DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Castle Doctrine - Occupied
There is also the issue that I have brought up before of the castle law only applying to an “occupied” habitation. That word is from very old law that differentiated between an “occupied” building and things like action done “in the night”. It basically made things a more serious crime in certain circumstances. A criminal action at night is more sever than one during the day. Or someone temporarily loitering on your property during the days is no problem, but if it happens at night it is a problem.
The term “occupied” in those old laws was used two ways. Sometimes for a building that had a person in that building at the time and sometimes for a building that is generally occupied. A house that a family lives in compared to an abandoned house or a tool shack in the back yard. The primary concern was that an intruder into an occupied house could pose a threat to persons rather just property. But in some cases the word meant whether there was actually a threat to persons at the time—the building was actually occupied by a person at the time of the crime and not just potentially occupied.
Because the wording of castle doctrine laws was largely just copied from old laws, nobody knows what “occupied” means in the context of those laws. It may mean that you can presume deadly force if you are in you own house and someone comes in, but if someone is in your house you can’t go in and presume deadly force. That makes sense. If you are outside and they are going inside, you are not presented with an unknown action where a presumption of deadly force would apply.
I expect the appellant court will skirt around these complicated issues.
There is also the issue that I have brought up before of the castle law only applying to an “occupied” habitation. That word is from very old law that differentiated between an “occupied” building and things like action done “in the night”. It basically made things a more serious crime in certain circumstances. A criminal action at night is more sever than one during the day. Or someone temporarily loitering on your property during the days is no problem, but if it happens at night it is a problem.
The term “occupied” in those old laws was used two ways. Sometimes for a building that had a person in that building at the time and sometimes for a building that is generally occupied. A house that a family lives in compared to an abandoned house or a tool shack in the back yard. The primary concern was that an intruder into an occupied house could pose a threat to persons rather just property. But in some cases the word meant whether there was actually a threat to persons at the time—the building was actually occupied by a person at the time of the crime and not just potentially occupied.
Because the wording of castle doctrine laws was largely just copied from old laws, nobody knows what “occupied” means in the context of those laws. It may mean that you can presume deadly force if you are in you own house and someone comes in, but if someone is in your house you can’t go in and presume deadly force. That makes sense. If you are outside and they are going inside, you are not presented with an unknown action where a presumption of deadly force would apply.
I expect the appellant court will skirt around these complicated issues.
