Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Castle Doctrine

  1. #1
    Regular Member SPRINGFIELD_45_ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richlands, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    124

    Post imported post

    Castle Doctine was suppose went in effect DEC of last year.....TRUE or NOT???

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    SPRINGFIELD_45_ACP wrote:
    Castle Doctine was suppose went in effect DEC of last year.....TRUE or NOT???
    A castle doctrine was supposed to go into effect December of last year? I haven't a clue what was supposed to happen, but I know nothing did.

  3. #3
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    This is our current castle doctrine:
    § 14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.


    (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

    (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

    (c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)
    The castle doctrine bill that we tried to pass in the legislature this year reads like this:


    GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA


    SESSION 2007


    HOUSE BILL 476


    Short Title: Castle Doctrine for NC.


    Sponsors:
    Representatives Hilton, J.Harrell, Moore, Frye (Primary Sponsors); Almond, Barnhart, Blust, Cleveland, Coates, Faison, Folwell, Gulley, Holloway, Killian, McGee, Pate, Setzer, Spear, Steen, Underhill, Walend, Walker, and Williams.



    Referred to:
    Judiciary II.





    March 5, 2007





    A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
    AN ACT to clarify when a person may use force to defend himself or herself or another person or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

    The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

    SECTION 1. Article 6 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:

    "§ 14‑18.10. Use of force in defense of person or to prevent a forcible felony; immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for use of justifiable force.

    (a) Definitions. – The following definitions apply in this section:

    (1) Criminal prosecution. – The term includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) Deadly force. – Force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

    (3) Forcible felony. – Treason, murder, manslaughter, sexual battery, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, aggravated assault, stalking, and any felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

    (b) Use of Force in Defense of Person. – A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S.14‑51.1.

    (c) Immunity from Criminal Prosecution and Civil Action for Damages. – A person who uses force as permitted in subsection (b) of this section is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (b) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in this subsection.

    (d) Use of Force by Aggressor. – The justification described in subsection (b) of this section is not available to a person who is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony, or initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself unless one of the following situations exists:

    (1) The force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant.

    (2) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."

    SECTION 2. This act becomes effective December 1, 2007.
    Allthe new billdid was provide a more detailed explanation of what deadly physical force entailed and end the criminal and civil liability of a person that uses deadly force in justified self-defense. We are still a castle doctrine state just without all the civil and criminal protections that other states have gained in the past few years.This billgot stuck in a subcommitee and was never made in to law.

  4. #4
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    Edit: Double Post

  5. #5
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Ironically we are allowed to use deadly force if and whilethe the person is trying to breech your front door or other opening to your home. Once the opening has been breeched, our great state has made it clear that we have a duty to retreat. It is one of the worst written laws in the country regarding home defense. IF you shoot him through the door you're clear, if you shoot him standing at the door you're a criminal, and if you shoot himwhen he's on top of you you have used excessive force because you shot him at point blank range. Judged by twelve, or carried by six?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    yup... if you shoot through the door, its legal if they are trying to break in...

    once they are in, they have to threaten your life to make it legal...

    so if you wake up to someone sitting on your couch eating fruit loops and watching the simpsons at 2 am, you cant shoot them...

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    mekender wrote:
    yup... if you shoot through the door, its legal if they are trying to break in...

    once they are in, they have to threaten your life to make it legal...

    so if you wake up to someone sitting on your couch eating fruit loops and watching the simpsons at 2 am, you cant shoot them...
    No, you can't, but you can use physical force to remove them. Of course, they're obviously a criminal for breaking into your home, so it's reasonable to assume that they would resist. That, and you have no idea if they have a weapon on them, so getting within arms reach could be very dangerous. I wonder what a cop would do, faced with the task of removing a known, possible armed, criminal? Oh that's right! They'd point their gun at them and tell them to freeze or they'd get their brains scrambled. Of course we, as simple citizens, don't have that option. Oh well, it's not like I live in a bad neighborhood, anyway. That would NEVER happen to me...

    /rant

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    right... and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that someone would break into your house and then stop posing a threat to you, so i dont know if it is even worth worrying about the specifics of that law.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    mekender wrote:
    right... and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that someone would break into your house and then stop posing a threat to you, so i dont know if it is even worth worrying about the specifics of that law.
    Scenario:

    You hear a bump in the night. You grab your gun, and as you come around the corner yourun into an unknown person holding your TV, with another unknown person farther back in the room. The first person drops the TV on his own foot, screams, and stumbles back. The second person move towards you with something in his hand. You fire, he drops. You then aim at the person with the broken foot, who puts his hands up and "gives up". He behaves until the police show up.

    Now that's the story you give the police. All fine and dandy. You feared for your life and fired. Luckily the man that you shot didn't die. But wait, there's something wrong. Their stories don't match yours...

    We were just trying to make some money since mysister is sick. We just figured we'd, ya know, take a TV or something. We didn't think anyone was home. My buddy was taking the TV out, and all of a sudden he screamed. I didn't know what was wrong, so I ran towards him to see if he was hurt. I was holding the TV remote. The next thing I knew, I was shot. We didn't have any weapons...we didn't want to hurt anybody. All we did was break in to get the TV!

    Well now, according to NC's sorry excuse for a castle doctrine, YOU are going to jail. Is this situation really that unlikely?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    yup, i would have shot both of em.. after all the first guy attempted to throw a TV (deadly weapon) at me... the fact that he couldnt throw it past his own foot does not make his actions any less of a serious threat

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    mekender wrote:
    yup, i would have shot both of em.. after all the first guy attempted to throw a TV (deadly weapon) at me... the fact that he couldnt throw it past his own foot does not make his actions any less of a serious threat
    LOL! :celebrate

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    North Carolina General Statutes

    § 14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
    (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
    (c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)

    You can shoot them. Note the "intruder intends to commit a felony" element in the statute. The intruder is exposing themselves to multiple felonies just by being there.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post



    As far as I know there is no "Castle Doctrine" law in N.C. yet. You can go to a website and sign for ithttp://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?law4nc. This website has many signatures for my son who was in situation where this law should have been inforced. Or you can say "self-defense", which is a pretty hard thing to prove, especially if you knew the intruder.

    Say you go out with friends one evening and get dropped off and tell everyone goodnight, and you are in your bathroom chaning and a guy bursts through your bedroom door and says, "I've just gotta do this". Then he tackles you to the floor [and your'e on crutches also]. you start wrestling with him to get him off and he starts choking you saying"Die, Die". You manage to push him off and he plunges towards you again, so you grab your gun and shoot, just once, and call911 immediately. Next thing you know you're being handcuffed and charged with first degree murder!!!!! Thats N.C.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    You can shoot through your door but it's not recommended because there is a line of sight issue! In my CCWP class, the only legal instance we couldsummarize was a situation involving a restraining order (pending or enforced)against the party trying to gain entry with a past history of physical abuse in that relationship. Threats made by phone or other media would qualify as well. I would never blow holes through my door though...ricochets can be bad.

    Now if they make it in and lunge at me or a family member with a screwdriver...it's on!



Posting Permissions

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