The "Castle" Doctrine

imported post

It seems to me thatsome hereare justifying the "shoot first" and ask questions later approach regardingtheir home. This is not acceptable to me. I hope it is not acceptableto any jury in this state either. Bad things could happen if this precedent were set. I hope for your sake andthe sake of possible "victims"that nobody ever tries to break into your home or accidentaly wonders in orforces their wayin in an attempt to avoid being attacked by someone else.

I always hope to avoid this, but I cannot sit around and watch some people talk about taking a life like it's "cool" or like they are some kind of tough guy. Taking a life is a VERY big deal andsome here seem totalk aboutit rather casually. This concerns me greatly. I want to tell you from someone who has had to defend himself and others with lethal force on several ocassions. My legal and justifiedtaking oflife has, and I am sure will continue to,botherme (to some degree)for the rest ofmy life. All experiences, situations, and reactions are different; but I would venture to say that any sane person would be greatly and negatively affected by deciding to use lethal force on an unarmed or harmless person.

Let us remember other non-lethal options and first and foremost -avoidance before resorting to lethal force. Simply coming into my home is NOT an offense for whichI will choose to punish someone by taking their life. I have a plan and have practiced and continue to review that plan daily. If certain lines are crossed, I have a plan that progresses through several different levels before lethal force is implemented. I suggest to everyone whom I teach a CPL class that they do the same and even help them with formulating that plan if they want it. I hope you and otherswill do the same.

I will ensure that someone means to do me or my family great bodily harm before I pull the trigger. I could not personally live with an unjustified homicide.

imported post

Springfield Smitty wrote:

I will ensure that someone means to do me or my family great bodily harm before I pull the trigger. I could not personally live with an unjustified homicide.

Click to expand...

Good post!

In addition, there is the reality that you certainly can't protect your family very well if you end up in custody/prison

.

imported post

Smitty,

You are talking from emotion.

I have not seen anyone here say it would be cool to shot someone. Or that they are a tough guy or shoot first and ask questions latter. I think you read way too much into what people right about this and change the thought to fit your emotions.

Deadly force should be last resort. Everyone should agree on that.

The castle doctrine takes the duty or proof of justified shooting from the home owner in most cases now. Again responsibility and sensibility must be used.

Middle of night: Slam, Bang, clash in the home from stranger breaking in.

Home owner: STOP! GET ON THE GROUND OR I'LL SHOOT! (If home owner does not ask, Hey are you a drunk WONDERING into my home?)

Stranger does not comply.

What do you do?

imported post

Springfield Smitty: I agree completely and that's why I resurrected that old post. Thanks for the post.

Mike

imported post

Wglide90 wrote:

Smitty,

You are talking from emotion.

Click to expand...

I am talking from emotion tempered with experience.

I have not seen anyone here say it would be cool to shot someone. Or that they are a tough guy. I think you read way too much into what people right about this and change the thought to fit your emotions.

Click to expand...

I do not see it that way. I honestly think some people think they are legally justified in shooting someone for simply breaking into their home.

Deadly force should be last resort. Everyone should agree on that.

Click to expand...

I agree, everyone SHOULD agree on that.

The castle doctrine takes the duty or proof of justified shooting from the home owner in most cases now. I diagree. The way I read it, the threat still must be imminent and of great bodily harm, death, or sexual penetration to yourself or someone else. Again responsibility and sensibility must be used.

Middle of night: Slam, Bang, clash in the home from stranger breaking in.

Home owner: STOP! GET ON THE GROUND OR I'LL SHOOT! (If home owner does not ask, Hey are you a drunk WONDERING into my home?)

Stranger does not comply.

Click to expand...

To what level does he not comply?

What do you do?

Click to expand...

There is far more to be considered in this scenario. As you left it, he could be standing there doing nothing. He would not be complying since you intructed him to "get on the ground." I would not shoot if that was the case. My intentions in the OP were to get people thinking in terms of great detailwhen formulating a plan. Think in great detail and change the scenario in as many ways as you can imagine. Then, practice often. This may seem like a bunch of crap to you but you will be happy you did so should you ever have to defend your actions.

Click to expand...

My responses in blue.

imported post

This is why I have a weapon light on my shotgun! So I can identify what is in my house before shooting!

imported post

Knowing legal guidelines and establishing your personal convictions is critical, but the fact remains that every situation is unique and must be handled as such.

I feel it's good to play out as many scenarios as possible because that can benefit us all, if and when the time comes to act

.

imported post

And remember people, pulling your gun and YELLING STOP OR I'LL SHOOT is ok in your house. Shooting someone in your house is ONLY justified when the is a REASONABLE expectation that they are there to inflict great bodily harm (that may lead to death) or ARE inflicting GBH or are engaged in forcible sexual penetration(rape).

In other words, you can only use lethal force if it is the only way to stop the threat.

Anything else IS questionable.

I don't see why this is such a hard concept for some to grasp.

imported post

Springfield Smitty is probably referring to my post inanother stringwhere I postedMCL 780.951 which basically states that under Michigan law it is assumed that the resident has a reasonable belief that they are about to undergoe great bodily harmif both of two conditions apply.

1) Someone is breaking into their home, has broken into their home and is still present, or is attempting to forcibly remove someone.

AND

2) Theresident who defends themself must honestlybelieve that the unwanted person in their home hasengaged in the illegal conduct described in the preceding paragraph.

I only posted the MCL, each person must examine their own moral and ethical code as to how they will react in any situation.

But according to this MCL you do NOT need to be actively under attack or threatened with an attack within your own home in order to respond with deadly force. This law assumes that someone whois forcibly entering your home has communicated their intent to do you great bodily harm as long as certain conditions are met and none of the listed exceptions are applicable.

This is NOT a recommendation or encouragement on my part to take a "shoot first" mentality. It is only what I read when I read the MCL.

Bronson

780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

Sec. 1.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.

imported post

Bronson, thanks for the post.

I feel it is very important the poeple know their rights in their home. I think that we have poured the thoughts into the funnel and are getting a single stream running out that people know their rights to protect in their home.

Good discussion.

imported post

I could have swore that Michigan got ride of the castle doctrine. Its now a Stand your ground state.

Anyone have any actual up to date info on this?

imported post

The castle doctrine package of laws are called the stand your ground laws as well.

imported post

I was wrong

imported post

cobra wrote:

autosurgeon wrote:

The castle doctrine package of laws are called the stand your ground laws as well.

Click to expand...

There's a difference, as it relates to the duty to retreat...

We are not considered to be a SYG state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States

Click to expand...

I would disagree with their interpretation in this line:

[*]

Michigan (more recent law—Act 309 of 2006—does not relieve duty to retreat "unless [deadly force is] necessary to prevent imminent death;" this represents no change from common law, which does not require retreat unless it can be safely done)

Click to expand...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-768-21chttp://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-768-21chttp://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-768-21c
While in MCL 780.972 it states that there is also no duty to retreat when using force OTHER THAN deadlyforce.

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

Bronson

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

I could have swore that Michigan got ride of the castle doctrine. Its now a Stand your ground state.

Click to expand...

As I understand it ...

Prior to 2006, except when in our own homes or businessess, we had a duty to retreat from an attack at the first reasonable opportunity. While we had no duty to retreat within our home we still had to be able to show a genuine fear of imminentloss of life, great bodily harm, or forcible sexual penetration from an intruder.

Since 2006 the laws no longer require us to attempt to retreat from any place we are legally allowed to be and they allow the assumption that a person who is illegally forcing entry into your home is doing so with the intent to cause you great bodily harm, forcible sexual penetration, or death*

*restrictions and conditions apply

Bronson

imported post

Well I agree with you sir. Lethal force is a last resort. This is why I have a 46.5" (overall) length Remington 870. This way if it comes to the "bad guy" not turning around and leaving, and he decides to come at me, it is great for hand to hand combat. If I need to step it up to the next level, I have two rounds of rubber buck shot (15 lil rubber balls per trigger pull, non-lethal). If need be taken to the next level yet, the next two rounds are #6 bird shot (suggested by the FBI because they will NOT go thru two sheets of drywall, ie. keeping family and neighbors safe). Just in case it is Robo-Cop breaking into my homeI thanhave rifled slugs behind them still (will kill anything).

I believe this is a good course of action. I don't think it would ever get past the hand to hand portion, but hell why not be prepared like the boy scouts taught me!

imported post

eastmeyers wrote:

Well I agree with you sir. Lethal force is a last resort. This is why I have a 46.5" (overall) length Remington 870. This way if it comes to the "bad guy" not turning around and leaving, and he decides to come at me, it is great for hand to hand combat. If I need to step it up to the next level, I have two rounds of rubber buck shot (15 lil rubber balls per trigger pull, non-lethal). If need be taken to the next level yet, the next two rounds are #6 bird shot (suggested by the FBI because they will NOT go thru two sheets of drywall, ie. keeping family and neighbors safe). Just in case it is Robo-Cop breaking into my homeI thanhave rifled slugs behind them still (will kill anything).

I believe this is a good course of action. I don't think it would ever get past the hand to hand portion, but hell why not be prepared like the boy scouts taught me!

Click to expand...

You use birdshot?

I would HIGHLY advise against that.

I don't know if you've ever checked out the Box 'o Truth, but the entire site is worth the read with great application.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

Read page 2. I hope this will drastically change your mind.

There was also another post on MGO that was something about the life of a LEO or something like that, and it was a discussion on bird shot, with real life application. Unfortunately, after digging around for an hour, I can't find the post. (I can't search "LEO" because it's too 'short'.) Anyway, it had a story of a LEO who had taken his shotgun out to practice with, and had forgotten to take his birdshot out. He had encountered two burglars, in which were armed. He had shot them, and they shot back; killing the LEO.

There was also another story attached to this, about a LEO shooting and killing a man who was using birdshot. The officer was hit in the FACE from a relatively short range, and still continued fire, killing the BG after 6 shots or so. (I really wish I could find this post; if anyone knows what I'm talking about and can find it, please post it.)

I also have a co-worker who was shot near point blank with birdshot while pheasant hunting, and while it did require him to have some facial reconstructive surgery, it didn't kill him, and that, like I said, was at near point blank. (He's a retired Detroit cop of 30 years, and he said the funny thing was, of all the years he worked, the only time he ever got shot was during recreation.)

As much as I hate to disagree with people on forums, I will say this: Using bird shot has been proven in real life application to be horribly ineffective. If you use birdshot, you're going to get yourself killed. The moment an armed person takes fire, they're going to start firing back; and if it takes you 4 rounds to get to your 'kill zone' rounds, he's already got an X amount of shots off on you. If you're going to pull the trigger and shoot at someone, you must accept the fact that there is a very good chance you will kill them, or you have no business shooting to begin with.

imported post

Way to nock my asteem down a dotch. LOL. So buck shot? If so, than what kind? One rubber buck shot, than four lead buck shot?

imported post

lol no problem! I just don't want anyone to get fired back upon because they're using the wrong ammunition!

From what I hear, 00 Buck is the best for home defense, and most 'self defense' shotgun ammo is 00 Buck from the looks of things. With the size of most houses, the distance from you to the BG shouldn't be that great to where your spread will hitting your walls, etc, especially if you have a choke on your barrel. Unfortunately, if you miss, you'll be doing some damage to your walls, but having enough power to penetrate the bad guy, unfortunately means having enough power to penetrate the wall too.

imported post

Does anyone know how far past the walls or how many walls 00 Buck will go thru???