Castle Doctrine

27 April ‘07

There is an old saying that we’ve all heard numerous times, “Every mans home is his castle”. That saying, and the logic behind it, has it’s roots in the provisions of the ancient Roman legal codes. In essence it claims the right, for every person, to defend their home, family, and possesions from criminal attack, with whatever force or violence is necessary or appropreiate. Generally refered to as the “Castle Doctrine”, it simply states that in any place legally occupied, such as one's home, car, or place of work, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of legal prosecution by the state.

The opposite of a "castle" principle is the “Duty to Retreat”, which is the case in most U.S. Northeastern states, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. A duty to retreat infers that you must immediately leave the area when faced with violence, even if it means you will be abandoning your family to whatever fate. Castle Doctrine laws in the U.S. are sometimes referred to as the "use of deadly force" or "no retreat" laws, merely confirm that the individual does have the right self defense. Depending on the state, this right may extend to the automobile or the business or any place where one has a legal right to be (a campground or park, for example).

Opponents of this Castle Doctrine law have referred to it as a "shoot first" law, implying that it allows people to "shoot first, ask questions later" any time they feel threatened. However, even with the Castle Doctrine in effect, all laws pertaining to the use of deadly force still apply. The law still requires the citizen to prove the ability, opportunity and intent of an attacker to do grave bodily harm to the person exercising his or her right to self-defense. Critics now acuse the “radical right” of distorting a principle in which they claim “A thousand years ago our ancestors realized that if civilization was to move forward, the obligation was on everyone to retreat.” (I’ll bet that idea was cheered on by the barbarians!) Their concept of civilization is quite simple, when confronted with violence; the person being attacked is always expected to retreat from any threat. When faced with a home invasion, rapist, mugger, carjacking, armed robbery, whatever, retreat or surrender is the rule, not the exception.

Those opponents apparently fail to understand the problem, or the reasoning behind Castle Laws. First, they claim such laws mean a return to the “Wild West”, and that more guns would put more people in harm's way, effectively saying that legal gun owners are always the aggressors. For all their bad advice, a couple of things the anti-gun folks cannot deny; 1. Police have no duty, and in many cases no legal right, to protect the individual before a crime has been committed. Nor are there nearly enough police officers available to even consider posting a cop at everyone’s front door. In all fifty states, the police don't really have to come when called, much less arrive in time. Certainly we can expect them to try (that’s why we pay taxes for police protection), and they usually do, but they have no real legal requirement to do so, as the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that we have no constitutional right to police protection. 2. Citizens in this country already possess the legal authority to use deadly force when facing grave danger. This fact is often denied by those folks who encourage you to turn around and run, or to dial 9-1-1 and do nothing until the police get there. That’s really not good advice to give the person who’s responsible for the safety and well-being of his wife, children, and his own life, when abruptly faced by an armed and violent criminal. Self defense is a civil right, so the anti-gun activists try to get us to forego that right with the emotionally hysterical language of “Wild West”, “easy access to guns”, “illegal guns” and “Harm's Way” instead. As if our average American citizen is completely irresponsible, or a criminal himself. In the case of a home invasion, burglary, carjacking, or even simple assault, the illegal weapon is much more likely to be found in the possession of the criminal, not the aggrieved property owner. In criticizing the Castle Doctrine, anti-gun activists are handing out advice that gets people killed by turning their backs on aggressors (walking away), by waiting for the police while the aggressors carry on as they wish (call 9-1-1 instead), and by being talked out of their quite legal authority (don't resist violence), basically it attempts to con the citizens into voluntarily giving up their civil rights and legal authority.

An argument often used against self defense is the wail “but it might be a kid!” OK, it might be. But is there any real difference between a violent, armed juvenile intent on doing grievous bodily harm, and a violent, armed adult intent on doing the same? If anything, the juvenile criminal is all the more likely to panic and kill somebody than is an adult. Certainly it’s not going to make the least bit of difference to the unarmed and undefended family that’s being massacred while politely waiting for the police to arrive. Personally I’d much rather be feeling sorry for that kid’s family after the fact, than to be burying my wife or grandkids while the cops try to catch him. If somebody forces his way into my home and points a gun at my wife, I certainly have no intention of politely offering him tea and crumpets!

As the nations press debates whether more guns or less can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in Kennesaw, Georgia, a town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms. 25 years ago, responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill, Kennesaw unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite predictions of "Wild West" shootouts and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting, as a victim, attacker or defender. The crime rate dropped for several years after the passage of the ordinance, and today is significantly lower than it was the year before passage of the law.

The States with Castle Doctrine Laws currently in effect include; Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.

Humm… strangely enough Idaho’s not on that list. Maybe our state legislators need a nudge to remedy that oversight.