Castle doctrine
Deadly force may either be justified, the burdens of production and proof for charges impeded, or an affirmative defense against criminal homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another.
However, the existence in a legal code of such a provision (of justifiable homicide in self-defense pertaining to one's domicile) does not imply the creation of a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty to retreat.
The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori[3] and Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries.
[5] The term 'castle' was defined in 1763 by Prime Minister William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown.
[5] 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, such as bailiffs having increasing powers of entry since the late-20th century.
[6] According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Old Testament contains an exception for legitimate self-defense.
[14] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private.
Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nuisancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.Not only was the doctrine considered to justify defense against neighbors and criminals, but any of the Crown's agents who attempted to enter without a proper warrant as well.
Prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution share a common background with current castle doctrine laws.
According to Han dynasty legal scholar Zheng Zhong [zh], the doctrine extends protection onto rooms and other (including very rudimentary) place of dwelling, vehicles (such as carts), and ships: "It is not guilty to immediately assault and kill someone who, without cause, enters another's room or place of dwelling, vehicle, or ship, and with the intention of committing a crime."
(Chinese: 若今時無故入人室宅廬舍，上人車船，牽引人欲犯法者，其時格殺之，無罪) During the Qin dynasty, the laws further extend castle doctrine protection against intrusion by the police or officials during the night.
In the later Han dynasty, the most extreme interpretation of the doctrine was enacted, making it legal for those in a dwelling to assault and kill anyone, including the police and other officials, who enters a house during the night, regardless of cause.
[17] The Chinese version of the castle doctrine is most likely a reflection of contemporary popular attitude, articulated in numerous historical poems and literature, that anyone who enters a civil dwelling at night is presumed to be either a rapist or a thief/robber (夜入民宅，非奸即盜).
[18] At most the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense for individuals inevitably charged with criminal homicide,[19] not a permission or pretext to commit homicide—which is generally unlawful.
[22] (The law's nickname is a reference to the line "Go ahead, make my day" (meaning 'do something so I have an excuse to kill you') uttered by actor Clint Eastwood's character "Dirty Harry" Callahan in the 1983 police film Sudden Impact.)
The circumstance in which it may be invoked include the premises covered (abode only, or other places too), the degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance required before deadly force can be used, etc.
In Colorado, the make-my-day statute "was not intended to justify use of physical force against persons who enter a dwelling accidentally or in good faith.
In a strict sense, simple justifiable homicide in self-defense which happens to occur inside one's home is actually distinct as a matter of law from castle doctrine's no duty to retreat in defense of one's domicile.
While most American states forbid the use of force in the recovery of possession of land,[18] a minority of jurisdictions do invoke pure castle doctrine which unconditionally authorizes violent self-help in protection of one's domicile.
(1) "Business" means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business; (2) "Category I nuclear facility" means a facility that possesses a formula quantity of strategic special nuclear material, as defined and licensed by the United States nuclear regulatory commission, and that must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 73; (3) "Curtilage" means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home; (4) "Deadly force" means the use of force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury; (5) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people; (6) "Nuclear power reactor facility" means a reactor designed to produce heat for electric generation, for producing radiation or fissionable materials, or for reactor component testing, and does not include a reactor used for research purposes; (7) "Nuclear security officer" means a person who meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, who is an employee or an employee of a contractor of the owner of a category I nuclear facility or nuclear power reactor facility, and who has been appointed or designated by the owner of a category I nuclear facility or nuclear power reactor facility to provide security for the facility; (8) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and (9) "Vehicle" means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.
Although not codified by statute, Virginia case law supports a version of the castle doctrine, providing that under certain circumstances, a person may use deadly force against someone entering his home.
To justify the defense of property or rights, the circumstances must indicate an attack on them which results in a criminal offense or puts them in serious danger of imminent deterioration or loss.
[50] In July 2003, South Australia's Rann government introduced laws allowing householders to use "whatever force they deem necessary" when confronted with a home invader.
The law was strongly opposed by then-Director of Public Prosecutions Paul Rofe, QC, and lawyer Marie Shaw, who is now a District Court Judge.
The acts of force employed by the possessor shall not exceed the necessary ones for eliminating the disturbance or for reintegration (Article 502 of the former Civil Code; Federal Ordinary Law 3.071/1917).
[57] While there is no explicit castle doctrine provision in the law, the jurisprudence and court practice accept the right to use force in order to expel an invader from defender's home.
[58] In 2015 case, the Constitutional Court dismissed a conviction of a man who had shot through his front door and wounded a police SWAT member that was trying to ram through, thinking that criminals are trying to get inside.
Any individual who uses force against a trespasser is not guilty of an offense if he or she honestly believes that the intruder was there to commit a criminal act and posed a threat to life.
[67] This law was introduced in response to the trial of Shai Dromi, an Israeli farmer who shot Arab intruders on his farm late at night in 2007.
[68] Italy passed a law in 2005 that allowed property owners to defend themselves with force but required proof that the intruder posed an immediate physical threat.
