Thread: Mannix to push lawmakers to adopt 'Castle Doctrine'

This should be a given, especially in ones home or business.

Mannix to push lawmakers to adopt 'Castle Doctrine' | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon

I like about 3/4 of it, but the "may use deadly force when NOT being threatened with violence" goes slightly too far to me. If a neighborhood teenager breaks into my house to steal money for drugs, and he is not armed, and immediately cowers and begs to be allowed to leave with his life when I show walk in the room with a gun, it should NOT be legal to shoot him. Detain him until the police arrive, sure. If he decides to try to attack me when I tell him to wait for the police, sure, then he has committed an act of violence, and deadly force should be allowed. But the "you may defend property against non-violent offenders" part goes too far to me.

The shields from liability would be wonderful, though. THOSE are needed.

I wouldn't say shoot to kill unless it's called for (life in danger), each situation will be different I'm sure. But definitely should not be prosecuted for protecting ones family.

Do it like the cops do it? Shoot until your gun is empty. Reload. That should be the example we all follow. Right?

So does the Castle Doctrine just basically insure you won't be prosecuted? Wouldn't you be justified if someone broke in your home and either was a threat or wouldn't leave?

I think it would give a person less fear of getting in trouble from using deadly force when an intruder breaks into their "castle" home.

An example.

Castle Doctrine expands rights of citizens to defend themselves - The Lakeland Times - Minocqua, WI

"Gov. Walker and Wisconsin lawmakers know that law-abiding citizens must have the right to protect themselves when criminals attack, without fear of being second-guessed by an overzealous prosecutor," said Chris W. Cox, executive director for the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "Crime victims don't have the luxury of time when confronted by a criminal - they need to know that the law is on their side. The Castle Doctrine statute accomplishes that by clarifying that crime victims may defend themselves without first being required to retreat."

Originally Posted by CharonPDX

I like about 3/4 of it, but the "may use deadly force when NOT being threatened with violence" goes slightly too far to me. If a neighborhood teenager breaks into my house to steal money for drugs, and he is not armed, and immediately cowers and begs to be allowed to leave with his life when I show walk in the room with a gun, it should NOT be legal to shoot him. Detain him until the police arrive, sure. If he decides to try to attack me when I tell him to wait for the police, sure, then he has committed an act of violence, and deadly force should be allowed. But the "you may defend property against non-violent offenders" part goes too far to me.

The shields from liability would be wonderful, though. THOSE are needed.

I disagree. What is wrong with keeping it simple? If everyone knew the law was If you break into someone home, it's "open season", maybe the teenager would not be breaking into homes looking for drug money in the first place.

If you found him in your house, you could always give the poor little drug addict money if you wanted to, the law does not say you have to shoot him. I doubt anyone would shoot a cowering person in cold blood, but if you muddy up the law with feel good exceptions, it's basically worthless. I like it simple, maybe the junkies would get the hint. Don't want to die? Don't break into houses. It's easy!

Originally Posted by rufus

I disagree. What is wrong with keeping it simple? If everyone knew the law was If you break into someone home, it's "open season", maybe the teenager would not be breaking into homes looking for drug money in the first place.

If you found him in your house, you could always give the poor little drug addict money if you wanted to, the law does not say you have to shoot him. I doubt anyone would shoot a cowering person in cold blood, but if you muddy up the law with feel good exceptions, it's basically worthless. I like it simple, maybe the junkies would get the hint. Don't want to die? Don't break into houses. It's easy!

Hard to argue against this! +1

Originally Posted by rufus

I disagree. What is wrong with keeping it simple? If everyone knew the law was If you break into someone home, it's "open season", maybe the teenager would not be breaking into homes looking for drug money in the first place.

If you found him in your house, you could always give the poor little drug addict money if you wanted to, the law does not say you have to shoot him. I doubt anyone would shoot a cowering person in cold blood, but if you muddy up the law with feel good exceptions, it's basically worthless. I like it simple, maybe the junkies would get the hint. Don't want to die? Don't break into houses. It's easy!

I agree. Good post. Every situation would be different, but say I wake up in the middle of the night because the dogs are barking and I see some stranger coming down the hall. Why would it be my responsibility to get fully awake, determine that he's armed... Why is that on me? Do I need him to fire a shot at me to be sure he's armed if it's fairly dark?

I want the right to drop him and figure out the details later. If he doesn't like that proposition, he can stay out of my home.

I don't ever want to shoot anyone. Ever. I'd still have the right not to if some teenager, obviously not armed, broke into my house during the day when I could quickly size up the situation.

I like the Castle Doctrine. Good job Kevin Mannix. I hope it goes through.

Oregon law already gives you the option of using deadly force against an intruder to your home. What a true castle doctrine would do is also protect you from civil suit when the intruders family files a lawsuit against you for unreasonable use of force. Some states castle doctrine extend the protection beyond your house to include your property.

To me, simple is "if you're in danger, you can use deadly force without fear of prosecution/civil suit." It's the "in danger" part that is important, though. Remove that, and all of a sudden it becomes legal to shoot a door-to-door salesman. (No, I don't actually expect anyone to do that, but it would become legal. "Hey, I told him to leave, and two seconds later he was still there - trespassing, criminal, so I shot him." All of a sudden, deranged people have an "out" to get away with shooting someone merely because they are on their property.)

What Charon said. Couple of guys drinking at one of their houses. Big argument. Resident shoots non-resident. Says, "I told him to leave, and he wouln't." Even in a real break in, the death penalty for burglary seems harsh to me. Now if you are being attacked, ok.

A door-to-door salesman? Really? Wow.

So, you guys are okay if someone kicks in your front door and steals your television while you are watching it, as long as he does not "attack" you or you are not in danger. Or you find that cowering teenager in your house, you grab your gun and say "freeze" (lol) and tell him to "wait for the police", but he just runs off laughing instead. Might as well just leave your front door wide open all night with a big "free stuff just don't hurt me" sign.

Originally Posted by CharonPDX

To me, simple is "if you're in danger, you can use deadly force without fear of prosecution/civil suit." It's the "in danger" part that is important, though. Remove that, and all of a sudden it becomes legal to shoot a door-to-door salesman. (No, I don't actually expect anyone to do that, but it would become legal. "Hey, I told him to leave, and two seconds later he was still there - trespassing, criminal, so I shot him." All of a sudden, deranged people have an "out" to get away with shooting someone merely because they are on their property.)

Deranged people already have an "out". The prime definition of deranged. This is true with all of those "gun free zones" as well. Do you believe for 1 second that a deranged or otherwise sane person intent on mayhem is going to pay attention to ANY law? That's the definition of a crime.

A normal person is like so many of us here (put yourself in this category or not reader) who DO NOT want to shoot anyone. But, if I make that decision in my property because of a break in or being threatened I don't want some overzealous lawyer deciding that looking at the "facts" I could have chosen any number of other courses. As a partially disabled person, I have enough liabilities without having being second guessed by someone or some relative who was not there.

The Castle Doctrine as it is written removes that doubt and worry. It also gives fair warning to all criminals (those who break laws or are deranged) that it's not open season, but you better be prepared for the consequences of your actions if you appear threatening. By the very act of breaking into someone's home you are threatening the people inside.

My 2c.

Sodbuster

as far as a intruder goes in my home...

I won't shoot anyone in the back (unless they're a immediate threat to somebody else and I have a clean shot), but if you're in my house un-invited and not complying with MY commands, I'll do everything in my power to keep things in my favour.

'nough's been say. A I give Castle Doctrine a "yay". It's a no brainer.

Wonder if the castle applies to the grounds as well? Say you have 20 acres in BFE and someone sets up a backwoods pot grow. You find it, they attack, you put them down. Would the castle clause cover such a situation?

Originally Posted by rufus

So, you guys are okay if someone kicks in your front door and steals your television while you are watching it, as long as he does not "attack" you or you are not in danger. Or you find that cowering teenager in your house, you grab your gun and say "freeze" (lol) and tell him to "wait for the police", but he just runs off laughing instead. Might as well just leave your front door wide open all night with a big "free stuff just don't hurt me" sign.

No, not OK with that. But also not ready bring the death penalty down on someone for stealing a TV. There are less deadly ways of dealing with an unarmed dude trying to steal your TV. Like kicking the shiznit out of him. Of course if you aren't up to that, I guess your firearm is all you got.

Plus it just opens up too many holes. Guy you don't like shows up at your house, you execute him, then say he was not authorized to be there.