PDA

View Full Version : A Man’s Girlfriend’s Car is His Castle. Or Not.


vantec08
06-08-2012, 6:35 AM
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/tim-mcnabb/a-mans-girlfriends-car-is-his-castle-or-not/#more-141963


The case will be the first of its kind in Ohio because Edwards argues the castle doctrine should extend to his girlfriend’s car.

“The judge fully welcomed the appeal,” Brad Fox, Edwards’ attorney, said. “She said there’s no case law on it now.”

The key point in this case is, does that right extend to a person in the car of someone other than a relative.

. . .. . . this is going to get interesting

Mulay El Raisuli
06-08-2012, 7:02 AM
I guess it would depend on whether the Castle Doctrine would apply if Mr. Edwards were in his GF's house. I.E., if he & his GF were all snuggle bunnies at 3AM & someone broke in, would Mr. Edwards be covered if he shot the intruder? If so, I'm not seeing a good reason why being in the car wouldn't be legally the same.

I think the judge is doing us all a big favor. She could have dismissed. But, by forcing the appeal, case law (which is all that matters) will be set.


The Raisuli

vantec08
06-08-2012, 7:04 AM
It follows the natural logic and intent of the Castle Doctrine.

Untamed1972
06-08-2012, 8:48 AM
It follows the natural logic and intent of the Castle Doctrine.

Yes......it would seem Castle Doctrine should cover someone who is in a place they had a legal right or permission to be against intrusion or attack by someone who does not have a legal right or permission to be there.

The issue should not be "did the victim have the right to defend themselves in X place".....it should be "Did the attacker have the right to be there or attmept to force entry."

Seems like a pretty simple concept to me.

Glock22Fan
06-08-2012, 9:54 AM
This kinda ties in with another recent thread about firing warning shots or alternatively shooting the moment the gun leaves the leather (the "if you are entitled to draw it, you are entitled to shoot it, and should so do" belief).

Suppose the assailant drops his gun and grabs sky the moment he sees your weapon clearing leather? Are you required to shoot anyway, to prove that you were in fear of your life, or should you simply keep hold of your unfired gun and risk a brandishing charge?

What about the 2.5 million cases each year that are resolved by defensive firearms without a shot being fired? Are those brandishment cases?

I really think this whole issue need rethinking.

dustoff31
06-08-2012, 10:19 AM
This kinda ties in with another recent thread about firing warning shots or alternatively shooting the moment the gun leaves the leather (the "if you are entitled to draw it, you are entitled to shoot it, and should so do" belief).

Suppose the assailant drops his gun and grabs sky the moment he sees your weapon clearing leather? Are you required to shoot anyway, to prove that you were in fear of your life, or should you simply keep hold of your unfired gun and risk a brandishing charge?

What about the 2.5 million cases each year that are resolved by defensive firearms without a shot being fired? Are those brandishment cases?

I really think this whole issue need rethinking.

It is unfortunate that a law is required to justify common sense, that is, if one is justified in using deadly force, how could they not be justified in showing that they have the means to do so?

Nevertheless, it seems that Arizona has the right answer in this regard.

If it works here, why not everywhere else?

ARS 13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition

A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

B. This section does not apply to a person who:

1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.

2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.

C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.

D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:

1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.

2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.

Glock22Fan
06-08-2012, 10:53 AM
It is unfortunate that a law is required to justify common sense, that is, if one is justified in using deadly force, how could they not be justified in showing that they have the means to do so?

Nevertheless, it seems that Arizona has the right answer in this regard.

If it works here, why not everywhere else?

Hadn't heard of that Arizona law, which is excellent and embodies (the much overused words) common sense.

And, where I emboldened it, you have stated my views very concisely and accurately.

Maybe one is entitled to shoot, but why should that mean that you are required to shoot?

Untamed1972
06-08-2012, 2:19 PM
Hadn't heard of that Arizona law, which is excellent and embodies (the much overused words) common sense.

And, where I emboldened it, you have stated my views very concisely and accurately.

Maybe one is entitled to shoot, but why should that mean that you are required to shoot?


Especially since LEOs point guns at people all the time as a "precautionary or preventative" measure. Staying down the barrel of a gun has a way of rapidly causing most people to reconsider their current course of action. Why should you have to wait till you're past the point of no return and your life actually IS in danger now when you had a perfect opportunity to give the attacker a chance to reconsider their curret course of action before it gets to that point?

sanjosebmx
06-08-2012, 3:00 PM
I don't like having my self defense so narrowly confined as to be defined by a 'castle doctorine' if I feel my life is in danger, should I not be able to defend myself.


I guess I will have to ask George Z. You know, in a few months...

Glock22Fan
06-08-2012, 3:20 PM
I don't like having my self defense so narrowly confined as to be defined by a 'castle doctorine' if I feel my life is in danger, should I not be able to defend myself.


I guess I will have to ask George Z. You know, in a few months...

I believe that the intent of a Castle law is intended to be liberating, rather than confining.

It doesn't say you can only defend yourself in your "castle,", just that your rights within your castle are easier to assert (require a lower standard of proof) than those outside.

As for G.Z., I think that case will stand or fail on what the jury decides the facts are. Personally, from what I have read, I think he appears to have been over-zealous but falling well short of 1st degree murder (definite over charging to satisfy the mob). I anticipate riots when the decision is released.

Sir Stunna Lot
06-09-2012, 2:03 AM
This kinda ties in with another recent thread about firing warning shots or alternatively shooting the moment the gun leaves the leather (the "if you are entitled to draw it, you are entitled to shoot it, and should so do" belief).

Suppose the assailant drops his gun and grabs sky the moment he sees your weapon clearing leather? Are you required to shoot anyway, to prove that you were in fear of your life, or should you simply keep hold of your unfired gun and risk a brandishing charge?

What about the 2.5 million cases each year that are resolved by defensive firearms without a shot being fired? Are those brandishment cases?

I really think this whole issue need rethinking.

it isnt brandishing when the display of your firearm is justified:

using your example, if someone comes at you with a gun, and you are in "fear of your life or severe injury", you have all the rights to use your gun in self defense.

also, remember that armed robbery (wheter at knife point or gun point) is justifiable cause for using your firearm.
im assuming that the 2.5 million cases each year are examples of attempted robbery at knife point where the victim was armed and scared the living ***** out of the bad guy

Mulay El Raisuli
06-09-2012, 7:12 AM
Especially since LEOs point guns at people all the time as a "precautionary or preventative" measure. Staying down the barrel of a gun has a way of rapidly causing most people to reconsider their current course of action. Why should you have to wait till you're past the point of no return and your life actually IS in danger now when you had a perfect opportunity to give the attacker a chance to reconsider their curret course of action before it gets to that point?


I'm told that when it comes to the Powers of Arrest (and therefore the use of deadly force) the rights of a cop & the rights of anyone else (because you don't have to be a citizen to make a "Citizen's Arrest") are exactly the same in this state. Given that, I don't see why We The People can't also take "precautionary or preventative" measures.


The Raisuli

Anti-Hero
06-09-2012, 8:22 AM
That article was funny. "Not clear how the Police got involved, but I suspect a man card violation."

Untamed1972
06-09-2012, 9:34 AM
I'm told that when it comes to the Powers of Arrest (and therefore the use of deadly force) the rights of a cop & the rights of anyone else (because you don't have to be a citizen to make a "Citizen's Arrest") are exactly the same in this state. Given that, I don't see why We The People can't also take "precautionary or preventative" measures.


The Raisuli


I would completely agree with you. But anymore is seems the state likes to grant itself alot more leeway than it does the commoners.

Mulay El Raisuli
06-11-2012, 7:59 AM
I would completely agree with you. But anymore is seems the state likes to grant itself alot more leeway than it does the commoners.


True dat.

For now.


The Raisuli

vantec08
06-11-2012, 9:34 AM
I believe that the intent of a Castle law is intended to be liberating, rather than confining.

It doesn't say you can only defend yourself in your "castle,", just that your rights within your castle are easier to assert (require a lower standard of proof) than those outside.

As for G.Z., I think that case will stand or fail on what the jury decides the facts are. Personally, from what I have read, I think he appears to have been over-zealous but falling well short of 1st degree murder (definite over charging to satisfy the mob). I anticipate riots when the decision is released.

Close. The charge is second degree, requiring proof of "envincing a depraved mind."
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html