oregon has nothing written about a castle doctrine per se. However, it's been common practice that if someone breaks into your home, you can assume they are there to harm you and use deadly force to protect yourself and your family.

However, that's not a blanket license. If you shoot someone in the back who's obviously fleeing out the door, it might get sticky. It's all built around a reasonable belief that you or someone in your household is in danger. I investigated a handful of shootings (and killings) where a homeowner shot someone who had illegally entered their home and it was deemed justifiable by the DA/grand jury.

I also investigated one where a man shot a kid with a rifle, killing him as he was running away after breaking in to the man's pickup that was parked in the driveway. He went to prison.

I also investigated one where a man shot a kid with a rifle, killing him as he was running away after breaking in to the man's pickup that was parked in the driveway. He went to prison.

That's understandable. Do you remember how long he was put away for?

Here brandishing a firearm will get you 3 years minimum. So if someone ticks you off and you show them your gun just to get your point across you will be put away for a few years.

Would that include hypotheticals like: Someone is threatening you with bodily harm and you brandish your firearm to back them off?

Or is it simply that you can't stick a gun in someone's face just because you're having a pissing match...

That's understandable. Do you remember how long he was put away for?

Seven years, but that was before we had mandatory sentencing laws. Now it would be at least 20.

Would that include hypotheticals like: Someone is threatening you with bodily harm and you brandish your firearm to back them off?

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Texas justifies threatening the use of deadly force to stop imminent unlawful force, and it also justifies USING deadly force to stop unlawful force. This is good for those of small stature and / or limited strength or mobility. Texas does not expect you to take a beating when the threat of unlawful force is imminent.

Of course, if you are antagonizing or provoking an individual, than an argument can be made that your actions were not "defensive" in nature, and possibly unjustified.

Would that include hypotheticals like: Someone is threatening you with bodily harm and you brandish your firearm to back them off?

Or is it simply that you can't stick a gun in someone's face just because you're having a pissing match...

A person just saying he's going to kill you isn't enough. When the police show up and the other guy didn't have a weapon you will go to jail.
It must be Imminent (it's going to happen now), they must have the Intent (they say and act as they are going to do it), AND they must have the Ability (Have a weapon available and be able to use it). All three things must take place before you can even think about deadly force.

You can see a couple of examples at this lawyer's website. Stand Your Ground: An Absolute Defense in the State of Florida | Criminal Defense Attorney Serving South Florida (http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Blog/2010/April/Stand-Your-Ground-An-Absolute-Defense-in-the-Sta.aspx)

We have it and it's a wonderful thing.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Texas justifies threatening the use of deadly force to stop imminent unlawful force, and it also justifies USING deadly force to stop unlawful force. Neither of those are true.
This is good for those of small stature and / or limited strength or mobility. That is called "disparity of force, and is entirely dependant on the circumstances.
Texas does not expect you to take a beating when the threat of unlawful force is imminent. No, but deadly force is only justified to stop the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, or to prevent certain crimes.


Of course, if you are antagonizing or provoking an individual, than an argument can be made that your actions were not "defensive" in nature, and possibly unjustified.In fact, Texas use of corce laws specifically remove your justification if you provoked the other.

Neither of those are true.

/shrug

We'll have to agree to disagree.


TX P.C. 9.04 THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

While I'm no lawyer, this code, P.C. 9.31 and 9.32, pretty clearly states that my wife doesn't have to go hand to hand with a hostile gorilla trying to drag her out of her car in a parking lot when she is in fear of imminent death or serious injury. She can threaten said gorilla with deadly force to stop his attack, and if he stops and runs off, all is good. Barring that, she can use deadly force to stop his attack.

Here's an example of the wording in our Penal Code regarding NO retreat requirement:


A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

G'bless Texas.

/shrug

We'll have to agree to disagree.



While I'm no lawyer, this code, P.C. 9.31 and 9.32, pretty clearly states that my wife doesn't have to go hand to hand with a hostile gorilla trying to drag her out of her car in a parking lot when she is in fear of imminent death or serious injury. You are correct, but that is NOT what you wrote earlier. You wrote that deadly force could be used against FORCE, and that is not true. FORCE and DEADLY FORCE have different meanings, and Deadly Force is only justified in specific circumstances.

Deadly is justified ONLY to protect yourself from the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, or to prevent the imminent commission of Sexual Assault, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Robbery, aggravated Robbery, Aggravagted kidnapping and murder.


Here's an example of the wording in our Penal Code regarding NO retreat requirement: I believe that is what I wrote.

BTW, I am Texas Department of Public Safety trained and certified Concealed Handgun License Instructor as well as a DPS certified Classroom and Firearms instructor for the Private Security Bureau. I also hold a TCLEOSE instructor's certification.

Be safe ;)

I thought Texas had the "my neighbor told be to watch his house and these two punks just robbed it so I'm going to shoot them in the back as they run away while the detective watches while waiting for backup" doctrine?


That is not exactly how it happened. When Joe Horn ( the man who defended his neighbor's property) went outside, the two burglars turned on him, one with a crow bar.

I don't recall the details but I think the detective reported he saw Horn shoot them in the back. To his credit, the detective didn't arrest Horn. I don't think there are many places where he wouldn't have been arrested as the detective witnessed it and "shot in the back" were his words.

BTW, the two dead guys were both illegal aliens with ties to some of the drug cartels I think and long criminal histories. They were originally misidentified because of their fake IDs. They would not have hesitated to kill Horn for a nickel. I thiink they were destined to end dead either in a fight with LE or someone like Horn. Ends don't justify the means but the ends turned pretty good with only dead bad guys and no injuries.

I don't recall the details but I think the detective reported he saw Horn shoot them in the back. To his credit, the detective didn't arrest Horn. I don't think there are many places where he wouldn't have been arrested as the detective witnessed it and "shot in the back" were his words.

One was shot in the back... essence of the incident was he went outside to observe. When he announced he was going out, he saw them leaving the neighbors house. Upon going outside, they were either on his property or moved onto his property. The report stated at least one of the men moved towards Horn after being told to stop/freeze. I want to say I think they both moved in general toward him but the one turned when the first shot was fired.

There were both illegal aliens, one of which had already been deported. There was a lot of local chatter about, most of which ignored a few facts.

Remarkably, Massachusetts does. We're likely the second most gun-unfriendly state but about thirty years ago we got a good law.

MGL c 278 s 8a

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.