I'm referring to the laws which several states have passed in recent years. These have been billed as providing clarification on the circumstances in which homeowners can use deadly force to protect themselves from intruders, and as granting some immunity from criminal and civil liability in such cases.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Have there been any court challenges to "Castle Doctrine" laws?
- Thread starter RDG78
- Start date
Slightly Dark Francis
New member
It appears there's one brewing:
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20090806/NEWS/908060318
Other than that, I know of none.
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20090806/NEWS/908060318
Other than that, I know of none.
travelingblueeye
New member
It's my understanding that 'Castle Doctrine' removes the victim's duty to retreat from an agressor... so my question to you is, when did a victim's duty to retreat from an agressor become law?
I don't buy it. I think it just serves to give a greater weight of argument to those nonsense laws that allow a burglar to sue you for slipping on your kitchen floor after he climbs into your window.
Since when does a victim of a crime need codification of the right to use deadly force to protect his or her property, family and life?
These laws will backfire. If someone breaks int oyour home, no matter what the intent, they should count themselves lucky to be alive to stand trial.
Any law addressing that can only serve to remove the natural rights we all enjoy by virtue of instinctual agressive respone to invasion, not enhance them.
Edit: It's also my impression that the duty to retreat, before the castle laws were in effect, was mostly interpreted as applicable in a physical altercation situation... Obviously this does not include a bar fight where you can easily remove yourself before a fight breaks out, but it seemed to me to indicate a situation where you are attacked, and try to not fight, but end up having to use force in defense. How do castle laws expand that right to defense instead of limit it?
I don't buy it. I think it just serves to give a greater weight of argument to those nonsense laws that allow a burglar to sue you for slipping on your kitchen floor after he climbs into your window.
Since when does a victim of a crime need codification of the right to use deadly force to protect his or her property, family and life?
These laws will backfire. If someone breaks int oyour home, no matter what the intent, they should count themselves lucky to be alive to stand trial.
Any law addressing that can only serve to remove the natural rights we all enjoy by virtue of instinctual agressive respone to invasion, not enhance them.
Edit: It's also my impression that the duty to retreat, before the castle laws were in effect, was mostly interpreted as applicable in a physical altercation situation... Obviously this does not include a bar fight where you can easily remove yourself before a fight breaks out, but it seemed to me to indicate a situation where you are attacked, and try to not fight, but end up having to use force in defense. How do castle laws expand that right to defense instead of limit it?
Generally speaking "no".
Many people don't really understand the "Castle Doctrine" laws and they just "think" they can do what they see on TV and the movies, and for that reason many gun owners have end up in jail for misusing their right to bear arms.
So any law providing more "clarification" is well received. The new laws don't change the basic principle of "Castle Doctrine" laws.
edit
As for the "duty to retreat": The duty to retreat was already required in many jurisdcitions, so nothing have changed.
Many people don't really understand the "Castle Doctrine" laws and they just "think" they can do what they see on TV and the movies, and for that reason many gun owners have end up in jail for misusing their right to bear arms.
So any law providing more "clarification" is well received. The new laws don't change the basic principle of "Castle Doctrine" laws.
edit
As for the "duty to retreat": The duty to retreat was already required in many jurisdcitions, so nothing have changed.