Welcome to the APBWeb.
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628

    "Castle Doctrine"

    What are your thoughts and impressions of laws regarding the use of deadly force against persons entering homes or vehicles unlawfully? Do you have any incidents or experiences to relate?

    For reference, Louisiana has such a law. It is included in the "justifiable homicide" statute, LA RS 14:20:

    20. Justifiable homicide
    A. A homicide is justifiable:
    (1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
    (2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
    (3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.
    (4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.
    (b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
    B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
    (1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
    (2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
    C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
    D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.
    Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, 1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, 1; Acts 1983, No. 234, 1; Acts 1993, No. 516, 1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, 1; Acts 2003, No. 660, 1; Acts 2006, No. 141, 1.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  2. #2
    Jks9199 is online now The Reason People Hate Cops & Causer of War
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    04-16-06
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    4,123
    Rep Power
    6563842
    Off the top of my head, it has not been codified in Virginia. Common law still holds, meaning that you can present an affirmative defense if you use force to defend yourself in your home.

    I think it's a solid principle; generally, I think anyone breaking into an occupied dwelling can be presumed to mean ill to the occupants, should they encounter anyone. Now, I'm not and never have suggested simply blasting if you hear someone breaking in (way too many tragedies have come from that sort of thing, whether it's cops being shot doing search warrants or residents shot sneaking in...). It's not a license to kill -- and it's not a defense that lets you go out and chase down someone who stopped breaking in and is fleeing, either.
    Voting against incumbents until we get a Congress that does its job.

    TASER: almost as good as alcohol for teaching white boys to dance

    "Don't suffer from PTSD -- Go out and cause it!"
    -- Col. David Grossman, US Army, ret.

    All opinions expressed are my own and are not official statements of my employer.

  3. #3
    lewisipso's Avatar
    lewisipso is offline Injustice/Indifference/In God we trust
    Supporting Member Lvl 3
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    02-02-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    14,720
    Rep Power
    6936011
    A person's home is their "castle". I'm a full believer in defending it. I'm pretty sure the business end of a .12 gauge is an effective deterrent. There is no reason a person should have to retreat from their home as a law. Only if it is their personal decision.
    (3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling
    Based on my experience of "burglars" they are criminals of opportunity interested in committing their act under circumstances beneficial to them not being caught. If a "burglar" enters my residence, confronts me, I would believe they would do so not expecting me and therefore attempt to leave. Should the "burglar" stay after encountering me then I would have no doubt of their intention and act accordingly.
    Do not war for peace. If you must war, war for justice. For without justice there is no peace. -me

    We are who we choose to be.

    R.I.P. Arielle. 08/20/2010-09/16/2012


  4. #4
    keith720's Avatar
    keith720 is offline Finely Aged
    Premium Lifetime Member
    Verified LEO
    Site Moderator
    Join Date
    01-06-06
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,364
    Rep Power
    5488745
    Wisconsin does not have a "Castle Doctrine" nor a CCW law, however, we also don't have a Democrat gov. any longer, so that may all change!
    For the morning will come. Brightly will it shine on the brave and true, kindly upon all who suffer for the cause, glorious upon the tombs of heroes. Thus will shine the dawn.

    Winston Churchill

  5. #5
    Five-0's Avatar
    Five-0 is offline Super Moderator
    Premium Lifetime Member
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    05-15-06
    Posts
    10,982
    Rep Power
    8357018
    I will disagree with the "castle doctrine" in this capacity....

    "I will defend myself or my family where ever I am." If anyone or anything tries to hurt/kill me or my family I will do everything in my power to defend them and my person. In our home, our car, or anywhere else. If a criminal comes looking for trouble/opportunity with me and mine they will find hell and not one ounce of mercy. I will stand in front of 12 of my peers and be judged, but regardless of that outcome I will be righteous with my Creator. I will sleep like a baby for the rest of my days on this Earth regardless of my status knowing my family was safe. Either way the trial or lack there of will be short, sweet, and inexpensive.

    Proverbs 28:1

    The wicked flee though no one pursues,
    but the righteous are as bold as a lion.



    Meanwhile, fishing in Russia:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat

    "Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway

    The opinions given in my signatures & threads DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "Five-0" on Officerresource.com

  6. #6
    bayern's Avatar
    bayern is offline Officer First Class
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    04-19-06
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    1,765
    Rep Power
    1392798
    Saw a sign once on Alligator Alley in Florida. Goes something like this: If you don't believe in the hereafter, step on my property and find out." I guess that says it all.

  7. #7
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    The "Castle Doctrine" is reprehensible only in that we should need to codify that a person can defend himself in his home. A more appropriate idea would be the "Attack me at your own peril doctrine."

    A person should be able to defend himself wherever he has a legal right to be, and if a prosecutor finds difficult the idea that someone is presumed innocent, then they need to find a new line of work.

    In Washington State, you may defend yourself in any place you have a legal right to be, up to and including lethal force if necessary.

    The typical pants wetters who believe it is morally superior to die while calling for a police response than to kill the animal who is attacking you will fear this idea.

    The idea in particular that I should be required to flee when attacked is morally bankrupt.
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



  8. #8
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628
    Here is where I must disagree:

    The statute as I read it below is not specifically a self-defense statute. It states;

    B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
    (1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
    (2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
    C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
    D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.
    Making it basically prima facie that the entry or attempted entry is enough in and of itself to justify force, and removing any ambiguity regarding the ability for the actor to retreat goes beyond the level of justification required for 'self-defense'.

    I believe that such stipulations actually put the 'teeth' in the law, and without those provisions, I would be in complete agreement with you in calling the law superfluous.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  9. #9
    creolecop's Avatar
    creolecop is offline Really? and I'm suppose to believe that??
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    01-09-11
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    226
    Rep Power
    220692
    Here is a little story about Louisiana justice. For those that don't know this kid was already a career burglar at 18 and was a suspect in numerous other burglaries, also in Louisiana if you have atleast a 6ft fence around your property and that fence is breached (simply walking through an unlocked gate, or climbing over is enough) with the intent to commit a theft that is defined as burglary so thats what the article references when they say attemtped burglary, entered the defendants backyard and tried to steal his four wheeler. He and his accomplices ran and when they couldn't find leday the next morning they told his family they were trying to steal a four wheeler and that when they ran they heard shotgun blasts, the family went back to look for him in the area and found him dead 3 yards over after jumping the fences trying to get away. The family contacted the city police and the city made the connection to the call the Sheriff's Office handled. In Calcasieu Parish the Sheriff's Office handles calls inside all city limits also as well as obviously the city police. So that part doesn't confuse you as to why they both got the call.

    LAKE CHARLES, LA (KPLC) - A Calcasieu Parish grand jury decided not to indict a homeowner who shot and killed 18-year-old Divonte LeDay. It was December, 2009, when LeDay was found dead from an apparent gunshot wound in a yard off Oleo Street.

    Lake Charles Police believe the victim sustained those wounds nearly 12 hours earlier while he and two others tried to steal a four wheeler a block away on Mill Street.

    "LeDay was involved in a burglary, an attempted theft. The homeowner took action shot two rounds and they fled," said Sgt. Mark Kraus.

    Both the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office and Lake Charles Police got calls about gunshots in the area. The homeowner on Mill Street filed a report about the attempted burglary with the Sheriff's Office, telling them he fired two shots in the air.

    The initial report from the Calcasieu Coroner's Office confirms LeDay died from injuries consistent from a shotgun.

    "We now know LeDay was struck by the shotgun blast and died a short time later about 200 feet from where that attempted burglary took place," explained Kraus.

    Kraus says LeDay was no stranger to local law enforcement: His first run was at 16 years old - police say he was the teen who brought the gun and fired shots at the "Just For Jesus" rally at the Lake Charles Civic Center back in May 2007.

    Kraus says this latest case should send a strong message to the chance would be burglars take. "We in America and specifically Louisiana have the right to protect our homes, property and family. And in using a shotgun or weapon to do so is authorized in many cases by law," said Kraus.

  10. #10
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    I believe that such stipulations actually put the 'teeth' in the law, and without those provisions, I would be in complete agreement with you in calling the law superfluous.
    I guess it's going to vary based on the way your force law is written.

    I make no claim to understand French civil code at all, but in common law the duty to retreat is a "new construct."
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



 

 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •