Delegate Bill Janis has introduced a bill that would add Virginia to the list of states with so-called “castle doctrine” laws. Essentially, the bill says if someone breaks into your house and you feel threatened, you are permitted to use any degree of force you deem necessary in self-defense against the intruder. (Hat tip: J. Sarge.)

Castle doctrine laws obviate the requirement that a person has a duty to retreat before using force in self-defense. The obvious problem with applying the duty to retreat to the homeowner is that, inside his domicile, the homeowner already has retreated. He has closeted himself away from the outer world inside what should be his zone of privacy and security. To demand that he then retreat even further (where to? a closet? a panic room?) is absurd.

The castle doctrine is aptly named. It not only borrows from the truism that a man’s home is his castle, it also alludes to the historical fact that castles were fortified places of retreat and self-defense. If someone breaches the walls uninvited, that seems sufficient justification for—as Oliver Cromwell put it—“opening up a big ol’ can of whup-a** on him.“

I would be interested in seeing how this law integrates with laws that permit police to conduct so-called “no-knock” entries into private property.

In the dark, police are not all that different from criminals.  Nor do I advocate they should get special protection in such situations.  If the homeowner has an inalienable right to self defense, is it inalienable or not?  Or does the state maintain the supreme right to invade your home?

Thanks Bill,

(1.) I also realize that Peair’s lost his home after the civil trial. And, that he felt badly for the mistake…

...so badly that he vowed never to own a gun again.

(2.) I also see that the bill’s intent is to eliminate language that would have a person hauled to court needlessly, in the event they are legitimately protecting their families.

But considering the already high level of violence in our nation—we are rivaled only by the under-developed countries of Africa (what a great standard, eh?)—I am looking for evidence that well-meaning citizens are, in fact, routinely hauled into court for legitimately protecting themselves.

At this point I’ll even accept some heresay. Until then, this whole thing looks to me like snake oil; an elixir just to satifsy a thirst for violence.

In fact, I’m willing to bet that most of you have never experienced a violent crime, and (hopefully) never will.

But don’t get me wrong, Bill. I wouldn’t actually lose sleep if this bill does go through. I just don’t think we need it. And I think that many paranoid reactionaries will see it as a license to be as trigger happy as they please.

In the interim, I will be researching more cases, so as to provide fact.

“Did you not read a newspaper prior to 2007?“

Aw, c’mon Larry, let’s not go this way.  Of course I did.

“You did ask me to work double-time to make up for your lack of knowledge on this.“

Now, now - all I asked was that you provide a few hard facts to back up the story that you vaguely referenced.  Now that you provided a few more details, indeed I do recall this story.

I would like to point out that you’re missing a major point here.  You have been saying all along that you trust the police and the CA’s office to make the right decisions; i.e., they will know when you’re acting in self-defense and when you’re not.  Well, as you point out, the shooter in this case WAS, in fact, charged with a crime because he was NOT presented with a threat of imminent serious physical injury or death, and his stated belief that he was in fear of his life was NOT reasonable under the circumstances.

The local goverment made the right decision - his shooting was not justified; they charged him with manslaughter.  He did NOT get off scot-free because what he did was “legal” - he was charged with a major crime (as he damn well should have been), he went through a criminal trial and the JURY acquited him.

Here’s a bit more detail on the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

Note: “District Attorney Dori More concentrated on establishing that it had not been reasonable for Peairs, a 6-foot-2, well-armed man, to be so fearful of a polite, friendly, unarmed, skinny, 130-pound boy, even if he came to the door unexpectedly, that he was not justified in using deadly force.“

Also: “In a later civil action (95 0144 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/95), 662 So.2d 509), however, the court found Peairs liable to Hattori’s parents for $650,000 damages.“

I reiterate that under Delegate Janis’ bill, you get protection ONLY if the person commits an OVERT act causing you have a REASONABLE belief of IMMINENT serious physical injury or death.  If the Louisiana case happened under this proposed law, the guy should not benefit from its protection, and if the DA, as you say, makes the right decision, he would get the guy indicted and on trial. 

The DA in the LA case got him charged, brought him to trial, argued that he was not justified in shooting, but juries are unpredictable things.  That’s a very different matter from not being charged with the crime at all because the police and/or DA determine you qualify for protection under the law. 

A jury acquited O.J. Simpson, and it’s pretty clear to any reasonable person that he got away with a double murder.  That doesn’t mean that what he did was “legal”.

Larry, it still seems to me that you’re misunderstanding just what this law does.  It does NOT give anyone “license” to “blast away” just because someone walks in your door.  The general criteria for using deadly force in self-defense remain UNCHANGED.  The ONLY thing it does is eliminate the question “but did you try to run away first” when you are defending yourself in a place that you have the legal right to be. 

I don’t know the exact numbers right now, because legislation has been moving through many state legislatures, but something like 16 or 20 states have passed essentially similar legislation in the past couple of years, starting with Florida.  There is so much misinformation and outright misrepresentation about what these laws do that the reality gets lost in the rhetoric.  They do NOT give anyone “license to murder” and they do NOT “make murder legal.“

More on this case. From the New York Times, 11/03/1994:

“On Oct. 17, 1992, Yoshihiro Hattoris approached the home of Rodney Peairs in Baton Rouge, La., mistaking it for the location of a Halloween party. Mr. Peairs warned the teen-ager to ‘freeze,‘ but the youth, who spoke little English, apparently did not understand the warning. Mr. Peairs then opened fire with a .44-caliber handgun.

Mr. Peairs was acquitted of a manslaughter charge in May 1993.“

Please note, Bill, Patrick and Bart, that this innocent kid merely “approached” the man’s home. Talk about a Castle—this guy drew himself and invisible moat… and could STILL legally blow someobody away.

OK BILL, You can start with this. If you chide me for the year being off, then you’re merely diverting attention away from the larger issue:

http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1992-10/1992-10-20-NBC-7.html

You did ask me to work double-time to make up for your lack of knowledge on this. I’ll dig up more cases while I’m at it. The can of worms has officially been reopened!

From Bill, “I’m sorry, man, but I really have a hard time buying that this is exactly what happened and that the homeowners got off scott free.  I’d have to see something more than an apocryphal story on this one.  I would appreciate it if you could provide a source for the full story.“

Bill—this story was pretty big news, a few years back. It may have been 5 years ago. Unfortuantely I don’t often save newpsaper clippings.  I am positive that SOMEONE reading Barticles remembers it.
The two guys who were shot were Oriental (exchange students?) and couldn’t speak clear English.

In fact, I don’t even think they entered the man’s home. They were invited to a party in the neighborhood—but wound up at the wrong house, banging on the door and speaking their native tongue.

The man who lived there just started blasting away. I remember their were Op-ed columns written in RT-D about it. Things along the lines of, ‘Was it home protection or racism?‘ That type of argument.

And I remember the man claimed that he feared for his life—and got off without charge—even though at least one of those visiotrs were killed.

Is any of this ringing a bell, Bill? Did you not read a newspaper prior to 2007? Also, it may have Baton Rouge and not New Orleans. It was one of those two general areas.

Bill,
Granted a lot of the rhetoric I’ve used shows more emotion (and caffeine and little sleep) than a use of logic. Not my argument—I like my argument, naturally—just the rhetoric I’ve used up to this point.

My mother has an elderly friend who lives alone. She’s a life-long, law abiding citizen who treats everybody like they were her children. She has a gun in her home, for protection against possible home invaders.

If, God forbid, she did have to shoot a home invader, I don’t believe for one minute that she would be charged with murder, manslaughter, discharging a firearm or anything else.

But the proponents of this Castle bill suggest that she (or anyone like her) would be charged…for protecting herself.

I don’t believe she would be charged. That’s why I call this doctrine a feel-good measure. I don’t see it protecting people any better than current laws already do.

But the extra leeway that the Castle Doctrine provides could be abused some with impure intentions. I just don’t see a net positive effect.

Larry offered up:

“A few years ago—in New Orleans I believe it was—that’s exactly what happened. A couple of drunk partygoers inadvertently entered someone’s home. And were shot. Shot dead if I recall correctly.

And the home (owner?) was considered to be perfectly in the right.“

I’m sorry, man, but I really have a hard time buying that this is exactly what happened and that the homeowners got off scott free.  I’d have to see something more than an apocryphal story on this one.  I would appreciate it if you could provide a source for the full story.

And this law is substantially more than just a “feel-good measure.“  Well, maybe it is - if you had to use force to defend yourself and then afterwards you were charged with assault, or the person you had defended yourself against (or his family) sued you, wouldn’t you “feel good” with this law on the books?  The law assures that we all have the right that had been recognized for centuries but in recent decades has been dying the death of a thousand cuts - the right to stand your ground and defend yourself against a violent, unprovoked attack.

Then:

“I’m sorry but its downright twisted when people (upright and moral) will celebrate any bill that, in essence, gives them license to blow someone’s head off.“

Aw, man - see?  This is EXACTLY what I was talking about.  Show me where this bill gives ANYONE a “license to blow someone’s head off”??  That rhetoric is straight out of the Brady Campaign’s playbook.  Go back and read my last post, and go read the law.  It does not, in any way, give anyone legal permission to “blow someone’s head off.“

And, by the way, regarding your story of some confused people kicking in your hotel door - if someone in your position had shot them, they would not have been protected by this law.  Please note that it requires an “overt act” towards you AND that you REASONABLY believe you are in IMMINENT danger of bodily harm.  It’s not so simple as “he kicked the door in.“  What did he do next?  He stood there being confused and saying “Oh - where’s John?“  No imminent threat of bodily harm, no overt act.  Anyone using deadly force against the guy in that situation would be in trouble, with or without the castle doctrine legislation.

I agree with this bill 100%. I hope it passes. In fact, in a blog post tomorrow, I will be discussing my view that people have a moral right to do (or abstain from doing) whatever they feel is necessary to preserve their own lives.

Sorry Larry, but stupid drugged-up young adults might also kill you for the thrill of it. While you are moralizing about their downfall, they beat you to death. They are criminals for knocking the door down and should be prosecuted. Next time they might rob and kill.

I would not have had a gun while staying at a hotel. So I probably would make the morning obits. In my home, at least one would have been dead.

Post Your Comments: