Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Sun Nov 4, 2012, 05:59 AM Nov 2012

Listen to law enforcement officials, revisit Castle Doctrine

In the 2009 Legislature, lawmakers considered and then passed House Bill 228, the Castle Doctrine, allowing Montanans to defend their lives and liberties in their home, and that the use of firearms for self-defense is recognized within that right.

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 Dunbar’s garage into Dunbar’s home near Vaughn. Peterson was killed.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20121030/OPINION/310300004/Our-opinion-Time-listen-law-enforcement-officials-revisit-Castle-Doctrine
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Listen to law enforcement officials, revisit Castle Doctrine (Original Post) SecularMotion Nov 2012 OP
Bat shit crazy Berserker Nov 2012 #1
Castle Doctrine often does not cover shooting through a closed door. GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #2
California has had a similar Castle Doctrine for decades. There was NEVER a duty to retreat here. slackmaster Nov 2012 #3
Very doubtful this will go through ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #4
The guy has survived two trials by jury. Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #5
Montana's law could use a little tightening ManiacJoe Nov 2012 #6
He came at me. I told him to stop. He kept coming. I shot to defend myself. trouble.smith Nov 2012 #7
I listened. I revisted. I supported Castle. I resumed sleep. Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #8
 

Berserker

(3,419 posts)
1. Bat shit crazy
Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:59 AM
Nov 2012

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)
2. Castle Doctrine often does not cover shooting through a closed door.
Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:15 AM
Nov 2012

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)
3. California has had a similar Castle Doctrine for decades. There was NEVER a duty to retreat here.
Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:55 AM
Nov 2012

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.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
5. The guy has survived two trials by jury.
Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:12 AM
Nov 2012

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)
6. Montana's law could use a little tightening
Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:15 PM
Nov 2012

to bring it in line with the majority of the other states. However, this is for Montana to decide.

 

trouble.smith

(374 posts)
7. He came at me. I told him to stop. He kept coming. I shot to defend myself.
Mon Nov 5, 2012, 12:31 AM
Nov 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Listen to law enforcement...