Castle Doctrine does not equal no legal aftermath

I’ve had a lot of social media interactions with people who say they’ll shoot if someone’s in their home and they’ll have no legal aftermath because their state has the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrine can definitely help, but it isn’t a get out of jail free card.

Check out what Kevin Michalowski and Tom Grieve have to say about home invasions.

What would you have done? What did she do right in your opinion?

3 Likes

I quote Illinois because it’s where I live but Illinois Castle Doctrine doesn’t allow using deadly force in your house, you’re only allowed to protect your house. Trespassing is a non-starter before the use of deadly force so our castle doctrine is going to land yourself in jail if their is a home invasion.
Honest Abe Lincoln is probably crying now as to where our country is going.

1 Like

@Robert8 Wow that’s complicated and crazy

1 Like

@Zee That’s what you get from a dysfunctional government Megan, you know the job of Governor of Illinois is just a stepping stone to the next occupation which is Inmate at a Federal Correctional Facility. :flushed::anguished:

2 Likes

That’s why they raised the cost of our license plates. That’s the Governor retirement program. Finest license plate makers around. Illinois law is tricky. It says you can use lethal force, to stop a forcible felony, or if they enter the home in. “Riotous, forcible manner with intent to do harm.”
So, in the video, I would not have shot the intruder. I wouldn’t follow him outside either. I would have called 911, an given the officers the best description, and direction of travel.

2 Likes

In California, we have the Castle Doctrine and, unlike other States, I do not have the duty to retreat if I confront an intruder inside my home. However, if the intruder turns around and tries to leave, I cannot shoot him in the back or chase him outside.

2 Likes

One more thing I forgot to mention:

One thing I have read on other blogs and that bothers me tremendously is when people say, “If the intruder is down, disarmed and shot, shoot him again. No one would know you shot the intruder again once he was down.” That I have tried explained to folks is considered execution and it is a big NO, NO in a lot of States. The Castle Doctrine I do not think goes that far to protect one from criminal charges.

2 Likes

This is absolutely false information. In all my years as a licensed funeral director and embalmer I am now retired but, what I am going to say is absolutely 100% is true. Any Medical Examiner or Pathologist will tell you the same. Maybe a Coroner would not because they are usually political appointees and not Pathologist. A Pathologist during an Autopsy will absolutely find which bullet or bullets entered the body pre-mortem and which bullet or bullets entered the body ante-mortem I have assisted in many autopsy’s and whoever made the claim that this is undiscoverable is disseminating false information.

1 Like

@Robert8 I don’t believe the statement was ‘if you shot him once, and he’s dead, you can shoot him again.’ I tend to think the idea is along the lines: “If someone invaded your house and you shot him, shoot him again to be sure he’s dead.” This follows along with the idea that in a discovery process the DA would only have one persons’ point of view to determine if there would be grounds to prosecute the survivor.

What this premise misses is the moral issue of murder. The fact is, in today’s world, there is far more surveillance available to fall under jeopardy of becoming charged with murder by ‘trying to get away with it.’

Last, we have said nothing about the family of the deceased, if he/she was in the right or wrong may not matter in a civil proceeding. A good lawyer can be had - or - even get lucky… Would that be something you could afford to endure? But I am not a lawyer, nor an officer of the court. And your mileage may vary.

1 Like

While CSI isn’t real life, it also misses that forensics may be able to differentiate pre-mortem from post-mortem shots.
Maybe they can, maybe they can’t, in a particular situation, but once the threat is stopped, it’s time to stop shooting.

Have these people never seen any sort of CSI/NCIS/Forensic Files show? Granted, there is fiction there, but a lot of their science is done right.

If you ever see comments like that here, @Jorge, please flag it and address it - or flag it and I’ll address it. Those statements are terrible - legally and ethically. :frowning:

2 Likes

@Dawn @Jorge
Exactly what the anti-gun media mob wants to enhance their scenarios and give Red-Meat to their base. Wow! Is this making our world better or tearing us further apart!?

1 Like

Folks,

Thanks for the feedback and opinions on my post. @Robert8 I absolutely agree with you. No argument here. The few times I have seen such stupid comments, I try to nip it in the butt because it gives responsible gun owners a bad reputation and puts us in a bad light. I always refer back to that case of the gentleman Minnesota or Michigan who went a bit too far defending his home.

@Dawn I ever see such a comment around, you better believe I will flag it.

3 Likes

Your a good man Jorge @Jorge but those guys you call Gentleman Just Aren’t Sir! If you ever need any of my knowledge, input or advice regarding something you’re writing from the funeral perspective give me a shout. Have a safe day.

1 Like

Thanks, @Robert8. I appreciate your kind comment and offer. I’ll definitely take you up on it should the need arise.

2 Likes