Your characterization of existing law is incorrect
The Castle Doctrine is being held up by one person. Please email
[email protected].
It's a shame that a person has to confirm that someone breaking into their home is armed with a gun AND be running from them in order to shoot them. As a 65 year old widow who lives alone, I find it appalling that I could not shoot someone who had broken into my home and that I would have to start running---something I'm not even physically able to do---before I could protect myself WITHOUT the fear of having to hire a lawyer at MY expense to defend MYSELF. Please send emails to this idiot in Raleigh who is holding this legislation up.
The relevant statute and text is below. Whether this is really a 'Castle Doctrine' is open to interpretation, but it sets the bar much lower than you claim. Look particularily at section ii of paragraph a. Reasonable belief that someone breaking into a residence, which is in and of itself a felony, intends to commit a felony once inside is not a big leap. Especially if they know, or should know, that the residence is occupied. How are they going to deal with the lawful occupant(s) without committing a felony against them? The existing law is very well written. In fact it would be hard to write a statute that makes it easier to justify your action. Unless you do something really dumb, or say something really dumb, you should be just fine if you shoot an intruder under this statute. There is also no duty to retreat. Personally, I say leave well enough alone here. It's a good statute with regard to defense in the home. If they monkey with it the odds are better than 50/50 we will get something that is, on balance, not as good.
"NC GENERAL STATUTE 14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (This is commonly called the "Castle Doctrine.")
(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."
The felony clause is the most important part because it essentially removes the need to reasonably believe that your life is in danger. You are also expressly permitted to use deadly force with the aim of preventing or terminating the unlawful entry. You are not restricted to only using deadly force to prevent IMMINENT death or serious bodily harm, which is a common standard. Even where death or serious bodily harm is mentioned you only have to reasonably believe that it "may" happen, not that it is imminent. Like I said above it's a damn good statute and it should be left alone.
