Man crits intruder with fatal bow-and-arrow shot. No charges filed.

Yeah. Not terribly fond of the castle doctrine, myself. It tends to lead to a lot of unnecessary tragedy. I suspect that, had there been an obligation to retreat and the suspect availed himself of it, both men would be alive today.

Hmm, I didn't read close enough to realize that the intruder was shot on the front steps. I guess I thought he was in the house. Yeah, this is a tough one and I'm sure the whole love triangle thing played a big role in why the shooter didn't retreat.

That being said, the dead guy should get a Darwin award for not retreating when the other guy is aiming a compound bow at you.

Stupid double post.

jdzappa wrote:

Hmm, I didn't read close enough to realize that the intruder was shot on the front steps. I guess I thought he was in the house. Yeah, this is a tough one and I'm sure the whole love triangle thing played a big role in why the shooter didn't retreat.

That being said, the dead guy should get a Darwin award for not retreating when the other guy is aiming a compound bow at you.

Per the statement of the guy with the compound bow

Yeah the more I think about, I feel as though I'm just a hateful person. Seems to me, that if you are stupid enough to mess with a married woman and then threaten the guy with a club while he has a bow, survival of the fittest is just doing its job.

jdzappa wrote:

Yeah, this is a tough one and I'm sure the whole love triangle thing played a big role in why the shooter didn't retreat.

That being said, the dead guy should get a Darwin award for not retreating when the other guy is aiming a compound bow at you.

Maybe he thought it was Cupid.

CheezePavilion wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Yeah, this is a tough one and I'm sure the whole love triangle thing played a big role in why the shooter didn't retreat.

That being said, the dead guy should get a Darwin award for not retreating when the other guy is aiming a compound bow at you.

Maybe he thought it was Cupid.

Another story involving the castle doctrine:

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer. Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day. On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.

..McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911. "I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"

The guy kicks in the door and she shoots him. So at least occasionally this doctrine makes sense. You can lock the doors and call the cops, but the cops can't get there immediately.

Funkenpants wrote:

Another story involving the castle doctrine:

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer. Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day. On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.

..McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911. "I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"

The guy kicks in the door and she shoots him. So at least occasionally this doctrine makes sense. You can lock the doors and call the cops, but the cops can't get there immediately.

Not precisely the Castle Doctrine at play here. Even if there was no CD in place (for instance, if this incident had happened in Maryland where there is no CD), she had fulfilled any reasonable definition of the "obligation to retreat". There isn't a state in the union (even ultra liberal Massachusetts) where her actions could constitute any sort of crime.

If, otoh, she heard someone trying the door knob to her front door and waited in ambush for the person to put one toe across the threshold and gave it to him with both barrels, THAT would be an example of the Castle Doctrine.

Paleocon wrote:

Even if there was no CD in place (for instance, if this incident had happened in Maryland where there is no CD), she had fulfilled any reasonable definition of the "obligation to retreat". There isn't a state in the union (even ultra liberal Massachusetts) where her actions could constitute any sort of crime.

If, otoh, she heard someone trying the door knob to her front door and waited in ambush for the person to put one toe across the threshold and gave it to him with both barrels, THAT would be an example of the Castle Doctrine.

No, it doesn't work like that. State laws vary in specific requirements, but they typically include a requirement that the homeowner fear imminent harm. So you can't kill a trespasser and invoke the castle doctrine. And ultra-liberal Massachusetts has a law that essentially codifies common law castle doctrine.

Funkenpants wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Even if there was no CD in place (for instance, if this incident had happened in Maryland where there is no CD), she had fulfilled any reasonable definition of the "obligation to retreat". There isn't a state in the union (even ultra liberal Massachusetts) where her actions could constitute any sort of crime.

If, otoh, she heard someone trying the door knob to her front door and waited in ambush for the person to put one toe across the threshold and gave it to him with both barrels, THAT would be an example of the Castle Doctrine.

No, it doesn't work like that. State laws vary in specific requirements, but they typically include a requirement that the homeowner fear imminent harm. So you can't kill a trespasser and invoke the castle doctrine. And ultra-liberal Massachusetts has a law that essentially codifies common law castle doctrine.

Here's the part I think Paleo considered giving rise to fear of imminent harm: "On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home."

It does raise an interesting question: are you under a duty to retreat to somewhere you can then retreat from again if you are pursued? Or is your only duty to retreat anywhere?

Never thought about it before, but that's the wisdom of Castle Doctrine: generally your own home is the most defensible place a person has, and the place where they generally have the best chance of reaching the authorities.

If you have a legal obligation to retreat from your own home when possible, you face the decision of whether it's better to stay in the house and hope the law agrees you about the fact you couldn't retreat, or retreat from your own home and take the chance your attacker will catch you while you are retreating, when you would probably be in a less defensible location.

I still think 'duty to retreat' is silly. Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back. If you go after someone with a knife in Times Square, their back yard, or their own bedroom, you've volunteered yourself for whatever violent resistance you get. That these laws expect differently is utterly foolish to me. Note that I do expect a reasonable fear of harm from the attacker, so opening fire on a cat burglar is most likely a no-go.

"had driven to the home to confront the man about his treatment of his wife" Not that it's specifically relevant to the case but this makes me wonder if the archer was treating his wife like sh*t.

Certainly threatening violence and showing up with a club is not an intelligent nor appropriate response but I can kinda sympathize with having a low tolerance for spouse abusing assholes. Of course having an affair with the wife likely clouded his judgement as well, dreadful mess.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Even if there was no CD in place (for instance, if this incident had happened in Maryland where there is no CD), she had fulfilled any reasonable definition of the "obligation to retreat". There isn't a state in the union (even ultra liberal Massachusetts) where her actions could constitute any sort of crime.

If, otoh, she heard someone trying the door knob to her front door and waited in ambush for the person to put one toe across the threshold and gave it to him with both barrels, THAT would be an example of the Castle Doctrine.

No, it doesn't work like that. State laws vary in specific requirements, but they typically include a requirement that the homeowner fear imminent harm. So you can't kill a trespasser and invoke the castle doctrine. And ultra-liberal Massachusetts has a law that essentially codifies common law castle doctrine.

Here's the part I think Paleo considered giving rise to fear of imminent harm: "On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home."

It does raise an interesting question: are you under a duty to retreat to somewhere you can then retreat from again if you are pursued? Or is your only duty to retreat anywhere?

Never thought about it before, but that's the wisdom of Castle Doctrine: generally your own home is the most defensible place a person has, and the place where they generally have the best chance of reaching the authorities.

If you have a legal obligation to retreat from your own home when possible, you face the decision of whether it's better to stay in the house and hope the law agrees you about the fact you couldn't retreat, or retreat from your own home and take the chance your attacker will catch you while you are retreating, when you would probably be in a less defensible location.

Obligation to retreat always means retreating when doing so will likely result in your safety. For instance, in the example I often cite, taking a defensive position atop your stairs, announcing your presence and armed status, and informing the intruder that you have contacted the police. This fulfills every possible definition of duty to retreat.

In the woman's case, she was unable to retreat further without endangering the life of her infant son and would have been under no obligation to do so.

Kraint wrote:

I still think 'duty to retreat' is silly. Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back. If you go after someone with a knife in Times Square, their back yard, or their own bedroom, you've volunteered yourself for whatever violent resistance you get. That these laws expect differently is utterly foolish to me. Note that I do expect a reasonable fear of harm from the attacker, so opening fire on a cat burglar is most likely a no-go.

The reason I think duty to retreat is a particularly good policy is that it prevents the sort of macho nonsense that inevitably results in avoidable tragedy. Most of the folks I talk to that expound upon the virtues of "blowing away" anyone who intrudes in their house rarely make proper provision for tragic accidents. The drunk ex of the girl next door, for instance, may be dumb enough to get a bullet in the brain pan in Texas, but inviting that kind of tragedy into your own life is likely to be a life changing experience and not in a good way.

When you codify the duty to retreat, you take away the gray area. You don't get folks hunting down noises in their house with a gun and shooting their college aged kid who came home for the weekend but forgot to call. And embarrassing misunderstandings turn into anecdotes you laugh about at the next community cookout instead of funerals and lawsuits.

krev82 wrote:

"had driven to the home to confront the man about his treatment of his wife" Not that it's specifically relevant to the case but this makes me wonder if the archer was treating his wife like sh*t.

Certainly threatening violence and showing up with a club is not an intelligent nor appropriate response but I can kinda sympathize with having a low tolerance for spouse abusing assholes. Of course having an affair with the wife likely clouded his judgement as well, dreadful mess.

I saw that and thought the same thing.

Obligatory "we'll never know what really happened", but in light of this happening on the front steps, it occurs that someone could easily knock and release an arrow in the amount of time it would take to say "Hey...is that a f*cking bow?" Obligation to Retreat gives a few seconds to process that info.

I will always live in a state with CD. Police are not obligated to protect you. more.

mrwynd wrote:

I will always live in a state with CD. Police are not obligated to protect you. more.

I'm curious how any of the above cases would have been positively affected by a castle doctrine. The first link you posted, for instance, happened in Colorado, which by most standards has one of the most expansive Castle Laws in the country.


link

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state though not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine law. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home. Colorado isn't well known for heightened crime but it is a well populated state. [2] The law's nickname is a reference to the line "Go ahead, make my day" uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact.

And yet it did not come anywhere close to preventing this human tragedy. More to the point, I can't see a single scenario in which a duty to retreat would have resulted in a less optimal security outcome than the ones you linked to above.

If a little thing like a law is going to stop you from defending yourself, you don't believe you're really in danger. No one in their right mind will let someone murder them because they don't want to get in trouble.

LobsterMobster wrote:

If a little thing like a law is going to stop you from defending yourself, you don't believe you're really in danger. No one in their right mind will let someone murder them because they don't want to get in trouble.

Fantastic point.

SallyNasty wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

If a little thing like a law is going to stop you from defending yourself, you don't believe you're really in danger. No one in their right mind will let someone murder them because they don't want to get in trouble.

Fantastic point.

Absolutely. As my law enforcement friends say, it's better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

jdzappa wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

If a little thing like a law is going to stop you from defending yourself, you don't believe you're really in danger. No one in their right mind will let someone murder them because they don't want to get in trouble.

Fantastic point.

Absolutely. As my law enforcement friends say, it's better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

My problem with it is that it opens up the person who reasonably defended themselves to that judgement. If you defended yourself against what a reasonable person would see as a real, significant threat, then that should be the end of it. For the most part the police and prosecutors seem to agree.

Anyone who knows me will tell you without reservation that I am a big believer in the right to defend one's self and family. That said, I honestly don't think that the duty to retreat is an unreasonable burden on anyone. In point of fact, strict adherence to the duty to retreat is much more likely to ensure actions that will keep the average homeowner safer than the Wild West ordinances like Texas' use of force laws. Those include justifications for shooting cops:

Section 23 Texas Penal Code wrote:

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

Shooting folks walking away with your bicycle:

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Or shooting folks you think might be stealing from folks you may or may not even know:

"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

That sort of crap gets innocent people killed and creates trigger happy cops.

Like I keep saying, there definitely needs to be a test/requirement/threshold for threat of violence. The Texas approach is far from the right path too. Shooting at thieves is far from fighting back against someone who is coming at you with violence in mind. I'll come back to the Firefly quote: Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back. If some punk pulls a knife on you for putting parking stickers on his car, you should be legally within your rights to beat him senseless.

Quick edit/add: If said violent resistance to his aggression results in his death, that is his fault. If you kicked him to death while he was curled on the ground following the first punch to his face, that is a different story.

Kraint wrote:

Like I keep saying, there definitely needs to be a test/requirement/threshold for threat of violence. The Texas approach is far from the right path too. Shooting at thieves is far from fighting back against someone who is coming at you with violence in mind. I'll come back to the Firefly quote: Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back. If some punk pulls a knife on you for putting parking stickers on his car, you should be legally within your rights to beat him senseless.

Quick edit/add: If said violent resistance to his aggression results in his death, that is his fault. If you kicked him to death while he was curled on the ground following the first punch to his face, that is a different story.

Certainly in duty to retreat states, the language that recurs regularly in regards to that is as follows: "The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend the person defended in light of the threatened or actual force.". In short, you don't get to shoot someone in the back for running away after having spray painted your garage door in Maryland. Texas is a different story.

I find the laws allowing you to kill someone running off with your tv or whatever rather troubling though this may be because I can't think of a single item I own that would be worth taking a life to reclaim or protect. Protecting myself or my family from mortal danger? absolutely, protecting my sh*t? not so much.

Having done some archery in my day, at that distance hitting somewhere less lethal ought be viable even for a total beginner. Anyone that takes an arrow to the stomach, or dare I say the knee, is going to stop upon which you can retreat and call police/ambulance/whoever.

The problem with duty to retreat is that it becomes conflicting narratives about what happened, and about where the person being attacked ran out of options to reasonably escape. The worst of all possible outcomes is for a man to end up in jail, when he had no real choice but to defend himself against an attacker. In this country, that will destroy your life just about as thoroughly as being murdered.... you will never again be employable above minimum wage, and you'll be lucky to get even that much.

The Castle Doctrine gives us a nice bright line, one that's easily understandable by most people. You only have to run away until you're inside your home. It's not reasonable to expect you to run any further. I do think some of the CDs go a little far in their excusing any violence by a homeowner whatsoever on his or her property, but I do think the burden of proof should be on the state to demonstrate that a dead intruder was unarmed and not threatening in order to press murder charges.

What about if you're attacked at a location nowhere near your home? Do you have a duty to retreat to your home before you fight back? If not, then isn't the Castle Doctrine ridiculous? You need the law to be reasonable about allowing you to defend yourself, not just reasonable about allowing you to defend yourself on your own property. If the law for defending yourself in your home isn't good enough without the CD, then why is it good enough anywhere?

Hypatian wrote:

What about if you're attacked at a location nowhere near your home? Do you have a duty to retreat to your home before you fight back? If not, then isn't the Castle Doctrine ridiculous? You need the law to be reasonable about allowing you to defend yourself, not just reasonable about allowing you to defend yourself on your own property. If the law for defending yourself in your home isn't good enough without the CD, then why is it good enough anywhere?

In some states, you don't have to retreat. That said, the duty to retreat only applies to when you're able to do so safely.

What about if you're attacked at a location nowhere near your home? Do you have a duty to retreat to your home before you fight back? If not, then isn't the Castle Doctrine ridiculous?

No to both questions. You have a duty to retreat, but once you get to the interior of your home, that duty is absolutely fulfilled. There may be other ways of doing so as well... being in your house is sufficient, but not necessary. That's the bright line, at least for me. If they keep pushing after that, it is okay to fight back, using lethal force if you feel it's justified.

It's also okay to run away, if you feel you can do it safely. But I think once someone is inside your home and threatening you, you are allowed to neutralize that threat in whatever way you feel is appropriate. You have no further requirement to try to de-escalate or defuse or run away.

You may also be justified in fighting back outside the home, but that's much murkier. In that instance, it's more a matter of proving that your assaulting or killing someone was justified. But inside the boundaries of your home, I think the presumption should always be that violence against an armed intruder is justified, and that the burden of proof lies with the government to show otherwise in specific cases.