Talk:Castle Doctrine in the US

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Edited Criticism Section

A sentence made some judgement of the Prosecutor's "thoughts and feelings" without any interview sources, etc. For all intents and purposes it was the writer's opinion and NOT relevant to the case.

I removed the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.157.236 (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Minor Edit

Castle Doctrine also applies to one's vehicle as well as domicile. The edit has been made. Please refer to NRA/NRA-ILA literature before ignorantly reverting. Thanks. Haizum 02:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that the US description of Castle Doctrine is very inadequate if not altogether incorrect via its inadequacy. I'm not suprised that the typical Wikipedia editor knows nothing about gun rights. Haizum 02:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington State

I added washington, but I don't have a solid reference for it. Here are a few mentions:

I don't put them in the article as they're nowhere near authoratative.

[edit] Problems with this page

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (September 2007)

An important point missed by the earlier article on the Castle Doctrine is the issue of liability. Before Castle Doctrine came into effect in Texas, a person using deadly force to defend his/her home could be sued by the perpetrator or perpetrator's family for harm done to the person breaking into the home. This, of course, is ludicrous - but it happened multiple times. Now with the Castle Doctrine in force since September 1, 2007, we are supposedly protected from such abuses of the courts.

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

One of the more recent contributors to this page seems to misunderstand how the US legal system works. Compiling a useful list here will consist of far more than just enumerating the states with certain self defense statutes.

In all US States, the law is a mix of common law and statute. In states without "castle doctrine laws" there is often no duty to retreat because that is what judges have decided in the absence of any legislative guidance.

We need to specify, for each state:

-duty to retreat: none, outside car and home, outside of home, everywhere including home?

-where it comes from: common law, statutes, common law with some clarification from statutes?

-bonus-summarize what common law and statutes say with a brief history

I will be happy to research this, but I warn you that I am very very busy right now (1st year of law school) and it will take considerable time to do all 50 states plus the US territories. Beerslurpy 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, According to Merriam Webster (m-w.com), "adverence" is not a word.

Please indicate which contributor is misunderstood. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

[1] indicates some state laws may have changed on Jan 1, 2007. -- Beland 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits and cleanup

I made some minor changes

  • converted inline links to REF tags so they are listed at the end of the article properly
  • removed the REFERENCE tag. This article is heavily referenced
  • removed the EXPAND tag. No one has stated how the article should be expanded (REQUIRED)

IzaakB(my Talk)contribs 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping the page updated

If a third party source can be found that is up-to-date on Castle Doctrine states, would it be reasonable to link to that page? Perhaps link to a number of pages that show the current list?

This entire article is biased towards the gun lobby view that everyone should be able to buy any gun, anytime and use it as freely as possible by law. The consequences of this type of legislation made popular by the gun lobby contributions to state legislators, are not addressed in the article. The castle doctrine, if there is such a thing, would benefit from a discussion by the legal scholars on the non gun lobby side of the argument. Plenty of arguments are made against making guns more available to people particularly in urban areas. We have made progress since " a man's house is his castle" was literally interpreted in old English law. After all, this concept of "home" was extended to home and chattel (personal possessions) not so long ago. Should you be able to shoot someone in bed with your wife? Wives were chattel not so long ago. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imahog (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete and utter re-write

Okay, since this article was out-of-date, not well-rounded, lacking tons of information, and requested for a copy-edit, I am in the process of going through and entirely re-writing it. I am very open to suggestions, but would appreciate the courtesy of people not rushing in and making changes until after I've been able to finish, which will take me a day or two. Since there is no repository of states with a Castle Doctrine, and since the exact parameters vary by state, I'm having to find the state statutes for each of the 50 states and dig through them. I am making a link for each state, to the exact text of the relevant statute on the state legislature's page.

For anyone who is concerned that I'm a hippie liberal who might try to harm this gun-related article rather than help it: This is a picture I took of the sign on my front porch. Yes, I had signs custom-made which cite the Castle Law. :-)

Citation of North Carolina's Castle Law (N.C.G.S. 14-51.1).
Citation of North Carolina's Castle Law (N.C.G.S. 14-51.1).

Piercetheorganist 18:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That picture doesn't help anything. It ignores the conditions of use. You're only making yourself more liable with that sign. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true at all! I live in an extremely poor, high-crime neighborhood. Out crime rate is over double the US average. That sign lets people know that my house will not be an easy target. Since putting it up, I have not had one break-in or arson issue, despite them happening to all the houses around me. And anyhow, under NC law, that sign is totally irrelevant to my criminal liability. But thanks for your input! Piercetheorganist 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"You will be shot" and "you may be shot" are entirely different. You are only protected by castle doctrine laws if you obey the conditions of use. When your sign says "you will be shot if you trespass" you're opening yourself up to a civil suit if an ambulance chaser decides you didn't properly apply the conditions of use. Where would his proof be? In that sign. I like the idea though. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. An ambulance chaser stomping up and down and swinging his little fists is harmless if black-letter law opposes him, end of story. NC's defense of habitation statute is very short and clear, and amazingly blunt, about what it means (unlike some states, where the thing is a page long and requires that conditions from other statutes be met before castle law can be considered valid). I live alone, and intentionally do not associate with my neighbors or anyone else in town. I run a business from home; I am the sole employee; I am not a member of a church or any other local organization. It's just me and my dogs. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should ever be on my property, unless they are a USPS/UPS/FedEx/DHL carrier, a uniformed law enforcement officer, or a uniformed utility guy reading the meter on the side of the house. Since no one has cause to be here, I immediately (and, obviously, reasonably) take a very cautious stance towards people being on my property. NC law is very lenient when it comes to the circumstances in which I get to kill, and the local prosecutors are very lenient in their interpretation of it. But again, I [happily] don't know anyone here, so no one should ever be here, period. And there is some degree of good judgment in it. If it's broad daylight, there's a broken down car outside, and a well-dressed businesswoman knocks on my door and says her car died and may she call a towing company, then I'm obviously not going to shoot her. If it's night, and a group of colored boys swinging tire irons step so much as one toe on my property line, I'll fill 'em so full of lead we won't know whether to use them as charcoal or pencils, no questions asked. It's a basic question of risk-assessment and risk-response. Anyhow, none of this is at all relevant to the article, so let's get back on-topic. Piercetheorganist 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Did I miss something? I saw no reference to any "property line" in the NC statute.--Bodybagger 05:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not the property line; that's the house. Piercetheorganist 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It calls the usage of that image into question. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. The image illustrates a citation of a castle doctrine, making it very relevant to the castle doctrine article. The fact that you don't like what's depicted in it is wholly irrelevant. Piercetheorganist 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It's inaccurate, and that's relevant. "You will be shot and killed," is not a reasonable display or interpretation of the law. I sympathize with your living situation, but it still isn't a reasonable display, and therefore not reasonable for usage in this encyclopedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The police, and my local attorney, disagree as to the accuracy issue. And you, sir, you do not appear to be a lawyer, a police officer, or a North Carolina resident -- so I don't know what you think makes your statement credible. You haven't backed yourself up at all. Besides, the picture exists simply because it shows a citation of a castle law. Piercetheorganist 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That's like saying "the sky isn't blue and you aren't a scientist." "You will be shot and killed," is not the law, and it's not a proper interpretation of the law- not according legal standards, but the standards of the English language. I don't know how else to explain it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does it even matter to you? It's not your sign, and it's not on the side of your house. I see no valid bearing on the Castle Doctrine article here. Again, I checked with the cops, and they said it's okay. You're wrong, and it's all irrelevant, so we're done here. Your contributions to the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 23:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the police say; what matters is how you act. According to that sign, you will shoot and kill someone for a simple trespass. Now you're free to put a sign up and have it say whatever you want, but this is an encyclopedia and that sign does not reasonably reflect NC Castle Doctrine law. Find a better picture because you can bet someone else will. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC


To Pierce, I think you would be all around better served getting a block association, a block watch, meeting all your neighbors- even the drug dealers- and taking down the sign. ---- Unsigned Comment by Imahog

Good thing you're not the one making the laws then. I'll be keeping my sign as well, it serves the general public as fair warning. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

Shouldn't this page be called "Castle doctrine"? It's not a proper name. 199.71.183.2 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I re-added the picture of the sign because while it is arguable whether or not the occupant of the home can indeed shoot someone for mere trespassing, it most certainly is relevant to the article as it is a example of individuals using said legislation to protect their homes. This includes the simple fear that this type of legislation may instill in a potential home invader. 69.1.140.14 (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide View

I've added the Globalise tag to this article because it provides a primarily American viewpoint, and uses certain facets exclusive to the United States to explain itself. --Muna (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Castle Doctrine in the US." If you want to create one for the rest of the world, go ahead. This one is intended to be US-specific. That's the whole point. Chaparral2J (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, you will see that this article was moved from Castle Doctrine to Castle Doctrine in the US on the day that you made your comment - whereas when I added the tag, the page was still Castle Doctrine. --Muna (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)