Each week we select a legal term or phrase that’s commonly misunderstood, interesting, or a matter of life-and-death. This week’s word is the latter.

Written by: Steve Glista

Henry Brown was shot as he tried to break into an apartment in Columbus, Missouri. Joe Horn shot and killed two men as they were running away from a home in Pasadena, Texas. Ashton Brown shot Damarcus King as Mr. King tried to force his way into a home in Cleburn, Texas. And William Wilkerson shot and killed Jason Payne through the window of Wilkerson’s pickup truck outside of a party in Palm Beach, Florida.   

In most situations, American law goes out of its way to discourage people from trying to kill each other. Why might all of the shooters named above avoid prosecution?  Each of the shootings happened in a state that has recently enacted a version of the so-called “Castle Doctrine.” These laws can be traced to the old cliché that states “a man’s home is his castle.”

Castle Doctrine laws are in part a reaction to the potential for an unjust outcome in American law. In theory, a non-violent robber injured by his victim could win a lawsuit if the victim used too much force to defend himself. A robber’s estate might win a suit for wrongful death if the victim killed the robber instead of safely retreating from the confrontation.

Beginning with Florida in 2005, many state legislatures acted to prevent this potential injustice. Today, Castle Doctrine laws in thirty different states allow a person to use deadly force against anyone who illegally enters their home. In some of those states, the privilege extends to automobiles, workplaces, or any “occupied habitation,” such as when the shooter is threatened while in the home of another person (as Mr. Brown was when he fired his weapon at Mr. King).  

Most of the new laws have three main features in common. First, they remove the duty to retreat from some confrontations. Second, they codify the assumption that anyone attempting to enter an occupied home illegally has the capability and the intention to use deadly force. Finally, most of the new laws expressly remove criminal and civil liability from the shooter if his use of force fits within the boundaries of the law.  

Proponents of the Castle Doctrine argue that it will prevent home invasion robberies, because would-be robbers will back down once they realize that their lives are on the line.  Critics argue that lethal violence is an inappropriate response to property crimes, and that any deterrent effect will be more than offset by an increase in gun-related homicides. Since the laws are relatively new, it’s not yet apparent whether any state that has adopted the Castle Doctrine has seen a significant reduction in crime. However, one thing is clear: anyone planning a surprise visit to friends or family in a state with a Castle Doctrine law might want to call ahead.