Castle doctrine

src: storage.googleapis.com

The doctrine of the castle , also known as the law of the castle or the defense of the legal place of residence , is a legal doctrine that designates a person's residence or legally occupied place ( for example, a vehicle or a home) as a place where that person has the protection and immunity that enables a person, under certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including lethal force) to defend himself against an intruder, free from the law of prosecution for the consequences of force used. This term is most often used in the United States, although many other countries apply comparable principles in their law.

One may have an obligation to retreat to avoid violence if one can do so. The court doctrines reduce the obligation to retreat when an individual is attacked in his own home. The lethal force may be justified, the burden of production and evidence for allegations of impediment, or an affirmative defense against the criminal offense in force, in the case "when the offender is sufficiently afraid of death or serious physical harm to him or anyone else." The doctrine of the castle is not a valid law that can be applied, but a set of principles that can be included in some form in many jurisdictions. The Castle doctrines may not provide civilian immunity, such as from the wrong death suit, which has a much lower burden of proof.

The justifiable killing for self-defense occurring within one's home is different, as a matter of law, from the doctrine of the castle because only the occurrence of the offense - and sometimes the subjective requirements of fear - is enough to impose the doctrine of the castle, the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging rather than justifying murder in self-defense. With justifiable killing in self-defense, people in general must objectively prove to a clear fact, against all reasonable doubts, the intent in the intruder's mind for committing violence or crime. It would be a misconception of the law to conclude that because a country has a justifiable killing in the provision of self-defense related to a person's domicile, it has the doctrine of a castle that protects the land and frees any duty to withdraw from it. Doctrines can be abused as a pretext for unlawful punishment in private spaces. The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases where it has been used, including the death of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori and Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries.

Video Castle doctrine

Histori

The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western civilization since the days of the Roman Republic. In English the general law of the term comes from the dictum that " the Englishman's house is his palace " (see Semayne Case ). This concept was defined as English law by the 17th-century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his book The Institutes of the Laws of England 1628:

For a man's house is his castle, and domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and everyone's home is his safest shelter].

English common law came with the colonists to the New World, where it was known as the doctrine of the castle. This term has been used in the United Kingdom to imply the absolute right of a person to exclude anyone from their home, even though it always has restrictions, such as a court clerk who has an increased entrance force since the late 20th century.

According to the 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murders found in the Old Testament contains exceptions to legal defense. A house defender who beats and kills a thief who gets caught for striking at night is not guilty of bloodshed. "If a thief is caught and beaten so he dies, the thief is not indebted to the defender of the house, but if the thief is alive, he owes blood to the defender of the house and has to pay compensation."

In the beginning of the United States

In the 18th century, many legal systems of the US state began by importing English common law such as Acts of Parliament of 2 Ed. III (Statute of Northampton), and 5 Rich. II (Forcible Entry Act 1381) in legislation since 1381 - which enforces criminal sanctions that intend to prevent resorts to self-help. This requires that the party is threatened with retreat, whenever the property is "involved" and resolves the matter in a civilian manner.

Then as now, there are British politicians who support or defend themselves for state aid. William Blackstone, in Book 4, Chapter 16 of his book Commentary on English Law, states that the law "abandoning it (the inhabitants of natural rights kill the aggressor (thief)" and go to generalize in the following words :

And English law has been so special and gentle with respect to the immunity of a man's house, which made him his castle, and will never suffer it violated with immunity: agree here with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in Tully's works; quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium? For this reason there is no door that can generally be demolished to carry out any civil process; though, in criminal matters, public safety supersedes personally. Hence also partially arise the legislation of leaf-dropping, nuisancer, and burner: and for this principle to be assigned, that one may collect persons together legally without danger of causing unlawful, defeat, or unauthorized assembly, to protect and defend his home; which is not allowed to be done in any other way.

Not only is the doctrine supposedly justifying the defense of neighbors and criminals, but one of the Crown's agents is trying to enter without the proper warrant too. It should be noted that the prohibition of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has the same background as the law of current puri doctrine.

In 1841, The Preemption Act was passed to "as a result of the sale of public lands... and to grant 'pre-emption rights' to individuals" who had already lived in federal lands (usually referred to as "squatters"). During this same period, claims clubs sprung up all over the United States supporting the vigilance and doctrine of the castle. This is in line with a culture of real destiny leading to westward expansion and the American Indian War, the latter ending in the 1920s.

On the American border

At the American border, there is no duty of doctrine for extended retreat outside of residence. It confirms that a man in a quarrel that he does not provoke is not obliged to escape from his attacker, but is free to stand in his place and defend himself. The State Supreme Court Justice in 1877,

Indeed, the tendency of the American mind seems to strongly oppose the enforcement of any rules that require a person to flee when attacked.

The American Western historian Richard M. Brown writes that in such a situation, for a man in the American West to escape under such circumstances would be cowardly and not American. Dentist and legendary gambler Doc Holliday managed to use this defense when he shot Billy Allen when he entered the saloon. Holliday owes $ Allen Allen to be paid and threatens Holliday. Although Allen was unarmed at the time, Holliday had received reports that Allen had been armed and searching for him the previous day. During the next trial, Holliday confirms he is in his right and the jury agrees. He was released on March 28, 1885.

Current position

Today, the law of civil and civil repression of most American states prohibits the use of force in the restoration of land ownership. At best the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense for individuals who are inevitably accused of criminal murder, not permission or pretext to commit murder - which is generally illegal. A small number of states, allowing individuals with direct title to the land to use their reasonable powers to regain the land.

The term "made my day laws" began to be used in the United States in 1985 when Colorado passed a law protecting people from criminal or civil liability for using violence against home invaders, including deadly force. (The nickname of the law is a reference to the line "Please, make my day" (meaning 'do something so I have reason to kill you') spoken by actor Clint Eastwood character "Dirty Harry" Callahan in the 1983 Sudden Impact .)

Maps Castle doctrine

Terms of use

Each jurisdiction incorporates the doctrine of the castle into its law in different ways. The circumstances in which it can be called include a closed place (residence only, or other places as well), the level of decline or non-lethal resistance necessary before lethal force can be used, etc. The typical conditions that apply to some doctrinal castle laws include:

• The intruder has to make (or has made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter a residence, business, or occupied vehicle.
• Intruders must act against the law (the doctrine of the castle does not permit the right to use force against law enforcement, acting in their legal duties).
• The residents of the house should reasonably believe that the intruder intends to pose a serious danger or death to a resident. Some states apply Castle Doctrine if residents believe that intruders intend to commit lesser crimes such as arson or robbery.
• House occupants do not have to provoke or trigger an interruption; or, provoking/inciting an intruder threat or use of lethal force. In all cases, residents of the house: must be there legally; should not be fugitives from the law, themselves, or other fugitive aid/conspirator; and shall not use force against a legal officer who performs a legal obligation.

In Colorado, my day-back law provides immunity immigrants from prosecution only for the force used against a person who has illegally entered the place of residence, but not against a person who is illegally indoors.

Immunity from civil lawsuit

In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws that apply the doctrine of the castle, especially those with a stand-your-ground clause, also have clauses that provide immunity from any lawsuit filed. on behalf of the attacker (for damage/injury resulting from force used to stop them). Without this clause, an attacker can sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain & amp; suffer as a result of the injury caused by the defense; or, if the force causes the assassin's death, his potential relative or possessions can file the wrong death suit. Even if successfully denied, the defendant (owner of the house/defender) may still have to pay high legal fees leading to the dismissal of the lawsuit. Without criminal/civil immunity, such civil actions may be used in retaliation against a lawyer defender (who was originally the victim of the attacker).

The use of force to defend oneself that causes damage or injury to others who act non-criminal may not be protected from criminal or civil suits.

Tasks to retire

In US jurisdictions where the puri doctrine applies, there is no obligation to retreat before lethal force is used against intruders by someone in their home or, in some jurisdictions, only where that person can legally reside.

Most states in the United States have laws where you can use lethal force in any legally permitted location without having to retreat first.

Intruder Disorder

In Colorado, the holiday law "is not intended to justify the use of physical force against persons entering the residence inadvertently or in good faith." In other words, "unlawful entry elements require a mental state that is awake from the 'conscious' on the part of the intruder."

src: media.npr.org

Country-by-country position in the United States

A list of the most applicable state and legal entities to justify murder in shelter protection is listed below. Since not all countries actually plead for the doctrine of the castle, justifiable killing in the defense of life - which is almost universal in adoption, but with a narrower application - often what is called as a pretext for home protection. However, the fact that a person enters without permission is an improper or insufficient defense to justify murder in many states. If no direct link is available, for example if the destination website uses JavaScript, the name and/or law number is included.

The country incorporates the principles of the doctrine of the castle

The doctrine of the castle in its traditional form is absolute and unexpectedly ancient in most states. However, prominent remains remain as a set of principles that are put to varying degrees through both law and case law. This is generally manifested as an affirmative defense against criminal killings occurring within the home; in some countries although a slight increase in the conditions for murder is justified in self-defense by putting no duty to back off or avoiding violence encounters, or even by providing an incontrovertible assumption about the killings necessary in the defense of life. Where the principles are confirmed in a criminal law, a murder can be criminally excused, but a false civil death. In a narrow sense, a justifiable justification for self-defense occurring within one's home is actually different because of the legal problems of the castle doctrine there is no obligation to retreat in defending one's domicile. Self defense protects life while castle puri defends real. While most American countries prohibit the use of force in the restoration of land ownership, a small fraction of jurisdiction does use pure pure doctrine that unconditionally endorses self-violence in protecting one's dominance. Countries that still support ancient forms tend to be conservative, or have unique issues such as rural residents in harsh or ugly environments that critically demand broad and broad skills in self-reliance. It is used in areas often associated with small local administrations and a very long response time from law enforcement. Dense urban jurisdictions have repeatedly found that inevitable injustice, error, and escalation of self-help with violence is often greater than any benefit, especially when potential events are frequent, early police response is usually less than 7-15 minutes, and legal restoration is local.

In addition to the states listed above, the Guam Territory Territory has Castle's doctrine as the law.

Stating weakly or no special castle laws

These countries uphold the doctrine of the castle in general, but may depend on the law of the case, not the special law, may uphold the obligation to retreat, and may apply special restrictions on the use of lethal force:

• District of Columbia
• Nebraska - The bill was introduced in January 2012 that allows lethal force against a person entering a house or occupied vehicle or who is trying to kidnap someone from a house or vehicle; however, the bill was revised to include only the affirmative defense of lawsuits regarding the use of justifiable power.
• New Mexico - Castle Doctrine Limited for self-defense within the home of a person established by a court precedent at State v. Couch (1946). There is no civil immunity from potential lawsuits by aggressors or surviving relatives. In 2011, two bills (House Bill 228 and Senate Bill 29) will grant civilian immunity to individuals who lawfully use lethal force to defend themselves, both bills are dead in their respective rooms from the New Mexico Legislature.
• South Dakota - "Murder may be justified if committed by any person while refusing any attempt to kill the person, or committing any crime to him, or to or at the home of the person in question." See South Dakota Codified Law 22-16-34 (2005).
• Vermont
• Puerto Rico

src: i.ytimg.com

Outside the US

Australia

Australian countries have different defense laws. Under South Australian law, public defenses arise in s15 (1) of the 1935 Criminal Law Consolidation Act (SA) to defend one's life, and s15A (1) to defend property, subject to hybrid test, ie defendant honestly â € < â €

In July 2003, the Government of Rann (SA) introduced a law that allows housekeepers to use whatever power they deem necessary when dealing with home invaders. Homeowners who kill or injure a lawyer who escapes from prosecution, provided they can prove they have a sincere belief that it is necessary to protect themselves or their families. The law was strongly opposed by the Director General of Public Prosecution Paul Rofe, QC, and lawyer Marie Shaw, who is now the District Court Judge.

Brazil (self-defense ownership)

Since 1917, with the enactment of the first Brazilian Civil Code, an owner of goods, may be displaced or immobilized, permitted, in the event of disruption ("turbaÃÆ'§ÃÆ' £ o") or expulsion ("esbulho"), to "defend or to integrate himself [by possessing something] using his own power, and he does it immediately. "The power actions employed by the owner should not be more than necessary to eliminate distractions or for reintegration (Section 502 of the previous Civil Code; Federal Ordinary Law 3,071/1917 ). This possibility remains untouched by Brazil's Civil Code 2002 (Federal Regulatory Act 10.406/2002), in Article 1.210.

The defense of ownership is not permitted for threat cases ("ameaÃÆ'§a"). It is necessary for the owner to be effectively and physically disrupted in his possession ("turbaÃÆ'§ÃÆ' £ o") or completely separate from it ("esbulho"). Owners acting under the provisions of Article 1,210 of the Civil Code shall be exempt from civil or criminal liability. In the case of Tort Law, Article 188, inc. I, from the Civil Code stated that it is not unlawful acts "regular exercise of the right recognized by law".

Canada

According to the Criminal Code of Canada Sections 34 and 35, (which are renewed in 2012 with the passage of the C-26 Bill) the forces, up to and including the lethal force may be used to defend the life of a person or property that "peace" possesses or defenses the lives of others or property which is "peaceful", and is not considered an offense as long as the person believes that force is used against them in the case of self-defense, that a person will or has been damaged or damaged. property in the case of property defenses, that they act to defend themselves, others or "peaceful" property, and that the action makes sense under the circumstances. The criminal code also describes the factors in both cases that will be used to determine what is "reasonable considering the circumstances". Changes made by the government are to clarify laws that involve self defense and property defense, and to assist legal professionals to enforce laws that are believed to reflect acceptable Canadian values.

England and Wales

In general English law, the defendant may seek to avoid criminal or civil liability by claiming that he or she is acting in self-defense. This requires the jury to determine whether the defendant believes that the troops are needed to defend him, his property, or to prevent crime, and that the force used is natural. Although there is no obligation to withdraw from the attacker and failure to do so is not conclusive evidence that a person does not act defensively, it may still be considered by the jury as a relevant factor when assessing the benefits of a self. defense claims. The general legal obligation to withdraw is revoked by the 1967 Criminal Code. This obligation never existed when a person was somewhere where he had a legitimate right to be, but because the revocation, now extends to a public place, etc.

German

German law allows self-defense against unlawful attacks, without the obligation to retreat. Courts have interpreted this law as applicable to home invasions, including the use of lethal force against law enforcement in cases where homeowners are mistaken beliefs that the intrusion is an unlawful attack on his life.

ireland

Under the terms of the Defense and Residence Laws enacted in 2011, property owners or residents are entitled to defend themselves by force, up to and including lethal force. Any individual who uses violence against a violator is innocent of a violation if he/she honestly believes that they are there to commit a crime and a threat to life. However, there are further provisions which require reactions to the intruder in such a way that others who are reasonable in the same situation are likely to be employed. This provision acts as a safeguard against the use of a very disproportionate force, while still allowing one to resort to violence in almost all circumstances.

The law was introduced in response to the DPP v. Padraig Nally. The legislation of most of the preceding jurisprudence of Irish common law concerns self-defense on legal ground.

Israel

Israeli law allows property owners to defend themselves with power. This law was introduced in response to a conference of Shai Dromi, an Israeli farmer who shot Arab intruders on his farm late at night in 2007.

Italy

Italy passed a law in 2005 that would allow property owners to defend themselves with force. However, the practical application of the law is highly controversial: the Italian justice system is somewhat complex and using violence, more often than not, is not recommended at all, since property owners may be required for the use of disproportionate forces.

src: upload.wikimedia.org

See also

• The task of retreating, the obligation to retreat rather than attack, is overridden by the doctrine of the castle
• A justifiable murder, the impeccable murder of a person, such as self-defense.
• Stand-your-ground law, which implements the doctrine of the castle to any place.
• Martial (Australia)
• Squatting in the United States
• Trespasser

History

• Claim club

Related greeting

• man's house is his palace
• the Englishman's home is his palace

src: i.ytimg.com

Note

Source of the article : Wikipedia