The USCCA First Line email on 4/4/2025 reports on a successful use of a firearm during a home invasion in Missouri. I am a bit concerned about the quality in the details of the report.
First, the report opens with, “Missouri is a so-called ‘stand your ground’ state.” The event was a home invasion, so-called stand your ground laws are not in play. In a home invasion, the key law affecting an otherwise legal mandate to retreat if possible is the Castle Doctrine law, which is in effect in every state.
Second, and much more serious, is the (factual, but problematic) line, " Under Missouri law, a person breaking into a residence is presumed to be a deadly threat." That may be true, but home defenders should understand that tweak of law is not in place in most states. Even under Castle Doctrine inside your home, to mount a successful self defense claim you must be able to explain why you or a family member was in imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Shooting a stranger in your home solely due to presence there will not survive the legal process.
Further, even in Missouri, or any other state that legally presumes invasion is a deadly threat, inability to show a reasonable fear of deadly force is going to make your defense in the subsequent civil trial a big challenge.
This is why I bought sensors for all doors and windows, with audible alarm. If a person disregards the audible alarm and continues their entry, I’m having reasonable fear for my and my wife’s life.
I’m assuming the context here is a “forceful” breakin, i.e. breaking down a door or busting out a window, not simply walking in. I’m pretty sure that in most states, if someone physically breaks your door down for entry, the state would reasonably agree that you have reason to fear for your life.
720 ILCS 5/7-2 Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article [720 ILCS 5/7-4], or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
Mississippi is a castle doctrine state and has a “stand your ground” law. A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be.
Justifiable Homicide
Homicide may be justified in the following cases.
When committed by a person in resisting being killed, resisting a felony upon the person, or upon or in any dwelling, vehicle, place of business, place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be.
When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where it is reasonable to believe the person was in imminent danger of a felony or great personal injury.
“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any attached porch.
The statute provides that a person acting in justifiable self-defense shall have similar presumptions in civil cases and is immune from civil suits if found “not guilty” in criminal proceedings.
NM Stat § 30-2-7 (2024)
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or
C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
My Prob ‘The Kid’ is I find no-where in NM code this beautiful piece of Legislation in MISSISSIPPI has.
I’ve got the SELF/HOME DEFENSE down in my head (when to, when NOT to shoot).
It’s the ‘AFTERMATH’ when the Leo’s/Politicians/Lawyers get a hold of this that has ALWAYS bothered me.
Craig: As for the writer’s VERBIAGE, well some have good thoughts but it doesn’t translate to paper well. If you wish to witness True abortions of the English language read some of the so called ‘reporters’ attempts to convey a story. Newspapers/websites devoted to producing factual reporting are in short supply and make USCCA and Ammoland look like BIBLICAL Creations!
Kentucky law also allows for the presumption of imminent harm or death by an individual who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling by force, i.e., prying open or breaking down doors or windows. Also, in any situation of self defense, if the defender is held to have acted within the relevant statutes then they are immune frim civil judgement for damages arising from the act of defense. Nice.
Every state has a castle doctrine law, although some cover a broader physical area (vehicles, workplaces, etc.) than others.
Many, but not all, states have some form of stand your ground law.
The core impact of both castle doctrine and stand your ground laws is to remove the duty to retreat or to avoid the fight from the five requirements of legal justification for use of force in a criminal trial. Innocence, imminence, reasonableness, and proportionality still remain in play to succeed in a justified use of force claim in criminal trial.
Only a few states also have laws protecting you from civil suits if you prevail in a criminal trial first. But if you are not charged, because the state (prosecutor) agrees you would win, that protection may not apply.
In both a criminal trial and a civil trial, you will have to, as Massad Ayoob says, answer the question, CYA: Can You Articulate the reality of the threat enough to convince the jury you should not be convicted?
It is rather likely you will be sued. Recall the civil suit against OJ, and more recently suits brought by distraught family members after their “innocent young son” was killed in what was clearly an egregious armed robbery.
In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts, but they prove other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff’s claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense. Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant’s criminal culpability or civil liability.
States without a specific Castle Doctrine statute: A few states, such as Vermont, New York, and New Mexico, do not have a standalone “Castle Doctrine” law by name. However, they still permit self-defense in the home under general self-defense statutes or case law, often with a duty to retreat unless retreat is impossible or unsafe.
For example:
Vermont: Lacks a codified Castle Doctrine but allows self-defense in the home if a person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent harm. Courts have historically supported this, though it’s not labeled as a “Castle Doctrine.”
New York: Has a duty to retreat under Penal Law § 35.15, but this doesn’t apply if retreat isn’t feasible—effectively creating a de facto Castle Doctrine-like protection in practice, though not explicitly named as such.
New Mexico: Self-defense laws allow force in the home without a formal Castle Doctrine statute, relying on common law principles.