The "Castle Doctrine" in action

[Unrepentant Fenian]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090509/ap_on_re_us/us_off_road_shooting

Before you read this, recall the guy who got off after telling 911 that he was going to kill two guys breaking into his neighbors house. The guy went over to his neighbors and killed two guys that in no way threatened him. Remember how good that made ya feel? This story ought to do the same for ya.

[Lasher]

1. So the Castle Doctrine is responsible for these shootings?

That's quite a stretch.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

2. No, I didn't say it's responsible for the shootings...

No, I didn't say it's responsible for the shootings, but the shooting could be defended by the Castle doctrine. The guy that killed the men breaking into his neighbor's house wasn't charged due to the Castle Doctrine. One could argue that by possibly destroying the levee, they were in fact putting the shooter's life in danger.

[Lasher]

3. Then don't you think the title of your OP is deceptively worded?

The Castle Doctrine in action, you say. Then the actions you list are the shootings, not subsequent legal defenses.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

4. If...

If the laws against smoking pot were repealed and people everywhere started lighting up, wouldn't it be fair to say it is "New Pot Law in action"?

[Lasher]

5. So are you saying the Castle Doctrine is responsible for the shootings, or not?

I honestly can't tell.

[SteveM]

15. No...

If the laws against smoking pot were repealed, then there would be no laws against pot smoking to reference as "new." Further, in actuality, "people everywhere" didn't start shooting those whom they thought were trespassing. If that were the case, you would be providing figures to show an increase in these shootings, an increase linked to some law or other. Instead, we get an annecdote form AP/Yahoo, a developing gun-control lobby site.

The ball's in your court: did the "Castle Doctrine" cause this shooting?

[Hangingon]

14. I don't think the Castle Doctrine will stretch to cover this one.

I'd look for an indictment. The levee was not private property and they were not defending a neighbor's property.

[benEzra]

25. No, it can't, and no, he wasn't.

The Castle Doctrine applies to home invasions (and in some states, carjackings), NOT trespassers or someone in your neighbor's yard.

[Ian David]

6. They should call it "The White Castle Doctrine." n/t

[Ken Burch]

7. Wouldn't that one be more like"You can kill in defense of your hamburger"?

n/t.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

8. Huh?

Neither the Joe Horn incident (which was legal under Texas law), nor this one (which on appearances appears to be illegal), involve the 'castle doctrine'.

[benEzra]

9. This tragedy had nothing fucking whatsoever to do with the "Castle Doctrine"

and everything to do with hatred, stupidity, and sheer ignorance.

The Castle Doctrine holds that if someone is illegally trying to force entry into your occupied home (e.g., a criminal is in the act of kicking in your door), you can use potentially lethal force to stop them. That is the law in most states, and goes back centuries; if a criminal is kicking in the door of an occupied home, they are probably not there to sell magazine subscriptions or Avon.

In this case, the victims not only weren't staging a home invasion, they weren't even on the shooters' property.

The Joe Horn case to which you allude didn't have anything to do with the Castle Doctrine, either. That case turned on the question of whether the thieves Horn shot threatened/attacked him first, and apparently the jury believed they did. But the Castle Doctrine did not apply in that case, either (again, no home invasion).

[geckosfeet]

11. Does that go for police breaking in the door of the wrong house?

Or just criminals?

Those pesky door breaking down people.

[slackmaster]

19. Anyone unlawfully breaking into an occupied house can be legally shot in most states

Including California.

[geckosfeet]

21. Wow. How do you shoot California? And how does it break into your house?

[slackmaster]

22. The antecedent noun rule applies to my post

"California" being a member of the class of things known as "states".

HTH

[benEzra]

24. I belive that most states' Castle Doctrine laws make an exception for wrong-address raids

IF they are conducted in good faith, even though such raids are technically illegal (and the departments should be held strictly liable, IMO). Rogue LEO's staging a raid on fraudulent grounds a la the Kathryn Johnston murder would probably not be protected, though.

Most people on both sides of the no-knock issue agree that wrong-address raids are far less common than criminal home invasions, BTW. Personally, I think that no-knocks are a bad idea for a lot of reasons (the intent of the knock-and-announce rule is to protect LEO's and homeowners alike), but they are mostly irrelevant to Castle Doctrine laws.

[Statistical]

28. The problem I see and it will come into court someday is this

1) LEO routinely execute no knock raids (often in situations where they are unwarranted).
2) Criminals participating in Home Invasions sometimes pretend or even dress up as LEO to gain element of surprise.
3) Many states now have "castle doctrine" type laws.

So 1 + 2 + 3...
in the middle of the night a law abiding citizen sees some people prowling around the house, nobody announces their intentions, no police car in sight, and then hears the front door being forced open....

should the homeowner shoot?

The point of the castle doctrine is that homeowner shouldn't risk his/her life to determine the intentions of the invaders. The castle doctrine puts an assumption of intent to cause bodily harm on the invader. The homeowner may safely assume (without risk of crminal prosecution) that someone forcing their way into his/her home intends them harm and use lethal force to prevent that invasion.

Should the resident trust masked men rushing the house that they are indeed police? Without any badge, warrant, or anything other than a vest saying Police which can be bought online for $19.95?

If they shoot LEO is it a bad shoot?

If the family is slain because it turns out the invaders are "bad guys" is the city liable by creating a situation where seconds count and there is no good way to identify LEO?

No-knock raids should be a once in a lifetime situation, instead they are too commonly used.

Why no wait for suspect to leave for work?
Arrest him/her in the driveway? Setup roadblock around the corner and follow him in unmarked car?
Why not cut off water/sewage to home to prevent destruction of evidence?

I am not saying there should NEVER be a no-knock raid but it should carry an requirement that an extreme level of risk to evidence, victims, or 3rd parties exists.

No knock raid to rescue an abducted child from a child rapist/murderer - sure.
No knock raid to stop terrorist attack - sure.
no knock raid on warehouse to stop major shipment of drugs - sure.

No knock raid in middle of the night to arrest a man w/ a single marijuana plant - Hell No.

[benEzra]

30. I believe no-knocks should be limited to unusual situations, for exactly those reasons.

Overuse of no-knocks (as well as so-called "knock and announce" with too little time allowed for the homeowner to awaken, answer the door, and verify that the officers are legit) endangers both the police and innocent homeowners.

The FBI used to caution against such overuse:

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/may976.htm

UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE

The Supreme Court has determined that "every householder, the good and the bad, the guilty and the innocent, is entitled to the protection designed to secure the common interest against unlawful invasion of the house."19 The knock and announce rule provides citizens with psychological security, knowing that one need not fear an unexpected intrusion. Privacy interests also are protected, avoiding unnecessary embarrassment, shock, or property damage resulting from an unannounced entry.

The (knock and announce) rule serves to protect both the individual citizen and the police from the risk of harm and the potential for violence that may occur as a result of an unannounced entry.20 Announcement protects officers by ensuring that they are not "mistaken for prowlers and shot down by a fearful householder."21 Innocent citizens also are protected from law enforcement officers who mistakenly might shoot armed occupants who merely are trying to defend themselves from who they preceive to be armed intruders.

Those observations are just as valid now as they were in 1997.

[aikoaiko]

10. This had nothing to do with the so called "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" laws.

As you know, Joe Horn was "no billed" by a grand jury and the situation was very different. Miguel DeJesus and Diego Ortiz were actively engaged in a felony.

[Statistical]

12. Do you even know what the Castle Doctrine is?

You reference two cases in which the SHOOTER WAS CHARGED.

Mr. Horne faced Grand Jury and was no billed.
This couple certainly will go to trial and likely jail.

Castle Doctrine PREVENTS criminal prosecution and civil damages under certain scenarios.

So how could you possibly think two cases involving criminal prosecution are some how related to the Castle Doctrine which prevents criminal prosecution?

WTF?

[tularetom]

13. This has nothing to do with the "castle doctrine" - it's an overreaction to trespassing

It's a situation I encounter all the time. A creek runs behind our property. The creek goes dry in the summer and idiots on ATV's like to drive up the creek bed from a county road about two miles downstream. They tear up the creek bank and I get flooding in the pasture down there the next winter. If I see them down there I chase them away. Most times they respond to verbal warning but I have carried a shotgun out there and fired it into the air when nothing else got their attention.

I have a similar problem during dove and pheasant seasons in the fall. But the hunters seem to comprehend the concept of private property better than the off roaders.

I'm not condoning what these two morans did but I do have to repeat what I have said here before - when you buy an ATV your IQ decreases by 30 points.

[SteveM]

16. I think the gun-controllers stepped out. For a burger (nt)

[slackmaster]

23. White Castle?

[one-eyed fat man]

29. trespass and city folks............

Do you find in your trespass situation that it is mostly "urban folks" who seem to feel that they are "out in the country" and they can go anywhere?

The same people who wouldn't rip a daffodil out of their neighbor's flower bed in town seem to think that they can enter any patch of woods along the highway and cut firewood, gather ginseng, hunt mushrooms, trash a cave, or destroy a stream bed with an ATV.

It really is annoying to have some guy, standing there with a chain saw, cutting walnut trees tell you, "He's ALWAYS cut 'firewood' here" after have you tracked his pickup in from where your fence has been cut!

Seems like most rural folks know how to find out who owns a piece of ground so they can ask permission to hunt, fish, etc. a courtesy that seems very lacking among city-dwellers.

[tularetom]

31. That is true but in my case the rude city people had some help

Our local flood control folks had a problem with a weed called Arundo, a giant reed which grew 10 feet or more tall and resembled bamboo, It grew wild along the creek banks and into the creek bed and choked off flows during heavy rains. They tried controlling it by chopping it down spraying it with weed killer but nothing worked. So one year they decided to burn it out. The fire got away from them and burned a bunch of cottonwoods along the creek bank which weakened the bank. Then it bunred up an old wooden cattle guard from the days when this actually was a working cattle operation and blocked the creek from access by anybody but a determined kid who was willing to climb over it. I didn't have any cattle at that point so I never replaced the gate and it just left the creek bed open all the way down to the county road. I guess some kids in town found out about it and the next thing you know the place was crawling with 4 wheelers and dirt bikes.

The hunters, not quite so bad. Although the place is posted, I occasionally go out to shoot some doves. If anyone sees me they probably assume it's OK to go in and shoot. Since there isn't any shoulder they try to park in my driveway and when they do that I can see them. So I can get to them almost before they get out of their cars.

I feel sorry for these people, I really do. When I was a kid I knew every rancher in this area and delivered propane to most of them. Nobodys gate was locked and you could go anywhere to shoot as long as you weren't an asshole about it. Then the crowds started moving in, leaving gates open, shooting cows (I'm not kidding), throwing beer cans and bottles around and every one of these old ranches is covered with no trespassing signs. If I didn't have this acreage here I'd have to pay big bucks to find someplace to hunt.

We're pretty far from town here. The nearest store of any kind is almost 9 miles away and that's just a quickie mart. But somehow people have managed to find us.

[one-eyed fat man]

33. small-time marijuana growers

are a local pestilence. They prefer public lands, but are not averse to putting it on a corner of your place you might not see from a tractor. If it is spotted by the State Police helicopter, they are out the plants but it's you that has a lot of 'splaining to do. No legitimate farmer has had his farm seized I know of, but the possibility exists.

Neighbor did catch a couple townie kids some years ago with their plants. I just happened by a little before the deputy who came to fetch them. We lamented a collector grade Ithaca double that one of them had sawn off.

Since the deputy had arrested the little bastards previously, he tried to make a 'Federal case' over the shotgun. The US Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky told the county Sheriff, "It was not policy to prosecute juveniles for a simple possession under the NFA."

[jeepnstein]

34. Not surprising...

I knew of a guy who wasn't charged after he got busted with Ma Deuce sitting in his living room. Once he told the ATFE where he got it, they wanted nothing further to do with the case. He did a couple of years for writing excessive prescriptions of Oxycontin and was stripped of his license to practice medicine in our fine state. Once the seizure aspect of the case was resolved nobody cared if he went to jail or not.

[Critters2]

32. It sounds like you're condoning what these two morans did. nt

[tularetom]

35. Hell no I despise what these two morans did. They should be throwed in jail

I was merely observing, from personal experience, that trespassing on a levee, is a far cry from any type of entry that would trigger the so called castle doctrine.

I also added my opinion, also derived from personal experience, that people who drive ATV's in creek beds do not also seem to be MENSA candidates. But that doesn't mean you should shoot 'em.

[one-eyed fat man]

37. Tennessee ATV case

Some drunken idiot on an ATV during a holiday weekend went tearing through some farmer's lower 40 without permission and hit a single strand of high tensile electric cattle fence.

I wonder at the split second his head was rolling around on the ground if he saw his headless self ride on a few yards more. Regardless, his next of kin sued the farmer. Figuring a row of posts through the middle of a pasture might be connected by fencing must take the deductive powers beyond the typical city slicker on his ATV. Lots of farmers find ATVs handy for many of the chores they used to do on horseback but you almost never see them tearing up stream beds or doing donuts in alfalfa or winter wheat crops.

Some states have no protection for a landowner from lawsuits arising from trespassers injured while trespassing. I think if someone goes through your fence and then discovers that the Hereford bull can cross 30 acres faster then he can, that real education has taken place.

[tularetom]

38. We had an incident like that in our county

two kids on ATV's racing down a levee road at night hit an electric fence. One was beheaded. He went to our church. Our volunteer Fire/EMT squad had to haul both parts of him to the hospital. I was visiting our granddaughter 200 miles away so I missed out on it.

As you point out those things do have practical uses. But they aren't toys.

[jody]

17. Sad incident but you are wrong in associating "Castle Doctrine" with it. Please educate yourself

to avoid future embarrassment.

[slackmaster]

18. You are mistaken, Unrepentant Fenian, that was NOT an exercise of Castle Doctrine

It was an unlawful shooting even in Texas.

[rrneck]

20. Remember how good that made ya feel?

The event in the OP makes me feel the same way I felt about the event in Texas. The OP itself prompts the same feelings.

A revulsion for arrogance and stupidity.

[gorfle]

26. These people broke the law.

I don't think you can really compare this story to the story of the guy who went and shot two people breaking into his neighbor's house.

I don't think there was any doubt in the later case in the mind of the shooter that the people were actually breaking and entering into a home.

In this most recent case, you've got shooters shooting at people when they don't know whether they were on their property or not. And it's not like they didn't know what property the victims were on - the shooters told 911, "They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them." So the shooters knew they were on the levee, and they should have known that they did not own the levee, and thus they should have known not to shoot someone on it.

Moreover, who in their right mind would shoot at what was obviously a family? There was the 7-year-old boy who died, and his 5-year-old sister, and two adult males. Surely anyone who could see what they were shooting at would think twice before shooting. I'd be willing to bet money that these people were firing blindly in the direction of the "trespassers", as the article says, "...the area includes a dirt road, trees and overgrown brush..."

These people are murderers plain and simple. I can't imagine you finding anyone who would support what they did under the castle doctrine, and this is why they are being charged with a crime.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Criminal acts by a couple of criminals, nothing to do with the Castle Doctrine.

[pipoman]

36. Are you trying to be funny or is this just hyperbole?

seriously, the anti-second amendment crowd on this site are truly without shame. They find that stories of death and suffering as long as a firearm is involved to be free game for jokes, humor, and hyperbole.