Is it justifiable to kill someone who invades your home? This question has proven a difficult one to resolve, and different legal systems have come to different conclusions.
One line of thought is that citizens should be able to kill in self-defense without legal penalty in particular circumstances.
This doctrine is known as the Castle Doctrine, after the saying that "a man's home is his castle.
" The "particular circumstances" where killing is justifiable vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In the United States, the laws vary substantially by state.
Most jurisdictions allow for people who kill in self-defense to be exonerated, if immediate use of lethal force is the only way to ensure personal safety.
In many cases, the conditions can be thought of in terms of "duty-to-retreat" and "stand-your-ground" laws.
The "duty to retreat" is essentially the idea that, before the use of lethal force can be justifiable, a person has to retreat as far as possible before using force.
In other words, if someone is trying to attack you, you have a duty to retreat before resisting with force.
Sometimes this means retreating "to the wall," which is to say as far as possible.
This can even mean that, in the case of home invasions, homeowners must retreat as far as possible within the home before resisting.
In contrast, "standing your ground" means confronting invaders/attackers when they enter the home.
The Castle Doctrine is in part rooted in the idea that one's home is as far as one should be expected to retreat before resisting.
If someone is attacked on the street, lethal force is only justifiable if they are completely unable to escape.
Otherwise you are expected to flee.
In the case of home invasions, according to the Castle Doctrine, no further retreat should be expected.
Even in states that have some form of the Castle Doctrine for home invasions, the extent to which force is justifiable varies, too.
Texas has some of the most extreme laws in this regard, in some circumstances permitting citizens to kill burglars fleeing if that is the only way they can recover their property.
California has a version of the Castle Doctrine, but it does not extend as far as Texas' laws.
In California, defendants must demonstrate both an "honest" and a "reasonable" belief that violence is the only means by which they could ensure their safety or the safety of another.
For her belief to be honest, a defendant must subjectively believe force was necessary.
For it to be reasonable, the circumstances must be ones where a reasonable person would be expected to use force.
If a person has an honest but unreasonable belief that force is necessary, he can be acquitted of murder but still convicted of manslaughter.
If you have been forced to defend yourself against an illegal home invader, and believe lethal force was the only way you could have ensured your safety, a defense attorney can help you reduce or exonerate your charges.
The California criminal defense attorney Daniel Jensen has years of courtroom experience protecting citizens against unreasonable charges.
Contact him today to learn how he can help you.
One line of thought is that citizens should be able to kill in self-defense without legal penalty in particular circumstances.
This doctrine is known as the Castle Doctrine, after the saying that "a man's home is his castle.
" The "particular circumstances" where killing is justifiable vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In the United States, the laws vary substantially by state.
Most jurisdictions allow for people who kill in self-defense to be exonerated, if immediate use of lethal force is the only way to ensure personal safety.
In many cases, the conditions can be thought of in terms of "duty-to-retreat" and "stand-your-ground" laws.
The "duty to retreat" is essentially the idea that, before the use of lethal force can be justifiable, a person has to retreat as far as possible before using force.
In other words, if someone is trying to attack you, you have a duty to retreat before resisting with force.
Sometimes this means retreating "to the wall," which is to say as far as possible.
This can even mean that, in the case of home invasions, homeowners must retreat as far as possible within the home before resisting.
In contrast, "standing your ground" means confronting invaders/attackers when they enter the home.
The Castle Doctrine is in part rooted in the idea that one's home is as far as one should be expected to retreat before resisting.
If someone is attacked on the street, lethal force is only justifiable if they are completely unable to escape.
Otherwise you are expected to flee.
In the case of home invasions, according to the Castle Doctrine, no further retreat should be expected.
Even in states that have some form of the Castle Doctrine for home invasions, the extent to which force is justifiable varies, too.
Texas has some of the most extreme laws in this regard, in some circumstances permitting citizens to kill burglars fleeing if that is the only way they can recover their property.
California has a version of the Castle Doctrine, but it does not extend as far as Texas' laws.
In California, defendants must demonstrate both an "honest" and a "reasonable" belief that violence is the only means by which they could ensure their safety or the safety of another.
For her belief to be honest, a defendant must subjectively believe force was necessary.
For it to be reasonable, the circumstances must be ones where a reasonable person would be expected to use force.
If a person has an honest but unreasonable belief that force is necessary, he can be acquitted of murder but still convicted of manslaughter.
If you have been forced to defend yourself against an illegal home invader, and believe lethal force was the only way you could have ensured your safety, a defense attorney can help you reduce or exonerate your charges.
The California criminal defense attorney Daniel Jensen has years of courtroom experience protecting citizens against unreasonable charges.
Contact him today to learn how he can help you.
SHARE
