The Castle Doctrine

[juststarting]

I had an interesting conversation with a guy at work today about the Castle Doctrine.

Question for you, are you pro or against. I am a firm believer in it. I'd say supporter, but since it's illegal - there's nothing to support, so I just believe.

Anyhow, I am especially interested to hear who disagree with the doctrine and why?

[Gwion]

If you mean shoot first ask questions later, then I'm against it.

If you mean protect your home and family by all necessary means, then I'm for it. I've got my own little castle doctrine that way.

[darwindingo]

Same... Why, Use of force should not be disproportionate to the occasion...

[bladeracer]

I had an interesting conversation with a guy at work today about the Castle Doctrine.

Question for you, are you pro or against. I am a firm believer in it. I'd say supporter, but since it's illegal - there's nothing to support, so I just believe.

Anyhow, I am especially interested to hear who disagree with the doctrine and why?

Castle Doctrine is simply self-defence within your home or vehicle - basically you're not required by law to leave your place of sanctuary to escape an attacker as we are here in Oz.
I support being lawfully allowed to use whatever force you have available to defend yourself and others against somebody attacking you.
An attacker always has an advantage simply due to the mindset of wishing to attack an unarmed person. They often have further advantages of surprise, being high on something, having previous experience of serious assaults against people, having likely already experienced jail they have far less apprehension about the penalties for injuring or killing another person, and the one that gets so many people hurt, an innocent law-abiding person has to overcome the "what the f*** is happening, is this real?" before even starting a defence (I experienced this myself when I was attacked in my bed at home by a drug addict with a knife). The defender should not have to make judgement decisions while being attacked on whether the force they have available exceeds that of their attacker who has zero morals about whether their weapon will do sufficient damage to you. Wasting time weighing these decisions will get you killed.
If a firearm is closer than the cricket bat then use it.

[Gwion]

We are not required by law to leave or flee; only to adhere to the escalating scale of force and keep force reasonable and proportionate.

[juststarting]

Gwion, I mean (bladeracer - pretty much sums it up) - use of any available, overpowering and hopefully well disproportional force by the would be victim to defend yourself and your family in your home. Without any thought or consideration for any well being of the attacker in any way shape of form.

[brett1868]

They may enter vertically but they'll go out horizontally.

[juststarting]

Gwion, so I am trying really really really hard to understand this concept of proportional force. Person is in your home with a knife, you are happily having a cuppa while cleaning your shotgun. do you drop the boomstick and look for a knife?

How about, you walking in to the house and seeing someone unzipping their pants or worse, while having your wife pinned down (I don't know if you're married, but for argument sake you are now...) - what is proportional in that case? What about having you pinned down in the same situation, would you expect your wife to engage in hand to hand combat or pick up a knife and stabba stabba?

[darwindingo]

I once encountered an intruder in the house, after I used reasonable force... It turned out that he ( a young fella ) had real s/bag parents and hadn't eaten in days, all he was looking for was a feed in the fridge.. Gee I was glad I didn't put an end to him ! he was actually a really nice kid ! Made him a feed and he has been mowing my lawns for several years for a few $ and a feed.. Just saying that one could make a bad judgment...

[bladeracer]

We are not required by law to leave or flee; only to adhere to the escalating scale of force and keep force reasonable and proportionate.

So what do you do when your force starts to exceed your attacker's - you get charged with murder, manslaughter or you run away.

[juststarting]

darwindingo, not what I am asking... But happy story

[Gwion]

JS. This is where people misunderstand the law and I seem to have this same discussion every 6months or less.

All you need to use leathal force is a reasonable belief that you or another are under immediate threat of leathal force. This is the 'reasonable and proportionate' bit.

If you feel you or another are under immediate leathal threat you can use appropriate force, however, if your employment of leathal force prove non leathal and rather incapacitating, you must de-escalate your use of force to a proportionate level. You cannot continue to use leathal force against a subdued opponent. This is the 'escalating scale of force' bit.

[bladeracer]

I once encountered an intruder in the house, after I used reasonable force... It turned out that he ( a young fella ) had real s/bag parents and hadn't eaten in days, all he was looking for was a feed in the fridge.. Gee I was glad I didn't put an end to him ! he was actually a really nice kid ! Made him a feed and he has been mowing my lawns for several years for a few $ and a feed.. Just saying that one could make a bad judgment...

If he wasn't attacking you though then self-defence doesn't enter into it - anybody using any force at all deserves everything they get
Now put a knife in his hand and have him coming at you...completely different situation.

[Gwion]

We are not required by law to leave or flee; only to adhere to the escalating scale of force and keep force reasonable and proportionate.

So what do you do when your force starts to exceed your attacker's - you get charged with murder, manslaughter or you run away.

Nope. See post above.

[bladeracer]

JS. This is where people misunderstand the law and I seem to have this same discussion every 6months or less.

All you need to use leathal force is a reasonable belief that you or another are under immediate threat of leathal force. This is the 'reasonable and proportionate' bit.

If you feel you or another are under immediate leathal threat you can use appropriate force, however, if your employment of leathal force prove non leathal and rather incapacitating, you must de-escalate your use of force to a proportionate level. You cannot continue to use leathal force against a subdued opponent. This is the 'escalating scale of force' bit.

Yes, and this is exactly what a person being attacked should not be wasting their mental energies debating while trying to stay alive - it will get them killed.
The attacker has made all the decisions that need to be made when he decided to attack somebody, he is free to leave at any time, the defender rarely has that option. Any escalation is down to the attacker's choices, not the defender's.

[bladeracer]

We are not required by law to leave or flee; only to adhere to the escalating scale of force and keep force reasonable and proportionate.

So what do you do when your force starts to exceed your attacker's - you get charged with murder, manslaughter or you run away.

Nope. See post above.

It is way too easy to measure proportion in a court room than when you have a crazed drug addict sitting on your chest in your bed with a knife to your throat screaming he's going to kill you while your girlfriend is screaming in the corner.

[Gwion]

Years ago I was in Townsville. No details but a person I knew spiked my drink and then King hit me in the back of the head. I don't remember much but briefly being in the ambulance and then coming to in the hospital. I freaked out and left the hospital covered in blood. Next I remember was wandering into where I thought I was staying and curling up on a mattress under a blanket. Next thing I woke up to some woman screaming and her husband coming down the stairs. Took me a bit to figure out what was going on after having my head stomped into a manhole plate. I slowly realised and walked out apologising.

According to some peoples idea of 'Castle Doctrine', I could have died that morning.

[juststarting]

I am going to go on a tangent here, but I have to know now, where did the manhole plate come from?

[Gwion]

We are not required by law to leave or flee; only to adhere to the escalating scale of force and keep force reasonable and proportionate.

So what do you do when your force starts to exceed your attacker's - you get charged with murder, manslaughter or you run away.

Nope. See post above.

It is way too easy to measure proportion in a court room than when you have a crazed drug addict sitting on your chest in your bed with a knife to your throat screaming he's going to kill you while your girlfriend is screaming in the corner.

No. It is quite simple. Any weapon is leathal force. Multiple attackers is potential leathal force. Disproportionate size is potential leathal force. Crazed behaviour is potential leathal force......

One on one with no weapon is not leathal force but you still kick the b'jezuz outta them if you need to.

[Gwion]

I am going to go on a tangent here, but I have to know now, where did the manhole plate come from?

From all accounts (because I don't recall), I turned and the tussle continued out the pub door. I went down outside and ended up with a grid mark stamped into the side of my head. This guy did it because he had something to prove and found out previously that a frontal attack wasn't going to work for him.

[bladeracer]

Years ago I was in Townsville. No details but a person I knew spiked my drink and then King hit me in the back of the head. I don't remember much but briefly being in the ambulance and then coming to in the hospital. I freaked out and left the hospital covered in blood. Next I remember was wandering into where I thought I was staying and curling up on a mattress under a blanket. Next thing I woke up to some woman screaming and her husband coming down the stairs. Took me a bit to figure out what was going on after having my head stomped into a manhole plate. I slowly realised and walked out apologising.

According to some peoples idea of 'Castle Doctrine', I could have died that morning.

Rubbish, you didn't attempt to threaten or attack anybody did you?

Having said that though, I came very close to dying of pneumonia last year and while the infection was raging in my lung I was experiencing very frightening paranoid delusions while I was in hospital. It's pretty blurry but it ran along the lines of being forcibly drugged for unknown reasons by people posing as medical personnel, even to the point of sneaking into the toilet with my phone one night and calling my girlfriend to come and get me out, otherwise I was likely to have to hurt people to escape. I've also had three concussions that left me a bit loopy for short periods. I've never used drugs, or alcohol or even tobacco so this was pretty scary for me, and I can see how somebody could be entirely innocent of any intention to harm anybody but due to forces beyond their control they could attack somebody in the belief that they're defending themselves against a perceived attack. In such a situation I think a person is entirely justified in defending themselves just the same, despite non genuine intent from the attacker, and unfortunately that does lead to some sad results.

[bladeracer]

We are not required by law to leave or flee; only to adhere to the escalating scale of force and keep force reasonable and proportionate.

So what do you do when your force starts to exceed your attacker's - you get charged with murder, manslaughter or you run away.

Nope. See post above.

It is way too easy to measure proportion in a court room than when you have a crazed drug addict sitting on your chest in your bed with a knife to your throat screaming he's going to kill you while your girlfriend is screaming in the corner.

No. It is quite simple. Any weapon is leathal force. Multiple attackers is potential leathal force. Disproportionate size is potential leathal force. Crazed behaviour is potential leathal force......

One on one with no weapon is not leathal force but you still kick the b'jezuz outta them if you need to.

I have to say that that merely sounds like your opinion and a court may not agree at all.

[Gwion]

I once encountered an intruder in the house, after I used reasonable force... It turned out that he ( a young fella ) had real s/bag parents and hadn't eaten in days, all he was looking for was a feed in the fridge.. Gee I was glad I didn't put an end to him ! he was actually a really nice kid ! Made him a feed and he has been mowing my lawns for several years for a few $ and a feed.. Just saying that one could make a bad judgment...

If he wasn't attacking you though then self-defence doesn't enter into it - anybody using any force at all deserves everything they get
Now put a knife in his hand and have him coming at you...completely different situation.

No. This is where the laws of trespass or 'assumed licence to enter' come in. If doors are unlocked you must revoke the assumed licence to enter. Ie: "get the f*** out!"

If they don't comply or show any sign of resistance they are now trespassing and you can employ any and all reasonable force to evict them.

If they have broken into a locked house they are immediately considered a trespasser and reasonable force can be employed.

[bladeracer]

I once encountered an intruder in the house, after I used reasonable force... It turned out that he ( a young fella ) had real s/bag parents and hadn't eaten in days, all he was looking for was a feed in the fridge.. Gee I was glad I didn't put an end to him ! he was actually a really nice kid ! Made him a feed and he has been mowing my lawns for several years for a few $ and a feed.. Just saying that one could make a bad judgment...

If he wasn't attacking you though then self-defence doesn't enter into it - anybody using any force at all deserves everything they get
Now put a knife in his hand and have him coming at you...completely different situation.

No. This is where the laws of trespass or 'assumed licence to enter' come in. If doors are unlocked you must revoke the assumed licence to enter. Ie: "get the f*** out!"

If they don't comply or show any sign of resistance they are now trespassing and you can employ any and all reasonable force to evict them.

If they have broken into a locked house they are immediately considered a trespasser and reasonable force can be employed.

You can use some force to try to remove somebody from your premises even if they are not threatening you, but the force is very different to self-defence against an attack.
Castle Doctrine is not about evicting people, it's about defending yourself and others.

[Gwion]

I have to say that that merely sounds like your opinion and a court may not agree at all.

I can tell you with confidence that this is the law in Victoria as taught to me during security industry training.

I have also read the relevant acts to self defence in Tas and it is very similar but even more lenient.

[Gwion]

No, mate. It is all the same law. Any and all force 'necessary'. This is where the escalating scale of force comes into it and the laws of the 'reasonable person'.

[Gwion]

As I like to say. If you have to knock them out or they sustain heavy damage while being subdued, so bit it; most 'reasonable people' [ie: the jury or magistrate] will understand that and likely think they would do the same thing. If you subdue them and then continue to kick three colours of s**t out of them, you are probably going to get into trouble. If you have any recent history of violence then you definitely ARE going to be in trouble.

[bladeracer]

I have to say that that merely sounds like your opinion and a court may not agree at all.

I can tell you with confidence that this is the law in Victoria as taught to me during security industry training.

I have also read the relevant acts to self defence in Tas and it is very similar but even more lenient.

I know it's the law, I just don't have the same level of faith that you seem to have about a court viewing an attack the same way as the person being attacked.

[Gwion]

All I am saying is that we are Not required by Law to flee. You can defend yourself but I would always suggest looking for an exit. Also, drill your family just like a fire drill if you are really concerned.

But know the law.

[bladeracer]

As I like to say. If you have to knock them out or they sustain heavy damage while being subdued, so bit it; most 'reasonable people' [ie: the jury or magistrate] will understand that and likely think they would do the same thing. If you subdue them and then continue to kick three colours of s**t out of them, you are probably going to get into trouble. If you have any recent history of violence then you definitely ARE going to be in trouble.

But that goes against what you seem to say about not being able to use whatever weapon is available if it's not proportionate to the attacker's?
If you have a gun but nothing else to defend yourself with against a drugged brute with fists, your view seems to indicate that using that gun would be "out of proportion"?

Of course, once you are absolutely sure that the threat has been removed then you can't continue to use violence unless required to maintain control. For a person with zero experience of fighting, and still pumping with adrenaline though it can be very difficult to know with certainty when that point has been achieved.