Castle Doctrine or not?

[Jeffrey1235]

I have heard both ways, that NC is and is not a castle doctrine state. I have also heard Deputy Sheriffs say that even without the castle doctrine that NC residents do not "have a duty to retreat" . Does anyone no what the real deal is?

 

[Thoth8]

call the pistol permits department. thy should have that info.

 

[SlapNuts]

NC Deadly Force Law...no duty to retreat:

§ 14 51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)

I'm still confused if the Castle Doctrine has been passed or not? There is a petition and more discussion HERE

 

[rugerfan.64]

I would like to know the results of this because I am in Concord for a couple of weeks.

 

[mrjam2jab]

NC Statue 14-51.1

Looks like a Castle Doctrine to me...if not actually called such....

 

[Jeffrey1235]

I agree 100%. Looks like to me too.:biggrin:

 

[mbass]

NC Statue 14-51.1

Looks like a Castle Doctrine to me...if not actually called such....

The problem is in the definition of "Castle Doctrine." In public we do not have the right to stand our ground. In our residence the question comes in where the BG is located. If you read the statute carefully, you can stop someone attempting to break in, but once they are in you better kill them and not wound them.

An official Castle Doctrine, like that in Florida, is stalled in congress.

 

[NCjones]

If you read the statute carefully, you can stop someone attempting to break in, but once they are in you better kill them and not wound them.

An official Castle Doctrine, like that in Florida, is stalled in congress.

I disagree. According to the statute a homeowner may use "any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary" That might mean anything from slapping him to shooting him.

Furthermore, the statute permits a homeowner to use that force to" Prevent" OR "terminate".
This is an "or" statute and not an "and" statute. I may, according to the law, use any amount of force to PREVENT unlawful entry. After he has already entered, I may also "any amount" of force to TERMINATE his unlawful entry.

Nowhere in the statute does it require me to kill an intruder. Suppose someone is climbing in thru my window in the middle of the night and while were both standing in the middle of the living room floor I say "hey you, you have to leave" and he does, then he still has committed a felony burglary, but I am not required to kill him.

 

[mbass]

I disagree. According to the statute a homeowner may use "any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary" That might mean anything from slapping him to shooting him.

Furthermore, the statute permits a homeowner to use that force to" Prevent" OR "terminate".
This is an "or" statute and not an "and" statute. I may, according to the law, use any amount of force to PREVENT unlawful entry. After he has already entered, I may also "any amount" of force to TERMINATE his unlawful entry.

Nowhere in the statute does it require me to kill an intruder. Suppose someone is climbing in thru my window in the middle of the night and while were both standing in the middle of the living room floor I say "hey you, you have to leave" and he does, then he still has committed a felony burglary, but I am not required to kill him.

You're missing my point:
In the state of NC, you may stop someone attempting to B&E, including the use of deadly force. But once they are in, according to the way the law is written, they must be threatening your life in order for you to use deadly force against them.

So, my point was, you had better kill him if you shoot him, because it is your word against his (as far as the threat). If he is stealing my TV, I will shoot him and claim he was going to smash it over my head! It is my word against his, and he ain't talking!!:hang3:

 

[NCjones]

I guess a dead burglar is better than a shot burglar who is going to sue you in civil court any day!
But I understand the statute to read that one may use any amount of force to 1) stop an intruder whom the homeowner believes is there to A) kill him, or B) inflict serious bodily harm. One doesn't have to believe the intruder is going to kill him, one could believe the intruder is there to seriously harm him. What "serious bodily harm" is would depend on the situation.

The statute also clearly states that any amount of force (including lethal) is justified if the homeowner reasonably believes the intruder is there to commit a felony. So, your life need not even be in danger if you believe the intruder is there to commit a felony. In North Carolina breaking into an occupied home at night is a felony. Since he's already committed one felony, it wouldn't be far fetched for one to believe he is going to commit another.

Someone I know just got out of jail because he shot a person who came into his yard and threatened him. The guy got out of the car with a baseball bat. One to the chest and the guy died. No charges were filed, but my friend had to spend a few days in jail until it was all sorted out.

 

[mbass]

I guess a dead burglar is better than a shot burglar who is going to sue you in civil court any day!
But I understand the statute to read that one may use any amount of force to 1) stop an intruder whom the homeowner believes is there to A) kill him, or B) inflict serious bodily harm. One doesn't have to believe the intruder is going to kill him, one could believe the intruder is there to seriously harm him. What "serious bodily harm" is would depend on the situation.

The statute also clearly states that any amount of force (including lethal) is justified if the homeowner reasonably believes the intruder is there to commit a felony. So, your life need not even be in danger if you believe the intruder is there to commit a felony. In North Carolina breaking into an occupied home at night is a felony. Since he's already committed one felony, it wouldn't be far fetched for one to believe he is going to commit another.

Someone I know just got out of jail because he shot a person who came into his yard and threatened him. The guy got out of the car with a baseball bat. One to the chest and the guy died. No charges were filed, but my friend had to spend a few days in jail until it was all sorted out.

Yeah, if common sense ruled over protocol everything would be wonderful.
But I have found that common sense isn't too common and it doesn't make much sense.

 

[BearTaylor]

Kansas does not require us to back down but on a practical level I'd rather avoid a gunfight if possible. However, if the situation requires immediate action I'm prepared to do what must me done.

 

[FN1910]

Kansas does not require us to back down but on a practical level I'd rather avoid a gunfight if possible. However, if the situation requires immediate action I'm prepared to do what must me done.

Excellent advice. Just ask yourself how would you handle the situation without a gun. If without a gun you are going to wind up dead or seriously injured then you may want to use your gun. Too many people are trying to come up with how can I use my gun rather than when do I have to use it. :wacko:

 

[mbass]

Excellent advice. Just ask yourself how would you handle the situation without a gun. If without a gun you are going to wind up dead or seriously injured then you may want to use your gun. Too many people are trying to come up with how can I use my gun rather than when do I have to use it. :wacko:

This, too, is excellent advice!

 

[Robert Harper]

My reading of the proposed bill would not change the legal part of the law but would stop any civil litagation that would follow (BG and trial lawyer sue you for defending yourself) Debra Ross has held this bill hostage in her committee for the last year. She is a trial lawyer, why would she want to limit her future work? Someone mentioned we may loose more than gain if we push for this bill....any comments?

 

[mappow]

Sooner to be judged by twelve then carried by six. Give me a few days behind bars then a toe tag and cold hole!

If you are truly in fear for your Life SHOOT-TWO ROUND BURSTS-EVALUATE-THEN REPEAT VOLLY IF REQUIRED.

It's not like you invited him in for a shot!

 

[Robert Harper]

No it is not law. Rep Debra Ross a trial lawyer is holding it hostage in her committee, and it will die there unless we get it out. Anyone want to help???? Email me and I will send you email with numbers to call , people to see, emails to send. It can happen but we need to push it
Robert for the Republic

 

[AvidshooterTX]

I saw a guy on TV once who had shot and killed an intruder. He used a 12 guage and it made quite a mess. It was ruled justifiable but he was left with the mess to clean up. He said he remembered having to tear out the carpet and picking pieces of liver out of the heat vent. Up 'til then I had never considered the mess it would make. I know the deer I have shot have left a lot of blood on the forest floor. I'd sure hate to have something like that in my house. If possible I'll shoot the BG outside.