Jump to content

Talk:Castle doctrine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This statement is factually untrue

[edit]

(Third paragraph) "With justifiable homicide in self-defense, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, against all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony."

The burden of proof in American self-defense criminal cases is always on the state. It must disprove one of the applicable elements of self-defense in order to convict (imminence, proportionality, innocence, avoidance, reasonableness).

Castle doctrine merely removes one of those five elements from consideration (avoidance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentiler (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia is technically a state with a Stand-your-ground Law.

[edit]

I was looking at this page for info on which states fell under which forms of castle doctrine and after reading the linked Senate Bill 145 for West Virginia it looks like it should be under Stand-your-ground than in Castle Law. It was updated to clarify that a person may use deadly force if needed even if the person is not at home.

This is from the linked reference http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2008_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/SB145%20SUB1.htm : "A BILL to amend and reenact §55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, relating to clarifying that reasonable and proportionate force may be used to protect one's self or another from an intruder or attacker while lawfully in one's residence or that of another; codifying the common law doctrine that a lawful occupant within a home or residence has no duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker; clarifying that the use of reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, may be used against an intruder or attacker by one not engaged in unlawful activity in any place other than a home or residence where the person reasonably believes the intruder or attacker intends to kill or inflict serious bodily harm; establishing that use of reasonable and proportionate force to defend oneself is a full and complete defense civilly to an action brought by an intruder or attacker based upon the use of such force; and exceptions."

Since this state is currently included under "States with a Castle Law: No duty to retreat if in the home." It should probably be moved to "States with a Stand-your-ground Law: No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.218.29 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted my clean up.

[edit]

I went through this article and cleaned up the list of states that had a Stand Your Ground Law, Castle Doctrine, etc. and ALL of my edits were removed. Why on earth was this done? All of them were linked to the actual statutes. They added value. They vastly improved the quality of the page. Please explain to me what is going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.62.36 (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bot automatically reverted your changes, as someone adding a lot of links is often a sign of spamming or vandalism. I restored your changes. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

castle law porch change

[edit]

As one case in point that some castle laws cover porches, here is the Wisconsin law

895.62 :

  • (2)Except as provided in sub. (4), an actor is immune from civil liability arising out of his or her use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and either of the following applies:
    • (b) The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
  • 1 (b) (b) "Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
    • (h) "Dwelling" means any premises or portion of a premises that is used as a home or a place of residence and that part of the lot or site on which the dwelling is situated that is devoted to residential use. "Dwelling" includes other existing structures on the immediate residential premises such as driveways, sidewalks, swimming pools, terraces, patios, fences, porches, garages, and basements.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I was just editing for readability, I didn't actually check the accuracy. Thanks. --Fritzophrenic (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table issues

[edit]

I was accessing this page on an iPad, and the table in state-by-state positions causes the page to stretch really badly. Is there a way to solve this? RETheUgly (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State

[edit]

I added washington, but I don't have a solid reference for it. Here are a few mentions:

I don't put them in the article as they're nowhere near authoratative.

There is also a 2012 article that cites State v. Reynaldo Redmond. I'll let someone with legal training take a closer look.

Loopholes not filled in

[edit]

Although in Ohio, you can shoot and kill (just aim right, don't wound, don't shoot more than once) any invader as long as he/she had one foot inside your house, you can still be jailed for discharging a firearm inside the city limits in Warren, Ohio. I looked for the law related to this but couldn't find the Ohio revised code relating to it but was told this by a police officer as a warning "when you shoot, kill the person, we don't want un-necessary paperwork but be warned, you'll still go to jail for discharging your firearm inside city limits"71.72.17.111 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Stand Your Ground

[edit]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150428/arkansas-legislature-adjourns-sine-die-multiple-progun-measures-pass-in-successful-year

With HB 1240 signed, doesn't that make AR a Stand Your Ground state? 65.35.194.182 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text of the new law: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2015/2015R/Acts/Act1073.pdf

65.35.194.182 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Castle doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Doctrine Laws by State, table 3.1 omissions

[edit]

Noticed that Kansas is missing from the list of States with Castle Doctrine Laws.

Kansas has no duty to retreat when in one's home or domicile, and civil immunity laws. http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2010/381.pdf

2607:FB90:1742:6921:1640:DD3B:2700:CCE1 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma is missing from the list of states. Can't find the original. Here is a link to discussion of upgrade of the "Make My Day" law passed in 2011 to include businesses. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/04/aaron-jossie/oklahomas-make-my-day-law-amended-to-include-businesses/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZendoDeb (talk • contribs) 01:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huge table of state laws

[edit]

We oughta merge this to Gun laws in the United States by state, and the attached articles. It's too much for this article, and it's almost entirely quotes from primary sourced laws. Felsic2 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The table is fine in this article, but does not belong in "Gun laws in the United States by state". This article is about castle doctrine, obviously, so even a large table is appropriate. The other article basically transcludes the summary tables from the state gun law articles, with an appropriate introduction. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to quote statutes? Can we summarize the material more briefly, perhaps using secondary sources? Felsic2 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The recent massive editing to this page has left it...

[edit]
  • "...justifying a homicide. With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony."

This cannot be right (if you're referring to the United States) -- the objective of the Defense is to raise reasonable doubts, never to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.149.106 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

[edit]

In German: In Deutschland heißt das "Das Recht braucht dem Unrecht nicht zu weichen" und entspricht dem Castle-Law. Auch Sachgüter sind notwehrfähig, wie man es im StGB §§ 32 - 35 nachlesen kann. --81.171.58.80 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hessbruegge

[edit]

@ResultingConstant: This text has been deleted twice: [1][2]

From a human rights perspective, it is particularly problematic that some U.S. states have expanded castle doctrine laws to also cover moter vehicles and business premises.
Jan Arno Hessbruegge, Human Rights and Personal Self-Defense in International Law, ch. 6, Oxford University Press (2017)

What is the objection? The source appears to be an academic publication, which has the highest level of reliability. If there's a problem let's fix it. Felsic2 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felsic2 My objections are manifold. Some of these objections are addressable by us, others are somewhat more of a permanent issue :

  • It was added to this article (and many other articles) promotionally, by the author of the book, violating WP:SOAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hotbridge
  • per WP:SCHOLARSHIP academic sources which are most reliable are those which have been peer reviewed, and which have been highly cited by other academics. There is no evidence of peer review, and the book/dissertation was just published, so has never been cited.
  • Per the author, the book is a reprint of his dissertation. Again per WP:SCHOLARSHIP Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available [..], can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. as this is appears to be the author's first publication, we have very little on which to base his expertise. Additionally as the author is German, and the dissertation was for a German university, its conclusions regarding the meaning and implications of American law may be suspect.
  • It is an opinion, being stated as a fact, violating WP:N (in particular WP:YESPOV)
  • It is unattributed, in wiki voice. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV It is further unclear who would be attributed, the author of the dissertation, or is he relying upon someone elses research/opinion in this portion of the book? We don't know. It gives no detail of in what way this expansion is purportedly problematic, or on what basis that determination was made

ResultingConstant (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply.
1) While you can go admonish the editor, self-citing doesn't invalidate the material. Per WP:SELFCITE, it is permissible if relevant.
2 & 3) Countless highly respected books have been adapted from dissertations. Dissertations alone are reliable sources. Those that are published by highly respected academic publishers, like Oxford University, have gone through many layers of academic review. If you're seriously challenging this book as a reliable source we can take the dispute to the reliable sources noticeboard. FYI, here's the publisher's page on the book: [3].
4) YESPOV says, "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects." It doesn't say to delete opinions. Instead it says that "...they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."
5) If the lack of attribution is a problem then add the attribution.
To summarize, if the source is reliable then the other problems can be corrected. Felsic2 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stipulate that the book is an RS for the authors opinion. You have correctly quoted WP:YESPOV which explicitly says significant opinions. Why is this opinion significant? Is this person a recognized expert? Has their opinion/work been influential in any way? What other sources agree with this opinion? The author's own description of his work describes his opinions as "calling into question", "refuting", etc, indicating that he is in disagreement with the current (rl) consensus, which then raises WP:WEIGHT issues. As the author added the content themselves promotionally, we should see what content in the book (if any) actually backs the statement, and if something should be included, what would be the most neutral presentation of that information. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this person a recognized expert? - Yes. See the publisher's page I linked to, which gives his credentials.
Note how much of the article is made up of primary sources, presumably picked and interpreted by Wikipedia editors. It's odd to focus your complaints on an opinion by an actual expert.
Are you planning to obtain the book to see whether this is a correct summary? Since you contend that the editor who added it is the author, it'd be a big claim to assert that it's an incorrect description. Felsic2 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose inclusion. This is one person's opinion, in addition to what was written above. It is extremely bias and POV and needs much more than one academic. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote.
Why wouldn't we include the opinion of an academic expert writing about this topic? NPOV says to include all significant points of view, not to delete them. Felsic2 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a selective reading of the policy! In addition to the other neutrality/attribution issues discussed above, WP:WEIGHT Neutrality requires that each article [...] fairly represent all significant viewpoints [...] in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. I have seen nothing which indicates that this viewpoint is significant, nor that it is a viewpoint which is held outside of this author.The author freely admits he is bucking the established consensus in his arguments. Relative to the abundance of writing on human rights, guns, or castle laws, the proportion of this viewpoint is negligible. Policy demands that our coverage be in proportion. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the entire policy. Oxford University Press is a very significant and prominent publisher.
Where is the "established consensus" reported on? We should report both points of view. Unless you're arguing that Hessbruegge is so far out of the mainstream as to be a fringe source.
Much of this article is simply created from primary sources by Wikipedia editors, not summarized from secondary sources written by reputable authors. So the POV that's represented is that of anonymous writers on a Wiki. Perhaps the best course of action is to strip this article down to what appears in reliable secondary sources and rebuild it from there. Felsic2 (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Doctrine vs Stand your Ground

[edit]

The two principles are not the same. While both attempt to define where and when someone may use deadly force in self-defense, they are two separate principles. Most US states cover them in distinct statutes.

The inclusion of the Stand your Ground map is therefore misleading, and conflates the two. There is a separate page for "Stand your Ground".

I suggest a map that shows just Castle Doctrine is better suited. As it stands now this article has a map showing an overview of a different legal principle than the subject of this wiki. [edited for spelling] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.106.60 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Castle doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation needed

[edit]

What is the difference between "Stand-your-ground law" and "Stand-your-ground in practice" on the map? Tovarischivanov (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained within the stand-your-ground law article. Basically, it is states that do not have a stand-your-ground law, but they effectively follow such practice as a result of case law/precedent, jury instructions, etc.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas

[edit]

It appears that Kansas is missing from the list of states. Im not sure if any other states are missing. Could someone with knowledge on the matter fix this? 24.124.5.101 (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking and entering

[edit]

So I currently am a home owner and I've come across some things that I generally looked into but I have a question what if you say an intruder breaks in and you shoot a gun but miss and it's not a warning shot but a miss fire i feel that that could def be used as an argument for people who don't want to kill people jsss 😳 74.137.234.157 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Wyoming's reference?

[edit]

Under "State-by-state positions in the United States", Wyoming is listed and the "Law" cell is filled with this link. This seems wrong for two reasons:

1) It's linked to a news website and not an actual repository of laws like the rest of them; and,

2) The website is paywalled, so anyone who actually follows the link is unable to verify information.

There is also no synopsis in the "Notes" cell for Wyoming.

Seems shoddy. Not sure who made this edit but it feels either incomplete, lazy, or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.167.201 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient China

[edit]

I added a section about castle doctrine in Ancient China, but i'm not a very seasoned wikipedian so it's kind of a mess, hopefully someone can clean it up a bit.

also the popular news article i referenced contained further, legal references that cannot be found online, not sure how I should deal with that. I'm uncomfortable citing sources that i haven't seen myself. Hopefully someone more informed at this can do better but i think adding something from Asia expand the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong translation for “奸” as "rapist"?
The Chinese version of the castle doctrine is most likely a reflection of the 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).[17]
[17] "夜入民宅，非奸即盜". 历史文物陈列馆 museum of institute of history and philology, academia sinica. 历史文物陈列馆 museum of institute of history and philology, academia sinica. Retrieved 18 April 2023.
奸's translation as "rapist" is improper. It is more likely to mean here: 狡詐、邪惡。邪惡小人、犯法作亂之人。禍亂、亂事。(evil, transgression of law.) (e.g. https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?educode=A00923 or any Classical Chinese dictionary) Υφ22 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Castle_doctrine&oldid=1185487456"