Castle Doctrine Pros And Cons

1500 Words6 Pages
The Castle Doctrine should not have any special circumstances that restrict the home owner from using self-defense. In Springfield, Oregon, a mechanic went into a small restaurant, walked up behind a man eating, and shot him in the back of the head. The mechanic believed the man had threatened his daughter. The mechanic was not persecuted; he was protected by the Castle Doctrine. Some state’s Castle Doctrine says that if you have the right to be somewhere and you are attacked then you do not have to retreat to use self-defense to protect you in court from persecution. If necessary, you are able to use deadly force when using self-defense against an attacker (Epps). In Montana, a jury said that Castle Doctrines have their limits, finding a homeowner…show more content…
The doctrine allows citizens to use deadly force if the feel threatened or feel like harm may occur. Some states like Florida have strong Castle Laws that needing protection does not need to have a roof; it can be mobile or immobile; and it can be as temporary as a tent; Texas also protects citizens against civil action being taken against them after they have used force to protect themselves or others in their homes, automobile, or workplace (Purves). Other state like California allow citizens to protect their homes with deadly force if they or another person are in physical danger, but does not extend to theft, and it only protects residents in their homes, and not in cars or at work. You can use deadly force if you are not the initial aggressor in an altercation within your home (Purves). As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat could be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear or physical harm. However offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate threat, does not justify the use of force in self-defense. Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor did not actually mean the perceived victim any harm (“Self-Defense Overview-…show more content…
If you can get out of dangers way from an attacker than you should get away rather than protecting yourself and possibly using deadly force. Some states like Alaska allows people to use self-defense at a place where a person resides, a place where he is a guest, and his workplace; also applies to protecting a child or member of the person’s household, regardless of location (Reinhart). If you can prevent bodily harm, then you need to retreat rather than shooting the attacker. Many people believe that murder is murder, whether it is self-defense or not. If someone is attempting to remove a person against his will then someone should take action and help that person whether it is necessary or not (Reinhart). States like Oklahoma have Castle Doctrines that states that a homicide is justifiable when in defense of one’s self or one’s child against a violent felony, including one within the home. The forth element of the NRA provides that, when an act of self-defense is otherwise lawful, and takes places in a location in which the defender is lawfully present, the defender is not required to retreat from a felonious attack, or the threat of an attack(Cox). People who think that self-defense is a joke and that it is unnecessary are the kind of people who think that there will never be a time when they will need to

More about Castle Doctrine Pros And Cons

Open Document