Castle Doctrine/Home Defense - Massachusetts

[M1911]

See my last post. Traditional castle doctrine is exactly what MA has. Other states have something better.

Yup. This is the traditional Castle Doctrine.

The "Make My Day" laws are a far more recent development.

 

[AngelKing]

Warning shots? If you're considering that, you may as well use pepper spray.

 

[MrJones79]

That sounds great on paper, and I'd like to think it will work a lot of the time. In a small house with 3 small children, do you think there is time to go to each bedroom, scoop up the kids, and carry them all to your safe room while there is an intruder inside? Sounds unreasonable in some cases.

There is no one size fits all plan. But, in general, I agree with the poster that stated it is best to gather family (if possible) and barricade yourself in a single room. The home defense DVD's/videos/articles I've read have basically all said the same thing. The issue is that most everyone on this forum is not trained to 'clear a house'. That is the job of law enforcement who have other assets such as back-up, radios, squad cars and not to mention the intimidation factor of having a bunch of lights, sirens, and cops surrounding if you're the intruder.

Not saying there is only one option in these cases, but the barricade is widely advertised as the best option if feasible. You can come up endless 'what if' scenarios, so best to come up with a plan and communicate that with members of household in case you ever have to use it.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Why not?

Maybe it is just me and I'm not looking at this from the lawyer point of view.

To me a true castle law is when the law allows one to defend the occupants in the home with lethal force against a home invasion and gives the benefit of doubt to the homeowner/occupant w/o making THEM prove that they fit a narrow exemption and not be convicted.

Since in MA an arrest/criminal charges will haunt you for life (no expungement possible) if found not guilty, the mere fact that you can face a judge/jury as a default mode of operation (yes there are exceptions) I find detestable.

I also don't consider paying $20-100K for a legal defense to make sure you don't get convicted as meeting the intent of any true "castle doctrine".

Next time we meet, ask me for the back story of this law. I know a great deal about it from the arresting officer (very good personal friend), much of it is not in the court ruling that I read.

 

[Len-2A Training]

There is no one size fits all plan. But, in general, I agree with the poster that stated it is best to gather family (if possible) and barricade yourself in a single room. The home defense DVD's/videos/articles I've read have basically all said the same thing. The issue is that most everyone on this forum is not trained to 'clear a house'. That is the job of law enforcement who have other assets such as back-up, radios, squad cars and not to mention the intimidation factor of having a bunch of lights, sirens, and cops surrounding if you're the intruder.

Not saying there is only one option in these cases, but the barricade is widely advertised as the best option if feasible. You can come up endless 'what if' scenarios, so best to come up with a plan and communicate that with members of household in case you ever have to use it.

Agree with your premise but disagree with that which I bolded.

When we responded to an alarm, we ran silent and no strobes as we approach the location. Since the objective is to catch them in the act if possible, having them run due to lights and sirens is counter-productive (but always looks good on TV).

 

[ASHDUMP]

I thought your first line of defense in MA was "avoidance".

For instance, if you have reasonable means to exit your house/dwelling while someone is unlawfully entering you are to do so. If you stay and defend your property while having said exit means, Martha will put the hammer down on you.

Am I totally wrong?

 

[TZCHRIS]

I thought your first line of defense in MA was "avoidance".

For instance, if you have reasonable means to exit your house/dwelling while someone is unlawfully entering you are to do so. If you stay and defend your property while having said exit means, Martha will put the hammer down on you.

Am I totally wrong?

I'm not heading out the back door! Not if the wife and kids are upstairs sleeping.

 

[yanici]

I would think that since the gun laws are soon to be rewritten, this might be a good time to get a real castle doctrine also rewritten so as not to be so ambiguous.

 

[BattleSnail]

I thought your first line of defense in MA was "avoidance".

For instance, if you have reasonable means to exit your house/dwelling while someone is unlawfully entering you are to do so. If you stay and defend your property while having said exit means, Martha will put the hammer down on you.

Am I totally wrong?

there's no duty to retreat in MA.

General Laws Chapter 278
Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

All ^this is though, is a valid defense once you've been charged. A decent DA with a human soul wouldn't charge you, but in MA they're at the very least going to string you along for 6 months or so and make you wish you were dead and then decide whether or not to charge you. If it's a very clear cut case of SD you probably won't get charged, but it will still cost you thousands in lawyer fees. If you do get charged, this is probably how you'd want to build your defense...prove the perp was in you house unlawfully, convince a jury that you were truly in fear of your life and convince the jury that dumping 6 rounds of .45 ACP into the guy's chest was "reasonable" defense against him. To us, and any sane person it's pretty obvious that if a stranger is in your house at 3AM it puts you in immediate fear for you life, and that when in fear for your life it's perfectly reasonable to use deadly force, but try convincing a soccer mom from Cambridge of that along with 11 of her like minded peers.

 

[goodzilla]

Most home defense instruction classes I've seen/heard/read about tell you that if you hear a bump in the night you grab your firearm of choice, secure your family behind you in a pre-determined room (preferably one with a heavy duty lock that would require some serious force to get through), call 911, and wait. Having evidence of them busting through said door would help in court. With today's technology you could also keep your phone running on audio to capture any verbal warnings. Therefore, the only scenario in which you would need to discharge the firearm would be if the intruder's purpose was to cause you or others bodily harm. What most teach NOT to do is grab your firearm with light/laser combo and go looking through the house.

This approach always made the most sense to me, whether you're in a free state or a criminal-friendly one like ours.

So, if my remote slides off the couch arm at night (or hockey stick falls over, etc) and hits the hardwood, I can't go check it out? I should huddle the kids and immediately call 911, because if I go downstairs I'm on a bloodthirsty manhunt??? That doesn't seem reasonable and seems like it could amount to a serious waste of police resources.

 

[TonyDedo]

A firearm is a deadly weapon. If you draw (not shoot, , not point, but simply brandish) a firearm, you must be justified in the use of deadly force (i.e. in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury, etc) at that point in time in order for it to be lawful.

Kinda puts the "warning shot" into perspective.

Also, warning shots are generally a bad idea - you don't know where the bullet is going to go, you take your eyes and your muzzle off your target when you're in immediate danger, and it gives your assailant an opportunity to respond.

 

[.40swToFreedom]

A firearm is a deadly weapon. If you draw (not shoot, , not point, but simply brandish) a firearm, you must be justified in the use of deadly force (i.e. in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury, etc) at that point in time in order for it to be lawful.

Kinda puts the "warning shot" into perspective.

Also, warning shots are generally a bad idea - you don't know where the bullet is going to go, you take your eyes and your muzzle off your target when you're in immediate danger, and it gives your assailant an opportunity to respond.

Where in the law does it say this? Drawing the weapon is not using deadly force...using it is using deadly force, no? I'm not saying MA won't try and screw you over to the best of their ability, but it's not in the law.

 

[Smash05]

Where in the law does it say this? Drawing the weapon is not using deadly force...using it is using deadly force, no? I'm not saying MA won't try and screw you over to the best of their ability, but it's not in the law.

It's assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault intent to murder. You still need the defense.

 

[GaryO]

Where in the law does it say this? Drawing the weapon is not using deadly force...using it is using deadly force, no? I'm not saying MA won't try and screw you over to the best of their ability, but it's not in the law.

Try it and let us know how it works out for you.

 

[Smash05]

Also, with the affirmative defense, Commonwealth has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't act in self defense.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Also, with the affirmative defense, Commonwealth has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't act in self defense.

What words in C. 278 S. 8A say that?

[HINT: Instructions to a jury doesn't count.]

 

[SClaflin]

What words in C. 278 S. 8A say that?

[HINT: Instructions to a jury doesn't count.]

"Where the evidence raises a question of self-defense, the burden is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 370 Mass. 684, 687-688 (1976).

 

[SClaflin]

That is wrong.

278/8a is the run-of-the-mill common law Castle Doctrine codified in a statute.

What other states have with regards to criminal--and in some cases civil--immunity is something better than the Castle Doctrine.

Yup.

 

[.40swToFreedom]

It's assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault intent to murder. You still need the defense.

It's assault if non-deadly force is used in self-defense? If you brandish a weapon with bad intentions sure - assault. It's still a self-defense situation, that was implied in my post.

Try it and let us know how it works out for you.

Like I said, MA will try to screw you. But where is it in the law? Can you cite it for me?

 

[JGreen]

Great stuff guys!

 

[GPP]

It's assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault intent to murder. You still need the defense.

If you get charged. If you draw your pistol, in a self defense manner, and the bad guy scurries off, and you don't do something stupid, it's a done deal. You would need a victim to come forward, and say , yeah I broke into this dudes house, he pointed a glocksigsmithandwessoncolt at my face, and off I went, because I was in fear of being killed. If the responding LE took umbrage with that, you still aren't gonna be charged.

 

[chuck9899]

If you get charged. If you draw your pistol, in a self defense manner, and the bad guy scurries off, and you don't do something stupid, it's a done deal. You would need a victim to come forward, and say , yeah I broke into this dudes house, he pointed a glocksigsmithandwessoncolt at my face, and off I went, because I was in fear of being killed. If the responding LE took umbrage with that, you still aren't gonna be charged.

Pretty much. If some one breaks in call the police and report a break in. Tell them you screamed and hollered and scared him off. You don't need to mention you scared him with a gun. Your the victim and have no obligation to tell that detail to the police.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Maybe it is just me and I'm not looking at this from the lawyer point of view.

To me a true castle law is when the law allows one to defend the occupants in the home with lethal force against a home invasion and gives the benefit of doubt to the homeowner/occupant w/o making THEM prove that they fit a narrow exemption and not be convicted.

Since in MA an arrest/criminal charges will haunt you for life (no expungement possible) if found not guilty, the mere fact that you can face a judge/jury as a default mode of operation (yes there are exceptions) I find detestable.

I also don't consider paying $20-100K for a legal defense to make sure you don't get convicted as meeting the intent of any true "castle doctrine".

Next time we meet, ask me for the back story of this law. I know a great deal about it from the arresting officer (very good personal friend), much of it is not in the court ruling that I read.

I agree, but under the common law, the Castle Doctrine merely provided an affirmative defense in a homicide case that there was no duty to retreat.

Other Massachusetts case law commonly follows related common law, such as the person must be an unwelcomed guest from the get go, and that the homeowner cannot be the instigator to get the benefit of the Castle Doctrine defense.

My point is that I hear people bitch all the time that MA doesn't have the Castle Doctrine when that's not true. If you want a law granting immunity from criminal prosecution altogether, great, but that's immunity--not the Castle Doctrine.

 

[Coyote33]

Great dialogue here. Is anyone aware of any actual case law in MA where the law was tested relative to self/family defense?

I've won defense of others cases, as well as Self Defense cases- most prior to trial. Most DA's know what they can and cannot win. For those interested, here is the Jury Instruction.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...s/criminal/pdf/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

Here you go:
Justifying the Use of a Firearm to Defend Another

I saw no other reference to this case (Commonwealth v. Allen) here on NES. Thought you might be interested.

This is an article about it.

Angiulo: Justifying the Use of a Firearm to Defend Another

Yup. This is the traditional Castle Doctrine.

The "Make My Day" laws are a far more recent development.

That wraps it up pretty neatly!