Castle Doctrine/Home Defense - Massachusetts

[drgrant]

IMHO and I am sure some on this list will jump on me for thism but,
You are much better off carrying a pepper spray to fend of a would be attacker of whom youy don't know if they would be of bodily harm. .

Within the context of what the OP is saying (home security) instead of investing in a fire extinguisher of OC, you're better off taking that money and boning up your home security. An unarmed perp or some random drunk trying to get into your house can probably be deterred by "adding some shields". It doesn't take much imagination to think how making your house a "hard target" can pay legal dividends on the back end.

-Mike

 

[dyer01905]

I wonder how the law treats "Less Than Lethal" Ammo in home defense such as rubber slugs. More than likely the same because you're till discharging a firearm huh?

 

[DrDavid]

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.

 

[30Mauser]

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.

This.

 

[Glockster30]

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.

Every situation is different. If you have a BG between you and unarmed family members, I'll call 911, but I'm not waiting.

 

[BigTimber]

We'll looks like I'll just need to keep a bunch of sawsall blades and trash bags on hand.

 

[Glockster30]

I'm not sure if you are posting this to say that we have a castle doctrine here in MA and that arrest would not be standard protocol in a self defense in the home situation. If you are please note the bold text." 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..."

Technically, if one meets the criteria under MGL C.278, S.8a, then there is protection from liability as follows:

"The following law goes one step further to protect the person from civil liability PROVIDED THEY MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE ABOVE LAW" (C.278, s.8a)​

---

"Chapter 231 Section 85U.
No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

http://www.2amdtraining.com/mass-castle-doctrine.html

I think that many members/registered users are too young to remember that under the governorship of the Dukakis Administration, it was your OBLIGATION to show that you used every means possible to escape from your home before deadly force could be used, so under those conditions, the laws have changed since then. In that respect, there is a Castle Doctrine.


​

 

[Evadd]

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.

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.

 

[RLeeA]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[30Mauser]

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.

Of course not. Your personal defense plan must account for your own circumstances. Might mean taking up a defensive position at the top of the stairway after dialing 911, and keeping the line open to record your "Stop! Don't make me shoot!!" Commands. I think the point here is that advancing to "clear" the house of the intruder(s) A. is extremely dangerous and puts you at a disadvantage, and B. Could be interpreted by a DA and/or jury as a non-defensive use of force.

MA interpretation does not support a right to kill anyone who happens to be in your home, for this, a reasonable person would have to believe that they or someone else were at risk of death or grave bodily harm. It does, however, support the right to do so without having to retreat.

Nobody would ever interpret grabbing your gun to collect your children as a bad thing, but note that "not retreating" and "advancing solely for the purpose of hunting the intruder(s)" are legally very different.

I strongly recommend reading "Law of Self Defense" to help you organize your strategies with this in mind.

 

[30Mauser]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Read "Law of Self Defense" by Andrew Branca. He is a MA attorney specializing in this field and cites his research.

 

[M1911]

I wonder how the law treats "Less Than Lethal" Ammo in home defense such as rubber slugs. More than likely the same because you're till discharging a firearm huh?

Same as a warning shot, with the added possibility of screwing up and using a less lethal round when you meant to use a regular round or vice versa.

You are legally justified in shooting someone if you are about to die RIGHT NOW. If you are about to die right now, why would you want to use a less lethal round?

Less lethal rounds have a place in law enforcement but not in home defense.

 

[spider murphy]

I think that many members/registered users are too young to remember that under the governorship of the Dukakis Administration, it was your OBLIGATION to show that you used every means possible to escape from your home before deadly force could be used, so under those conditions, the laws have changed since then. In that respect, there is a Castle Doctrine.

Sadly, I think in MA, it would come down to..."did the defendant's serious injuries(if any) really cause him/her to fear imminent death or great bodily harm, or did he/she overreact and kill this poor soul who was just trying to feed his family?"

 

[30Mauser]

Sadly, I think in MA, it would come down to..."did the defendant's serious injuries(if any) really cause him/her to fear imminent death or great bodily harm, or did he/she overreact and kill this poor soul who was just trying to feed his family?"

You don't have to actually be injured before you defend yourself. cf. "reasonable person" standard, read the MGL carefully, and read the book I referenced above.

Yes, use of force, and especially lethal force, is always a last resort. When you pull the trigger, be prepared to write a check up to your entire net worth. You will go through hell socially, legally, financially, and emotionally, so it must be worth it… your life, and the life of a loved one, is worth it.

 

[spider murphy]

You don't have to actually be injured before you defend yourself. cf. "reasonable person" standard, read the MGL carefully, and read the book I referenced above.

I've read the law and agree that is how it should work, but that is not how, in reality, it would go down(IMO). Florida has much stronger self defense laws and look what happened to Zimmerman in court. They discussed his injuries at length, trying to show whether or not he was reasonable in shooting Martin. How do you think MA would deal with it?

 

[fencer]

I think the truth of the matter is that if you have the time and presence of mind to contemplate Mass laws during a self defense situation you are probably not in a life threatening situation. I think most gun owners in Mass have given a great amount of thought to the issue and there are a lot of factors that go into the decisions you make and the conclusions you come to.

I also think that there are a ton of low cost, common sense steps that can be applied that can help prevent you from ever having to face the decision of what would I do if.... and I think one of the best deterrents, if possible, is a good dog. You don't need a Rotty or a Doberman but a good Lab or Golden Retriever will go a helluva long way from ever having to pull the trigger.
For me, the bottom line is if I catch someone stealing my tv, I am going to call 911 and get a new tv. But there is no way in hell they are gonna make it upstairs to the bedrooms and they would have had to kill my dog to make it that far. IANAL - YMMV

Good locks, motion detector lights, alarm system, dog. If he keeps coming after that he is very determined or bat shit crazy and I would consider him a serious threat

 

[30Mauser]

I've read the law and agree that is how it should work, but that is not how, in reality, it would go down(IMO). Florida has much stronger self defense laws and look what happened to Zimmerman in court. They discussed his injuries at length, trying st show whether or not he was reasonable in shooting Martin. How do you think MA would deal with it?

You're off-topic. Zimmerman was not in his home.

 

[TinRobotBoy]

All warning shots (and there should be many) are to made to the face and chest. These alert the recipient that they are dead.

 

[spider murphy]

You're off-topic. Zimmerman was not in his home.

I know he wasn't in his home. I used that example because the wording in Florida's SYG is similar to that in our "castle doctrine"


"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—


A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:


(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or


(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."

 

[30Mauser]

I know he wasn't in his home. I used that example because the wording in Florida's SYG is similar to that in our "castle doctrine"


"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—


A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:


(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or


(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."

SYG was irrelevant in the Zimmerman case. It was a pure question of self-defense, which incorporated elements of the reasonable person standard, among other important factors, such as instigation.

Castle doctrine defense is actually much simpler because there is a strong presumption that one should be able to be secure there.

I really do recommend reading Law of Self Defense. It has helped me immensely in planning my security protocols and "lines that can't be crossed", so that if a critical event does occur, I can respond without thinking about the laws.

 

[spider murphy]

I'll check that book out. Is it MA specific?

 

[30Mauser]

I'll check that book out. Is it MA specific?

It is written to go over all topics generally, then describes how they apply to each state. So yes, there is MA specific info. Can't speak to my confidence in the non-MA stuff, but since he's a MA attorney, I am particularly confident in that component.

 

[CTpatriot]

I wonder how the law treats "Less Than Lethal" Ammo in home defense such as rubber slugs. More than likely the same because you're till discharging a firearm huh?

maybe try an airsoft first

 

[CTpatriot]

We'll looks like I'll just need to keep a bunch of sawsall blades and trash bags on hand.

you'll need a good hook rack to hang in the garage, ask a local deer hunter or check cabelas, dont forget the plastic sheet drop cloth and bleach, lots of bleach.

 

[spider murphy]

you'll need a good hook rack to hand in the garage, ask a local deer hunter or check cabelas, dont forget the plastic sheet drop cloth and bleach, lots of bleach.

Just don't pull a Jesse Pinkman in the process.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Assuming you and I are on the same side of the discussion- you expect me to believe one shred of 8a?

It only states that it CAN be used as a DEFENSE, in a court case.

You will be arrested. You will lose your LTC-A. You will pay thousands in legal fees.

Sorry man, 8a is pretty weak IMHO.

I agree that 8A is pretty weak. It was written to address one specific set of circumstances that happened to one single mother who defended herself against an imminent attack, went to prison and lost all appeals (SJC). It was basically a knee-jerk reaction and we know all to well how those work out in C. 140 don't we?

"Warning Shot" should be a term you should forget. No good can come of it. Ever. A warning shot is a good way to walk yourself right into prison or other serious legal repercussions. Even if you are legally justified in shooting the BG, admitting to a warning shot pretty much destroys the "immediate" portion of "immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm" required in the law. The first thing a non gun owner jury (which is what you will get in most places in this part of the country) is going to think is "If they had time for a warning shot the threat must not have been that immediate".

-Mike

Mike hit the nail on the head!

 

[Chet0729]

Shoot them, Dig a hole, lime, done.
No one will miss them

 

[center442]

Warning shots? I believe Tuco offered the best advice regarding this:

 

[Chet0729]

Warning shots? I believe Tuco offered the best advice regarding this:

See my signature

 

[RG617]

If you plan on relying solely upon Massachusetts letter of the law to protect you in any shooting you may be involved in, you clearly haven't been paying much attention to how things work here. Anyone who uses that rationale in thinking through home defense preparedness better have a fair amount of disposable income to pay for his/her attorney's next beemer.