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.“

Wow, that’s pretty harsh Patrick. But not all mistakes result from silliness, nor was it a case of drunkeness or anything similar.

If you lived in a high-rise where the elevator lets you off on the wrong floor—and all the hallways and doors look exactly alike, you’d understand how that happened.

The fool shoulda had his door locked! In spirit with the American way, I blame my mistakes on others. 

Sorry Larry, if you are so silly to walk-in to someone’s abode without warning then you deserve what you get. Instead of talking about a dorm room, lets talk about a family home. If I am confronted with some perp in my family room, I will fire first and ask questions later.

The problem with your suggestion for a police investigation is that they will look to blame the homeowner. An easy conviction, minorities will be happy. Everyone but the victim gets a pat-on-the-back. Do-gooders are our worst enemy.

I am still more interested in hearing Trani’s take on eminent domain.

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.

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.

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?

#4: Oliver Cromwell hung my ancestor— James Earl Graham. So please, next time, use a different example Bart. Or I will demand an apology from Media General and the newpspaer industry as a whole.

The need for home security and protection is getting worse. Recent home invasions in the suburbs indicate that the criminal element is expanding its data base of potential victims.

I foresee that over the next 20yrs. there will be serious violent crime in the whole area. Some groups if armed will enable civil disobedience that may require the US Army to quell.

Unfortunately citizens across the nation have allowed the civil libertarians unrestricted freedom to interpret our laws. They are more worried about protecting rights of perps than rights of victims. I am not talking about marginal/questionable cases, but clear cut cases of violent animals hurting others.

See—that’s what’s so awesome about this blog.

You can go from Santayana, to Cromwell, to whoopasteriskasterisk in two posts!

I have always understood the “castle” reference to originate way back in ancient English common law, under which no one, not even the king himself, could enter an Englishman’s home without a warrant, as a man’s home is as secure in its protection from unwanted intrusion as is the king’s castle.

What sickens me about the modern “castle doctrine” legislation (which, by the way, is veritably sweeping the country) is that (a) we should need it and (b) the way that anti-gun owner groups twist its meaning and lie about what it authorizes.

I can’t wait to hear from the Brady Campaign and others about how streets will be running red with blood - just like was supposed to happen when the “assault weapons ban” expired, what -two years ago?

I was unfamiliar with that Cromwell quotation, Bart.  Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Post Your Comments: