Castle Doctrine
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense
of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's
abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place
of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities
and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force,
to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution. Typically
deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide
applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of
death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".The doctrine is not a
defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated
in some form in the law of most states.
The term derives from the historic English common law dictum
that "an Englishman's home is his castle". This concept was
established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The
Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628. The dictum was carried by colonists to
the New World, who later removed
"English" from the phrase, making it "a man's home is his
castle", which thereby became simply the Castle Doctrine. The term has
been used in England
to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from their home, although
this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs
have also had increasing powers of entry.
The Castle Doctrine is not a license to kill
Minnesota man who
killed teens in break-in charged with murder
By NBC News staff and wire services
A 64-year-old Minnesota man was
charged Monday with murder for killing two teenagers who he said broke into his
Little Falls home, shooting them in the head, the Minneapolis Star Tribune
reported.
Byron David Smith was arrested after he told police he shot
and killed two teenagers who he said were breaking into his home on
Thanksgiving Day.
"If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at
you, you go again," Byron David Smith of Little Falls told investigators,
according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.
Smith was charged with two counts of second-degree murder in
the deaths of Haile Kifer, 18, and her cousin, Nicholas Brady, 17, both of
Little Falls. The teens were shot on Thanksgiving Day, but their deaths weren't
reported until Friday.
Brady has also used the name Schaeffel, which is his
mother’s maiden name, at times for family reasons, according to the sheriff's
office.
In the criminal complaint, Smith said he was in the basement
of his remote home about 10 miles southwest of Little Falls when he heard a
window breaking upstairs, followed by footsteps that eventually approached the
basement stairwell. Fearful after several break-ins, according to the
complaint, Smith said he fired when Brady came into view from the waist down.
After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him
in the face as he lay on the floor.
"I want him dead," the complaint quoted Smith
telling an investigator.
Smith said he dragged Brady's body into his basement
workshop, then sat back down on his chair, and after a few minutes Kifer began
coming down the stairs. He said he shot her as soon as her hips appeared, and
she fell down the steps.
Smith said he tried to shoot her again with his Mini 14
rifle, but that the gun jammed and Kifer laughed at him.
"Smith stated that it was not a very long laugh because
she was already hurting," according to the complaint.
Smith said he then shot Kifer in the chest several times
with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to Brady, and with her still
gasping for air, fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium."
"Smith described it as 'a good clean finishing
shot,'" according to the compliant, but also that he acknowledged he had
fired "more shots than (he) needed to."
The following day he asked a neighbor to recommend a good
lawyer, according to the complaint.
He later asked his neighbor to call the police.
A prosecutor called Smith's reaction "appalling."
"Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his
home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense," Morrison County
Attorney Brian Middendorf said after Smith appeared at Morrison County District
Court on Monday morning. Bail was set at $2 million.
Minnesota
law allows a homeowner to use deadly force on an intruder if a reasonable
person would fear they're in danger of harm. Smith told investigators he was
afraid the intruders might have a weapon.
Smith's actions "sound like an execution" rather
than legitimate self-defense, said David Pecchia, executive director of the
Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association. Pecchia said his statements to
investigators suggest he had eliminated any threat to his safety by wounding
the cousins.
Smith's brother, Bruce Smith, told the Star Tribune of
Minneapolis that the incident was the eighth burglary at Byron Smith's home in
recent years.
The only report the Morrison County
sheriff's office has for a break-in at the home was for one on Oct. 27. It
shows Byron Smith reported losing cash and gold coins worth $9,200, plus two
guns worth $200 each, photo equipment worth more than $3,000 and a ring worth
$300.
Little Falls is about 100 miles northwest of Minneapolis.
Brady's sister, Crystal Schaeffel, told the Star Tribune
that Kifer had broken into her home before. Little Falls police records show
Crystal Schaeffel reported a theft Aug. 28, but the department said the report
was not public because that investigation was continuing and because it named
juveniles.
Tessa Ruth, an aunt of Brady, attended Smith's hearing. She
told the Star Tribune she wished the man had fired a warning shot or alerted
the police instead of shooting the teens.
"It wasn't right for them to be there and, yes, he had a right to defend himself. But to
execute them like that..."
I have written it on this blog many times before, but some
things bare repeating, so let’s hit the basics again – IMOP
For the use force to defend yourself to be justified the
threat must be immediate.
In order to be an immediate threat, an individual must
display (and you must be able to clearly articulate how you knew) three (sometimes four) things:
- Intent
- Means
- Opportunity
- Preclusion
(civilians)
Intent
Intent is the desire to do something bad, e.g. harm you, or
a third party; break a law; or refuse to comply with a lawful order.
From the information available it is clear the cousins were
breaking a law, but clearly showed no intent to harm Smith.
It seems that the cousins didn't even know Smith was even in the house.
Why would an unarmed 18 year old girl walk down stairs if she knew her cousin had been killed and the man who just killed him was still down there waiting for her?
Remember self defense is an affirmative defense. Meaning you are stating yes, I did kill these people, but it isn’t murder
because…
Because it is an affirmative defense the burden of proof is
on you. So in regards to intent prosecutors
may ask, “Are you a mind reader? How
could you possibly know what was going on in the mind of the deceased?”
We are very good at reading intent but many of us are very
poor at articulating intent. (Another reason
why it is so important to include articulation exercises into your training).
You can’t read anyone’s mind but their actions (even very
subtle ones) will display their
intent. (Not unlike a tell in poker).
Did the cousins’ actions display any intent to harm Smith? Would a reasonable person in the same
circumstance shoot someone the moment they saw the potential threat’s legs as
they walked down the stairs?
In a self defense situation you have to ask yourself – Do I need to engage?
If you have time to ask the question you most likely don’t. If you don’t have time to ask the question
you better already be engaging.
When Smith heard the window break he had plenty of time to
employ a multitude of other self defense strategies besides the use of lethal
force.
If those strategies failed, it would show a clear intent on
the part of the cousins to harm Smith.
Don’t read that last sentence as me suggesting to attempt a lower level of force than justified. Rather reinforcing the need for all to understand what level of force is necessary and the ability to articulate
why not only that the force you used was just but also why lower level of force wouldn't have worked.
Generally the level of resistance dictates or greatly
influences the level of force appropriate, mirroring the “commensurate harms
doctrine”.
If nothing but your feelings can get hurt, you cannot
escalate it to pain.
If no injury is offered, but there is a duty to act (or you
cannot escape) and lower levels will not work, ‘commensurate harms’ allows
pain, but not injury.
If injury is offered, injury, but not death, is the answer.
If death is threatened, death is on the table.
Contrary to popular belief someone breaking into your house
does not automatically justify lethal force.
A kid that comes home from college, has a couple of drinks
and stumbles into the wrong house because all the houses in his parent’s
subdivision basically look all the same is a world apart from MS13 kicking in
your door to commit atrocities against you and your family heinous enough that they send
a message to the entire area.
You will know the difference, we are very good at reading
intent but many of us are very poor at articulating intent.
Means
The threat must have the ability to carry out intent.
A person threatening to shoot you must have a gun to be an
immediate threat, for instance.
An unarmed teen aged girl at the top of the steps does not
have the means to harm an armed adult man all the way down in the basement.
Opportunity
The threat must be able to reach you with the means.
If an Internet tough guy in a different country doesn’t like
this blog and threatens to punch me, he clearly has no opportunity to do so
even if he has the intent (threatened to punch me) and the means (because he is
so tough)
Again, in both cases an unarmed person at the top of the
steps does not have the opportunity to harm Smith all the way down in the
basement.
Preclusion
Preclusion generally means if you don’t have to be there get
out of there. Before you use force you
have to show that you attempted to leave (remove opportunity). If the threat prevents you from leaving it
helps make your case that the use of force was justified.
The castle doctrine recognizes that someone does not have to
leave their own house and has a right to stand their ground and defend
themselves there. So preclusion does not
apply in this case.
But as I stated earlier in this blog the castle doctrine is not
a license to kill.
The use of force ends when the threat is no longer immediate. The means and / or the opportunity no longer exist.
When Smith shot them and they fell down the stairs the
cousins clearly no longer had the means to harm Smith.
Walking over to a threat laying on the ground, suffering
from a gun shot wound. Burying the muzzle
of your gun under his jaw to deliver a “clean finishing shot”, “into the
cranium” is not self defense.
"If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at
you, you go again," "Smith
stated that it was not a very long laugh because she was already hurting,"
– That is not self defense.
You also have an obligation to render aid. You don’t have to start 1st aid
yourself but you at least have to call the authorities so that help can be sent.
You sure as shit can’t just chill out for a day and a half
with two corpses in you basement.
Obviously those kids shouldn’t have been in this guys house,
but this whole incident could have been resolved so much easier.
It is a tragedy for all involved, and I am sorry for the
families.
Castle doctrine is a sound principle. I hope it’s misuse does not remove it’s
protections from responsible citizens.
Knowledge of force laws will not cause you to freeze under
pressure anymore than knowledge of traffic laws will cause you to freeze when
you suddenly need to change lanes in traffic.
Make sure you know you local laws.
If you teach others to how use force you have an obligation to
teach them when force is justified
Train hard, Train smart, Be safe
