Castle Doctrine

imported post

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that arose from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.


Does this mean that if someone breaks into your car and you shoot them you can say I was protecting my castle or say that it could have lead to a violent attack. Basically meaning that I am justifiable in shooting him?

or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack.

Click to expand...

imported post

Holy crap, three round burst.

imported post

Only if you or someone else was in imminent danger of physical harm, and if it was a felony they were committing. So if he was swinging a tire iron at your head or something...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

But, I may be wrong. And you should seek legal council about the specifics of the laws, I am not an official reference and do not take responsibility for your actions.

imported post

Holy crap, three round burst.

imported post

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
• The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
• The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

Someone breaking into your car meets alot of these credentials.

imported post

Crypto wrote:

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
• The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
• The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

Someone breaking into your car meets alot of these credentials.

Click to expand...

I imagine 99% of the time, when they see a gun, they'll book it. Last encounter I had it went that way. Guy had already broken in to my buddy's house, we had done the whole police shebang, and he came back. He opened the back door to the barrel of my .45. He took off pretty fast, and no problems since.

imported post

So, you can hold someone at gun point and it is still legal. Even know you did not shoot?

imported post

Crypto wrote:

So, you can hold someone at gun point and it is still legal. Even know you did not shoot?

Click to expand...

Yes, if you have caught a person in the act of committing a felony offense, you can hold them at gun point until LEO arrive to take custody of them. This would be considered a citizens arrest.

The use of a firearm to stop a criminal act does not always require the discharge of that weapon.

imported post

thats good to know... so, should a concealed pistol holder have a pair of handcuffs or zip ties with them at all times also?

imported post

Crypto wrote:

thats good to know... so, should a concealed pistol holder have a pair of handcuffs or zip ties with them at all times also?

Click to expand...

May not be a good idea. If your by yourself, it would be better to just have your captured BG assume one of the well known positions.

And there is always the chance you won't have enough cuffs or zip ties if you have multiple BG's. Wouldn't want any of them to feel slighted.

imported post

Its actually something I've been thinking about carrying around with me. You are probably right. But it would be better to handcuff or zip tie them. So, they dont run away. If you were holding someone at gun point. They know your not going to shoot because you would of already done it.

imported post

Putting restaints on a person usually takes both hands. YOU could find youreslf in a scuffle while cuffing a BG and lose your weapon to them. Unless you can get them to go face down on the pavement I wouldnt try it. And if you have more than one BGit's really a bad idea.

imported post

Crypto wrote:

thats good to know... so, should a concealed pistol holder have a pair of handcuffs or zip ties with them at all times also?

Click to expand...

Yeah, do that. Make sure you got your blindfold and HIIDE too.

But seriously. If you -really- need to tie someone up, you always have your bootlaces. I don't worry about it too much though. Washington, at least where I live, isn't so Wild West that I have to plan ahead for an apprehension.

imported post

Crypto, I just wanted to point out that the stuff regarding the castle doctrine that you quoted is a national overview, if you will. Every state is different on this matter and you still need to read the WA state law on it. Just as a heads up I don't believe it's referred to as castle doctrine anywhere in the RCWs so bear that in mind.

Your example is lacking detail but the way you wrote it, you would not be justified. Don't shoot someone breaking into your car unless you are IN the car WHEN the breaking in is occuring.

There are other parts of WA law that would apply to your vehicle being broken into, I would be very careful about trying to apply the castle doctrine type laws to your vehicle. They are generally meant to be applied to one's home or "place of abode."

imported post

Basically "castle doctrine" in WA means you have no duty to retreat if you are attacked in a place where you have a lawful right to be; you won't get in trouble just for standing your ground and defending yourself rather than running away. Some state laws (and the Place where Great Britain Used to Be) allow for prosecution if you could have run away from an assailant and instead stood your ground - that's a "duty to retreat". WA laws don't do that.

Of course, all of the standard guidelines for the degree of response you use in your self defense still apply.

imported post

As posted on the same page you posted - just further down from wikipedia.

"Washington

The statute in Washington state appears to be very simply and broadly stated.[19][/suP]

The law allows use of deadly force in the lawful defense of oneself, a family member, or any other person, when there is reasonable ground to prevent action(s) of the person slain to commit a felony or to do injury or harm, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, on those in their presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which they are.

Washington state doesn’t have a specific Castle Doctrine law, but has no duty to retreat as precedent was set when the State Supreme Court found "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."[20][/suP][21]"[/suP]

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



So keep it simple - if you fear for your life.... then you have reasaonable cause to use "force" to defend yourself anywhere you have a right to be at (in your car, in your house, walking down the street, shopping, etc).

Does this mean if you are at home and you see your car being broken into that you fear for your life - NO. If you aredowntown Seattle, just walking near Westlake Malland someone attacks you - then you can use force to stop the attack (Yes, it actually happened) http://www.seattlepi.com/local/287954_westlake08ww.html

Now for the second part: carrying handcuffs or restraints.... stupid idea. Yes I said Stupid....butthere is no law against it (I think). No law against stupidity too.

If you have to get that close to someone you lost all control. You are not trained nor are you a commissioned officer (LEO).

I will say every situation is different, that's why we have lawyers. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

imported post

Just a personal thought but if i get that close to a person whom has the intent to harm me or others the handcuffs will be the least of his worries...... :cuss:

imported post

The application of handcuffs is not a matter of snapping them on. There is a technique that must be mastered. If you do not have the training and even if you do, it can turn around and bite you quickly. ie you get one wrist cuffed and the perp gets loose. He now has a weapon on his wrist that you cannot take away from him. Putting cuffs on a person who will resist with vigor is not an easy task.

imported post

oldkim wrote:

As posted on the same page you posted - just further down from wikipedia.

"Washington

The statute in Washington state appears to be very simply and broadly stated.[19]

The law allows use of deadly force in the lawful defense of oneself, a family member, or any other person, when there is reasonable ground to prevent action(s) of the person slain to commit a felony or to do injury or harm, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, on those in their presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which they are.

Washington state doesn’t have a specific Castle Doctrine law, but has no duty to retreat as precedent was set when the State Supreme Court found "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."[20][21]"

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



So keep it simple - if you fear for your life.... then you have reasaonable cause to use "force" to defend yourself anywhere you have a right to be at (in your car, in your house, walking down the street, shopping, etc).

Does this mean if you are at home and you see your car being broken into that you fear for your life - NO. If you aredowntown Seattle, just walking near Westlake Malland someone attacks you - then you can use force to stop the attack (Yes, it actually happened) http://www.seattlepi.com/local/287954_westlake08ww.html

Now for the second part: carrying handcuffs or restraints.... stupid idea. Yes I said Stupid....butthere is no law against it (I think). No law against stupidity too.

If you have to get that close to someone you lost all control. You are not trained nor are you a commissioned officer (LEO).

I will say every situation is different, that's why we have lawyers. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Click to expand...

Ditto

imported post

:celebrateWashington State does not have a "Castle Doctrine". Keep that in mind. Washington State has a better idea (believe it or not). We are a Stand Your Ground" state.A whole lot better than a "Castle Doctrine". The explanation of "Stand Your Ground" is a little lengthy. Go to http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine (case sensitive) and scroll down until you come to Stand Your Ground. Basically if you are somplace (not just at home (Castle Doctrine)) where you can legally be you have no duty to retreat in other words Stand Your Ground. Remember this is nota legal statement, obviously you would need a lawyer for that.:lol: