Castle Doctrine/Home Defense - Massachusetts

[Evadd]

The castle doctrine DOES apply in Massachusetts as the principle that you do not have a duty to retreat from an attack by someone unlawfully in your occupied dwelling before using force to defend yourself, up to and including deadly force in the event that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent the death or grave bodily harm of themselves or another person.

In Massachusetts this right does not extend to your curtilage.

If the chicken littles don't concur, I suggest they go read Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca.

IANAL

ETA whether the DA chooses to prosecute you or not cannot be predicted, but any attorney worth his/her salt should gain an acquittal in those circumstances, especially if you have followed all the commonly accepted post-defensive firearm use guidelines. It IS MA law:

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): 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.

You are correct that MA has what may be called castle doctrine in that you do not have a duty to retreat. However, there is a serious flaw to MA's castle doctrine to what I consider castle doctrine:

If the criminal intruder is not threatening death or serious bodily injury, the occupant will not be covered by this law and could be charged with murder or manslaughter for using deadly force against said criminal. To be protected by this law an occupant that is prosecuted for using deadly force has the burden of producing a claim of self-defense. Once the occupant shows proof it will be upon the prosecution to prove otherwise.

(from GOAL website).

So basically, MA's "castle doctrine" states that you can only use lethal force if you're being killed. To me, that's not castle anything.

 

[quincy]

After reading this thread and based on contributors, I would believe it easier to not defend yourself. Then sue the State of MA for failing to properly provide protection given they have denied you the ability to do so.

This probably won't work because the SCOTUS has determined that "to serve and protect" is not applicable to LEO's. THey are not constitutionally bound to protect us peons.

If someone enters my home with bad intent and I'm in the bedroom, they are getting at least 2 to center mass. I only have one entry way and only other alternative exit is out the window and 8 stories down.

 

[30Mauser]

You are correct that MA has what may be called castle doctrine in that you do not have a duty to retreat. However, there is a serious flaw to MA's castle doctrine to what I consider castle doctrine:

(from GOAL website).

So basically, MA's "castle doctrine" states that you can only use lethal force if you're being killed. To me, that's not castle anything.

Threatening is not the same as doing. If a reasonable person in that circumstance would believe it imminent, then the use of deadly force is justified.

That said, yes, there are different degrees of castle doctrine laws on the books for different states, but at their core is the elimination of a duty to retreat prior to using force in one's own home.

 

[30Mauser]

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.

And your solution to this is what? Knowledge and preparedness is what we have. If you fear the law in a justified protection of your life and your family, then lock your guns in the basement safe, fortify your home, and rely on 911. Nobody said you *must* be willing to defend with lethal force. Choice is the first freedom.

 

[GPP]

And your solution to this is what? Knowledge and preparedness is what we have. If you fear the law in a justified protection of your life and your family, then lock your guns in the basement safe, fortify your home, and rely on 911. Nobody said you *must* be willing to defend with lethal force. Choice is the first freedom.

Friggin Bingo! Can't have it both ways! Do nothing and run the risk of violence being visited upon you or your family. Act in defense of you and your family, and face whatever consequences come from it. Complaining about MA law is irrelevant if you intend on staying in MA.

 

[10thSFFD]

"So basically, MA's "castle doctrine" states that you can only use lethal force if you're being killed. To me, that's not castle anything."
-------------
In MA you are a liability. If terrorists will be running under your window killing people you better do nothing. If they will come to your home and will not shoot you immediately, you dial 911 and hide under the bed. They may take your ammo and your guns because those safes you purchased are jokes for them. Do not forget that they were trained why you were not.
I think there is no better time than now to start pushing for some serious changes. We will have to. Terrorism on our own soil will require it. Existing laws were defined in different times when enemy was outside. You may be able to deal with an intruder who wants your money or guns. You will not be able to deal with those who want your life and lives of others. I do not think we have a chance to change existing laws if we are going to push for protection from "random" intruders. We need to ask how your local authorities will handle act of terrorism. If they will handle it with house-to-house searches we need to say that such protection is not what is required.
To answer your original question: Leave your gun hidden and spray them. That is about it for now. Everything else is questionable in the state of MA.

 

[Len-2A Training]

You are correct that MA has what may be called castle doctrine in that you do not have a duty to retreat. However, there is a serious flaw to MA's castle doctrine to what I consider castle doctrine:

(from GOAL website).

So basically, MA's "castle doctrine" states that you can only use lethal force if you're being killed. To me, that's not castle anything.

MA does NOT call it a "castle doctrine" and neither do I! GOAL is WRONG in using that terminology. MGL calls it an "affirmative defense" . . . which in the real world of MA is likely to cost you $50-100K in legal fees and you won't be given the "key to the city"! Look up the definition sometime for "castle doctrine".

Threatening is not the same as doing. If a reasonable person in that circumstance would believe it imminent, then the use of deadly force is justified.

That said, yes, there are different degrees of castle doctrine laws on the books for different states, but at their core is the elimination of a duty to retreat prior to using force in one's own home.

True that you don't have to try to escape first from your own home, however YOUR LAWYER must raise this in your defense at your trial . . . as to why you should not be convicted due to this particular exception in MGL.

 

[crazymjb]

Again... there is far from a guarantee of a trial in a case of legitimate self defense.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chevy 2 65]

MA does NOT call it a "castle doctrine" and neither do I! GOAL is WRONG in using that terminology. MGL calls it an "affirmative defense" . . . which in the real world of MA is likely to cost you $50-100K in legal fees and you won't be given the "key to the city"! Look up the definition sometime for "castle doctrine".

Could you Please provide link to the so called MGL of "affirmative defense".

 

[30Mauser]

MA does NOT call it a "castle doctrine" and neither do I! GOAL is WRONG in using that terminology. MGL calls it an "affirmative defense" . . . which in the real world of MA is likely to cost you $50-100K in legal fees and you won't be given the "key to the city"! Look up the definition sometime for "castle doctrine".




True that you don't have to try to escape first from your own home, however YOUR LAWYER must raise this in your defense at your trial . . . as to why you should not be convicted due to this particular exception in MGL.

If your attorney does his/her job correctly, it will be raised with the ADA while they make their assessment regarding whether or not to prosecute. If they have reason to believe that they would LOSE in trial, they will decide not to prosecute. It happens, even in MA. We both know that I am but a grasshopper in this area compared with you, Len, but I'm pretty confident on this point. I can point to "good" shoots that never went to trial for this very reason.

Yes, it's a stunted version of the castle doctrine, but IMHO it still earns the name.

 

[Len-2A Training]

MA does NOT call it a "castle doctrine" and neither do I! GOAL is WRONG in using that terminology. MGL calls it an "affirmative defense" . . . which in the real world of MA is likely to cost you $50-100K in legal fees and you won't be given the "key to the city"! Look up the definition sometime for "castle doctrine".

Could you Please provide link to the so called MGL of "affirmative defense".

It's been referred to here a few times already and I think that the text was also posted in this thread.

C. 278 S. 8A

 

[Burgundy41]

MA does NOT call it a "castle doctrine" and neither do I! GOAL is WRONG in using that terminology. MGL calls it an "affirmative defense" . . . which in the real world of MA is likely to cost you $50-100K in legal fees and you won't be given the "key to the city"! Look up the definition sometime for "castle doctrine".




True that you don't have to try to escape first from your own home, however YOUR LAWYER must raise this in your defense at your trial . . . as to why you should not be convicted due to this particular exception in MGL.

Sad, I always thought it was fairly comprehensive and a shooting in one's home would be protected. I guess not.

Any chance that it'll ever be improved?

 

[BostonFJ40]

If you use a firearm in a self-defense situation, you will be in deep poo-poo. There is no castle doctrine in Mass. If you have to shoot, shoot. You will likely lose possession of that gun, probably your LTC for the duration, and maybe more. You may not defend property with deadly force. It's the Judged by Twelve v. Carried by Six....thing.... The ultimate example is the guy, about 4 years ago, that shot, and killed, a crazy that was in the act of stabbing a psychiatrist, in her own office. He was sans LTC for 6 months, while it was "investigated"....though there were multiple witnesses, and a grateful Doctor. Welcome to Mass Gun Laws, and NES.

They haven't charged this guy with a crime yet.

http://www.wbur.org/2014/01/21/dorchester-home-invasion-shooting

The resident’s name has not been made public and he has not been charged with a crime.

 

[Neuro]

.

C. 278 S. 8A

For the lazy...

 

[Glockster30]

It's been referred to here a few times already and I think that the text was also posted in this thread.

C. 278 S. 8A

Len, with all due respect, the mere fact that one does nothave to retreat from their dwelling constitutes the term, Castle Doctrine or Castle Rule. In the Mass.gov pdf link below,there is a reference to the “Castle Rule” in the middle of page 6. In the second link under MGL c.278 s. 8A, the Mass criminal defense lawyer refers to this statue of not being required to retreat from your dwelling as the “Castle Doctrine.”

While the statute itself does not reference or use the term Castle Doctrine, the fact that one is not required to retreat validates that definition. Using the term, “affirmativedefense” is what occurs after an act, whether legal or not, is committed. IANAL, but this is how I interpret the various terms being tossed around in this thread.


http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/jury-instructions/criminal/pdf/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf


http://www.bostoncriminaldefenselawyer-blog.com/2011/09/deadly-force-and-the-right-of.html

 

[drgrant]

MA does not have what I call -true- Castle doctrine- there are a few states that essentially allow open season on ANY nighttime intruder in a secured dwelling with little or no modifiers/qualifiers legally. MA is NOT one of these states.

-Mike

 

[Smash05]

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?

As deadly force. Not effective and not worth it.

 

[Smash05]

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

 

[inerlogic]

if you have to question whether or not to shoot, if you ask yourself "should i shoot this a******?"
you don't shoot.....

if some a****** requires shooting, there will be zero doubt in your mind as to whether or not you should fire....

i'd rather be judged by 12 than be carried by 6.... or have my wife or kids be carried by 6....

 

[Evadd]

Len, with all due respect, the mere fact that one does nothave to retreat from their dwelling constitutes the term, Castle Doctrine or Castle Rule. In the Mass.gov pdf link below,there is a reference to the “Castle Rule” in the middle of page 6. In the second link under MGL c.278 s. 8A, the Mass criminal defense lawyer refers to this statue of not being required to retreat from your dwelling as the “Castle Doctrine.”

While the statute itself does not reference or use the term Castle Doctrine, the fact that one is not required to retreat validates that definition. Using the term, “affirmativedefense” is what occurs after an act, whether legal or not, is committed. IANAL, but this is how I interpret the various terms being tossed around in this thread.


http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/jury-instructions/criminal/pdf/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf


http://www.bostoncriminaldefenselawyer-blog.com/2011/09/deadly-force-and-the-right-of.html

MA does not have what I call -true- Castle doctrine- there are a few states that essentially allow open season on ANY nighttime intruder in a secured dwelling with little or no modifiers/qualifiers legally. MA is NOT one of these states.

-Mike

Agreed x2.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Not yet mentioned is the fact that prosecutors are political animals. Regardless of the letter of the law, if a prosecutor wants to make a name for himself/herself defending the state from a vigilante who would dare defend his/her life by shooting a misunderstood fella, it is going to go badly for the shooter.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Not yet mentioned is the fact that prosecutors are political animals. Regardless of the letter of the law, if a prosecutor wants to make a name for himself/herself defending the state from a vigilante who would dare defend his/her life by shooting a misunderstood fella, it is going to go badly for the shooter.

Someone understands the point I was trying to make.

MANY prosecutions are done for political reasons. After all the DA position is pretty obscure unless you get yourself in front of a camera with a table laid out full of guns, etc. So if you aspire to higher office, you need high visibility (name recognition) and going after low hanging fruit is oftentimes how they accomplish this. When you drag the court case out for a year or so, it's easy to get a plea bargain to make it go away and many innocent people are ready to take the deal as hanging in limbo for years sucks your will-power and finances dry.

In other words, don't expect a cakewalk and being given the keys to the city for offing the vermin who threatened to kill you/your family in your home.

 

[30Mauser]

In other words, don't expect a cakewalk and being given the keys to the city for offing the vermin who threatened to kill you/your family in your home.

100% agreement. Still shouldn't cause hesitation if that line is crossed.

 

[Baserock]

Damn, reading these threads dealing with the possible legal fallout from protecting your family from an intruder depresses the hell out of me. We had a conversation about this at work the other day, and when I mentioned what the SOP was for a circumstance like this, losing your fireamrs I was told that is sounded like "right wing propaganda"......from a guy that considers himself to be a republican.

OP, I think you typed in "warning shot" incorrectly. It's not pronounced "Warning shot", common mistake with local accents and all, it's pronounced "my first shot went wide and did not hit the intruder". I thought that he was hit because he started screaming and ran for the door leaving a trail of what I though was blood. It turned out to be a yellow/brown colored trail, which was coming from his pant leg. He was limping like a bastard too.

 

[mtime24]

this has been a very informative thread BUT in the end I have to do what I have to do to defend my wife and my two kids. for me is as simple as the M@$$hole who breaks into my house in the middle of the night or my family and my family will always win PERIOD. I know I will be in deep $hit but I can rest easy at night knowing I have an NRA membership and social media on my side and believe you me YOU WILL NEED ALL THE SOCIAL MEDIA HELP YOU CAN GET ESPECIALLY in Martha Coakley's do not help yourself society!

With that said, I have a friend who is a lawyer for the commonwealth of massachussetts and i asked him this very same question and he said and I quote....you will be arrested, your firearm will be taken from you, you will spend the night in jail, but you will be let go the following morning, and charges especially if the media gets a hold of the story will not be brought up. Again that statement came from a childhood friend who is a now lawyer from MA.

 

[PaulD]

They have Sovereign Immunity, so you can't sue.

Also, SCOTUS has held that cops do not have to protect you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

That is not a SCOTUS case.

 

[OfficerObie59]

There is no castle doctrine in Mass.

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.

 

[OfficerObie59]

MA does not have what I call -true- Castle doctrine- there are a few states that essentially allow open season on ANY nighttime intruder in a secured dwelling with little or no modifiers/qualifiers legally. MA is NOT one of these states.

-Mike

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

 

[Len-2A Training]

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

I still wouldn't call MA's "affirmative defense" a castle doctrine!

 

[OfficerObie59]

I still wouldn't call MA's "affirmative defense" a castle doctrine!

Why not?