Sun Nov 4, 2012, 04:59 AM

Listen to law enforcement officials, revisit Castle Doctrine

In the 2009 Legislature, lawmakers considered and then passed House Bill 228, the Castle Doctrine, allowing Montanans to defend their lives and liberties in their home, and that the use of firearms for self-defense is recognized within that right.

Previously, a person was required to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement before they could legally use force to protect themselves. The revision eliminated that requirement and included other changes that make it easier to legally kill someone in self-defense.

Before the law passed, if a homeowner shot and killed an intruder, he or she might have been arrested and then required to claim self-defense at trial or in negotiations with prosecutors.

On June 9, 2009 Clay Dunbar shot Keith Peterson twice through a closed door that led from Dunbar’s garage into Dunbar’s home near Vaughn. Peterson was killed.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20121030/OPINION/310300004/Our-opinion-Time-listen-law-enforcement-officials-revisit-Castle-Doctrine

8 replies, 634 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

8 replies	Author	Time	Post
Listen to law enforcement officials, revisit Castle Doctrine (Original post)	SecularMotion	Nov 2012	OP
Bat shit crazy	Berserker	Nov 2012	#1
Castle Doctrine often does not cover shooting through a closed door.	GreenStormCloud	Nov 2012	#2
California has had a similar Castle Doctrine for decades. There was NEVER a duty to retreat here.	slackmaster	Nov 2012	#3
Very doubtful this will go through	ProgressiveProfessor	Nov 2012	#4
The guy has survived two trials by jury.	Atypical Liberal	Nov 2012	#5
Montana's law could use a little tightening	ManiacJoe	Nov 2012	#6
He came at me. I told him to stop. He kept coming. I shot to defend myself.	trouble.smith	Nov 2012	#7
I listened. I revisted. I supported Castle. I resumed sleep.	Eleanors38	Nov 2012	#8

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:59 AM

Berserker (3,419 posts)

1. Bat shit crazy

So if my family is upstairs sleeping and two men bust through the door do I ask them politely to wait while I get my family out of bed and out of the house. Perhaps I can put a pot of coffee on for them while they wait. Or do I ask the intruders to give me a minute to get my phone so I can call 911? Is that what we should do?
If and intruder breaks into my home while my family is present I promise I will ruin his fucking weekend castle doctrine or not.

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:15 AM

GreenStormCloud (10,178 posts)

2. Castle Doctrine often does not cover shooting through a closed door.

Specifics may vary from state to state.

Castle Doctrine does cover shooting an intruder who has illegally forced his way INSIDE your residence. You are not required to ask his intentions or if he is armed or not, nor do you have to leave your home. You are allowed to assume that he has deadly intent and to defend yourself and your family with deadly force, once he is inside. If he is outside, you probably won't be covered by Castle Doctrine, but it may still be self-defense, depending upon circumstances.

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:55 AM

slackmaster (60,567 posts)

3. California has had a similar Castle Doctrine for decades. There was NEVER a duty to retreat here.

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 08:57 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

From the linked article:

Alcohol and guns never mix and perhaps whether this law was on the books or not, the situations in Vaughn and Kalispell would have ended they same way.

Yes, I believe it would have ended the same way. So the whole discussion is moot.

We favor repeal of the Castle Doctrine, but favor the state retaining legal protections for homeowners who are in fact being threatened by intruders.

I'll be polite here and just say that sentence seems self-contradictory.

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:26 AM

ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)

4. Very doubtful this will go through

Nice Google dumping

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 10:12 AM

Atypical Liberal (5,412 posts)

5. The guy has survived two trials by jury.

Listen to juries.

Some interesting facts I picked up from the testimony:

Despite having a key nearby, Dunbar broke the glass on his gun case to get at his loaded firearm. This would indicate some sense of urgency on the part of Dunbar. Why would that be? Perhaps he felt he was in imminent danger?

Dunbar and Peterson had been in a fight in Dunbar's house. Peterson left the home, then came back and entered Dunbar's garage, where he was shot through the door from the garage into the home.

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 07:15 PM

ManiacJoe (5,574 posts)

6. Montana's law could use a little tightening

to bring it in line with the majority of the other states. However, this is for Montana to decide.

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:31 PM

trouble.smith (374 posts)

7. He came at me. I told him to stop. He kept coming. I shot to defend myself.

I reserve the right to seek legal counsel before answering any other questions or making any other statements. I invoke my fifth amendment rights at this time.

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 12:28 PM

Eleanors38 (3,442 posts)

8. I listened. I revisted. I supported Castle. I resumed sleep.

Reply to this post

Gun Control & RKBA (Group)