Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumListen to law enforcement officials, revisit Castle Doctrine
Previously, a person was required to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement before they could legally use force to protect themselves. The revision eliminated that requirement and included other changes that make it easier to legally kill someone in self-defense.
Before the law passed, if a homeowner shot and killed an intruder, he or she might have been arrested and then required to claim self-defense at trial or in negotiations with prosecutors.
On June 9, 2009 Clay Dunbar shot Keith Peterson twice through a closed door that led from Dunbars garage into Dunbars home near Vaughn. Peterson was killed.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20121030/OPINION/310300004/Our-opinion-Time-listen-law-enforcement-officials-revisit-Castle-Doctrine
Berserker
(3,419 posts)So if my family is upstairs sleeping and two men bust through the door do I ask them politely to wait while I get my family out of bed and out of the house. Perhaps I can put a pot of coffee on for them while they wait. Or do I ask the intruders to give me a minute to get my phone so I can call 911? Is that what we should do?
If and intruder breaks into my home while my family is present I promise I will ruin his fucking weekend castle doctrine or not.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Specifics may vary from state to state.
Castle Doctrine does cover shooting an intruder who has illegally forced his way INSIDE your residence. You are not required to ask his intentions or if he is armed or not, nor do you have to leave your home. You are allowed to assume that he has deadly intent and to defend yourself and your family with deadly force, once he is inside. If he is outside, you probably won't be covered by Castle Doctrine, but it may still be self-defense, depending upon circumstances.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)From the linked article:
Alcohol and guns never mix and perhaps whether this law was on the books or not, the situations in Vaughn and Kalispell would have ended they same way.
Yes, I believe it would have ended the same way. So the whole discussion is moot.
We favor repeal of the Castle Doctrine, but favor the state retaining legal protections for homeowners who are in fact being threatened by intruders.
I'll be polite here and just say that sentence seems self-contradictory.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Nice Google dumping
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Listen to juries.
Some interesting facts I picked up from the testimony:
Despite having a key nearby, Dunbar broke the glass on his gun case to get at his loaded firearm. This would indicate some sense of urgency on the part of Dunbar. Why would that be? Perhaps he felt he was in imminent danger?
Dunbar and Peterson had been in a fight in Dunbar's house. Peterson left the home, then came back and entered Dunbar's garage, where he was shot through the door from the garage into the home.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)to bring it in line with the majority of the other states. However, this is for Montana to decide.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)I reserve the right to seek legal counsel before answering any other questions or making any other statements. I invoke my fifth amendment rights at this time.