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.“
Reader Comments:
“By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of “hot” burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a “hot” burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a “hot” burglary.)“
(“hot” burglaries are those committed when a dwelling or business is occupied by the owner)
Text of HB1626:
“18.2-91.1. Use of physical force, including deadly force, against an intruder; justified self-defense.
Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling, has committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily harm.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, as provided in this section shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.“
Doesn’t mention firearms.
“To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.“
—-Alexander Hamilton
Nobody is celebrating anything. Simply clarifying the right to defend your life and property from people who have learned to take advantage of the confusion created by the hap hazzard application of ill defined laws.
Situations of life and death are better resolved by decisive action, not by theoretical second guessing and moral preening.
“Lacrosse anyone?“
Not in North Carolina, thank you. Has to be on the home field.
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.
What a thing to look forward, eh? Better than Christmas morning. Some people got a lot of soul-searching to do.
Hypothetical situations have no bearing on the fundamental human right to self defense. If someone were going to stage a murder, they could just as easily do so under the most restrictive gun laws. People who stage murders don’t usually give up because there’s no home invasion law.
As for prosecutors…I certainly believe they would never let political bias or ambition motivate their handling of a case involving a hot button issue.
Lacrosse anyone?
No, no, not finding excuses for perps. I don’t like perps at all and I wouldn’t want some murderer charging into my apartment, in the middle of the night.
I just don’t think this new bill is needed. Its another feel-good measure, only. That’s my opinion. You have yours and I’m sure you have good reason for it.
But I do have one last ‘when Larry first came to Richmond’ story—entirely true—that I’ll leave with. It may not be worth anything, but…
...for a week I stayed in the Hotel John Marshall, while waiting for my apt. to become available. Second floor, specifically.
I was resting late one night when I heard a loud group in the hallway. It was Friday night so I didn’t think too much of it. Then “BOOM!“ “BOOM”. My door and entire room seemed to shake.
I heard a screechy female yelling “Kick it down…Kick it DOWN!“.
I thought, ‘A Lynch Mob? What the heck did I do?!‘
One more “BOOM!“ and my door flew wide open. I was in my underwear, but instinctively jumped-up to face the intruders.
The guy in front—a grungy looking teen—had a really stupid look on his face when he saw me. “Uh….John? Where’s John?“
Very angrily I told him that no “John” was inside. He apologized and the group quietly walked out, backwards.
Ok, their behavior was definitely criminal. But I think I’d feel pretty bad if I had blown them away. Stupid, drugged-ups kids. Could have been anyone’s children.
You have faith in the Commonwealth Atty, but I do not. They mostly of the same ilk as the one in Durham. Get another feather in their cap regardless of who gets hurt. Especially when the NAACP gets involved. It is more politically correct and media savvy to fry the white boy than the perp.
As usual with the Brady types, the gun owner is going to “blast away” at the first knock on the door. One reason there is no political/crime/social/race dialog in the US is the silly comments by the left when they have no argument. “Get off on the wrong floor” or “you left your door unlocked” or “blasting away because someone you don’t like…“
More than likely it will be a violent perp from the inner city who is on a treasurer hunt in the suburbs. He hardly got off on the wrong floor, drove up the wrong driveway, went in to the wrong family room or broke a window in the wrong house. Why do you find excuses for the perps?
“You can’t just start blasting away because someone you don’t like is
knocking on the door, or surprised you by walking in when you left the door
unlocked.“
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.
And, in the case of miscreants using the law to set-up a foe for murder, modern forensics (afterward) would do little good once that person is DEAD.
You know as well I do that people are capable of wicked stuff. These are legitimate concerns.
And yet I realize that if more Home-Intruders were shot, there would probably be less Home Invasions. That would be a good thing.
I believe existing laws would cover the defending homeowner well-enough. I (unlike some), with very good reason, have faith in the police departments. And Commonwealth Attorneys too.
I’d like to see legislators spend their energy on making new, novel laws.
“Obvious problem with the bill is the likelihood of (some) using it to murder somebody—set it up to make a look like a break-in.“
Well now, I don’t know that that’s such an obvious problem. Modern detectives (Hey! That would be a good name for a TV show) and forensic technologies will usually be able to separate the legit self-defense cases from the set-up.
“Also, I wonder about ‘accidental walk-ins’. I mean, I accidently walked into someone’s apartment once….went right in. Glad I didn’t get shot by an overzealous gun nut.“
Isn’t “overzealous gun nut” redundant? I mean, we’re all overzealous. 
“Really, I see little need for the bill. A good police investigation can determine if a homeowners deadly force was warranted. Am I wrong about this?“
Sorry to say, but yes you are. The issue is not whether the police will determine it was warranted; the issue is whether the commonwealth’s attorney will think it was. Also, the dead goblin’s family may sue, claiming that their innocent little choir boy was just out helping the girl scouts sell their cookies and accidentally opened the wrong door when that overzealous gun nut blasted him for no good reason.
As I said above, one of the problems with the shorthand “castle doctrine” descriptor is that the effect of the law will be misrepresented. Most folks won’t ever take the time to (a) read it or (b) understand what it really does.
I have yet to read the text myself, but I assure you it’s where I’m headed next. What typical castle doctrine legislation does is simply state that when faced with the threat of imminent serious physical injury or death, you do not have a legal duty to retreat prior to resorting to the use of force, including deadly force, in self-defense. Don’t forget - you always have the right to use force, including deadly force, in self-defense, when presented with the threat of imminent serious physical harm or death. In some states however (notably NJ), if you have any reasonably safe way to run away, and you instead stand your ground and end up seriously injuring or killing the goblin, you will be unable to claim self-defense because you had a legal duty to run away instead.
You can’t just start blasting away because someone you don’t like is knocking on the door, or surprised you by walking in when you left the door unlocked. Castle doctrine or “stand your ground” legislation usually says that even if you don’t run away, you can still be covered by a claim of self-defense - but you FIRST must be in a situation where you have the right to defend yourself! Some (most?) castle doctrine laws also limit or remove the ability of the goblin or his/her family to sue you for injuries you caused in defending yourself.
Post Your Comments:
