It applies to shootingdefending yourself against policemen who are entering your home illegally, too.
Yes.
7 thoughts on “The Castle Doctrine”
Comments are closed.
It applies to shootingdefending yourself against policemen who are entering your home illegally, too.
Yes.
Comments are closed.
Not quite a “shooting.” This case concerns a minor scuffle where a constable got his foot slammed in a door.
OK, didn’t read the article, but I think principle would still apply.
I recall a case from Colorado some 10-15 years or so ago. Sheriff’s deputies did a no knock break in on a man’s home. He shot and killed one of the deputies. Of course, the others shot him but IIRC, he survived and was paralyzed. Under Colorado’s Make My Day law, he wasn’t prosecuted because it was a no-knock raid. He was still paralyzed but not in jail, likely on death row.
Never forget that if you do resist the cops when they’re breaking into your home, even if they’re doing it illegally, you’re very likely going to get shot dead. That’s just the way it is.
I encourage people to read the entire decision. Yes, it’s 25 pages, but it’s 25 pages formatted for legal filing, which means that it’s wide- margined, double-spaced, and almost every page has footnotes, so it’s a pretty quick read.
As I read the majority opinion, I was struck at how blurred the lines are for off-duty officers moonlighting as private security guards.
Which means that I especially appreciated the concurring opinion of Judge Mathias, inasmuch as he asks the Indiana Legislature to take the time to clarify the difference between an off-duty officer acting in official capacity and an off-duty officer acting in a private capacity (i.e., as a private security guard).
What happened in Indiana may not apply in other states, but it was a good, quick read nonetheless.
And to think, as an undergrad, I couldn’t stand reading legal opinions and case law…
Now that he has won his case, the homeowner had better move to a new jurisdiction, if not a new state. He will be forever now be in the (figurative) cross-hairs of local law enforcement, and likely the whole bureaucracy as well. Unless you are made of very stern stuff, embarrassing “the Man” will cause you no end of trouble.
But, of course, I also want to tell him, “Well done!”
“Now that he has won his case, the homeowner had better move to a new jurisdiction, if not a new state.”
What ever happened to people being allowed to make an honest mistake every once in a while, and being forgiven for it later? Why must everything carry an “undercurrent” or “nefarious purpose”, and why must every reversal of a decision be a “smack-down” or an “embarrassment”?
In any case, it doesn’t sound like he was “besties” with law enforcement before this happened, so I’m not sure he has much to worry about in that sense.
In another sense, he’s probably living in the best state possible, because people know that he knows the law and knows his rights.
Contrary to popular opinion or what the media would have people think, not EVERY jurisdiction in the United States carries animosity towards their citizens or reacts harshly when those citizens defend their rights against official over-reaches; sometimes people make mistakes, and sometimes those same people humbly admit and reconcile their mistakes.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is absolutely unambiguous, and trumps any state law. How “law” “enforcement” has gotten away with warrantless, no knock entries is beyond me. Such entries are properly, constitutionally, and morally met with lethal force. And it should be 100% lethal.