How far from your front door does "The Castle Doctrine" extend? [Please answer for your specific state]

Factual Questions
1

Ahhhhh, Facebook Reels. Endlessly tweaking algorithms to suit my fancy. For some reason, for the last few weeks I’ve been seeing a ton of home surveillance videos. Some daytime- usually porch pirates.

Others nighttime. Amazing how sharp the Infrared sensors are now in the home security realm. I see all manner of people walking up to a parked car just next to the garage doors. Jacking the doors, etc etc. Sometimes the cars are left alone and personal property it stolen.

Now, I do not own a firearm. I’m pretty pacifist as it goes.

How far outside of your front door does “The Castle Doctrine” extend? You find someone inside of your home, having broken in. You fear for your life. You kill them with a firearm. For the most part, you’re in the clear.

How does it work when you are awakened by a clumsy burglar who is keeping their thieving ways OUTSIDE the walls of your home, but clearly on your property?

Do you shoot them and go off to the jail for many years for murder just because they were outside of your house instead of in the dining room, or walking down the upstairs hallway 8 feet from where your children sleep?

2

Depends on your skin color.

3

It’s my understanding that it doesn’t work like that. It’s an extension of self-defense that allows you to fight back against an intruder without requiring you to, if possible, retreat back into your house. That is, you can defend your ‘castle’.

If you’re some distance away from your house, it would just be normal self defense (stand your ground).

4

The factual answer depends very much upon your individual state law. Not all states endorse this particular version of the common law applications of self-defense, and those that do differ dramatically on how and where such actions can be taken.

Here’s a summary of how it works in my state of Colorado:

While there’s lots there to go over, more to your specific question:

Does the Make My Day law apply to my front porch or yard?

No. It only applies after an intruder has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling itself.

Lots of other provisos, and like everything else it’s going to depend a lot on intent, what someone is theoretically doing, and what a lawyer can convince a jury was “reasonable”. But that’s the fast, factual answer for my state. Lawyers would get rich on the details.

5

[Moderating]
This is not the place nor time for that.

6

Colorado here.

I just got my CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit). Eight hour class, about 4 hours of classroom, and 4 on the range.

The instructor told a story about a person trying to jimmy a sliding glass door to break in the house. The home owner shot him through the window and got into trouble (I don’t know how much). The attempted intrusion into the home was not covered by the Castle Doctrine.

If the burglar had so much as got his hand inside, that breaks the line of the domicile and the shooter would be in the clear.

I do not no it the story the instructor told us was true.

7
8

But as @ParallelLines says, the laws vary quite a lot by state. Some only allow lethal force in your home if you or another resident is in imminent danger. Some allow lethal force to protect your dwelling. Others have “stand your ground” provisions that allow you to kill someone if you feel threatened, wherever you are, without a duty to flee.

Here’s a summary

9

As others have mentioned, it depends on state law.

In 2019, a homeowner in Dayton, Ohio found two teenagers inside his detached garage, and killed both. (Link.) He was convicted of murder in 2021. (And rightly so, IMO.)

I believe most states make it illegal to use deadly force to defend property, e.g. firing a gun at someone who is trying to steal your car that’s parked in your driveway. Though I think Texas allows it, in some situations?

10

Missouri law

A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

Emphasis added.

11

I’m wondering how any American could ask this question without including which state they’re talking about. While phrasing the question as if there’s a single simple answer.

I could certainly understand somebody from elsewhere who’s not viscerally familiar with the US’s absolute hodgepodge of state laws on, well, everything. But for anyone from the USA? Color me confused.

12

Yeah, I don’t think all 50 states even have the “Castle Doctrine”, or something similar to it.

13

You’re right and I apologize. I live in NY State, and was born and raised in the U.S. It did not occur to me that there’d be SUCH a wide range of interpretations.

I should have worded my OP to reflect a request for answers from the state where you, a poster, live.

My bad. If a Moderator wants to take pity on my lousy writing and edit, that’d be great with me.

Unsure if I can edit my own O.P. ?

14

You can’t, but I added a clause to your title and a minor notice on your OP since I’ve been reading/participating in the thread. In the future, you can just flag your own post so that we see it quickly, since we don’t read every thread.

15

Although the OP specifies the US, I’ll answer for Japan.

Japan doesn’t have a castle doctrine, and self defense laws are quite restrictive compared to the US.

You can’t attack or use deadly force against someone just because they are in your home.

You can protect yourself but the force must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat.

Of course, violent home invasions are relatively rare in Japan.

16

I live in Texas. “Castle Doctrine” extends to the state border. Seriously, you don’t have to “wait till they’re inside”, the law allows deadly force if you have good reason to believe they’re breaking in.

It’s also legal here to pursue a thief and use deadly force retrieving your stolen property. Link below to a case where an Airtag was used to track down a truck thief, who was then killed by the truck’s owner while reclaiming his property. As far as I know, there were no charges filed.

Recent case:
https://www.kens5.com/article/news/local/police-respond-to-apparent-shooting-in-southeast-san-antonio/273-bc352d7b-6abd-4757-89c3-19e82419cca0

Partial quote of relevant statutes [bolding mine]:

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

17

And this is why i feel a lot safer visiting Japan than visiting Texas.

18

I seem to remember that the part about during the nighttime was removed from Texas law as it gives anyone the right to kill anyone else fleeing from a theft only during nighttime. The same act might be illegal if committed during the day. It supposedly changed as a result of someone firing a rifle at a fleeing car carrying a person who had taken some cash from the individual. The car was off the property and on a public road driving away. The shooter faced no charges because it was nighttime. I don’t think the legislature extended this ability to shoot someone to the daytime. I think they limited the use of force to protecting life or property.

19

Here is a case from New Orleans, back in July 2013. While The Castle Doctrine wasn’t invoked by that name, the DA said that “[a] person who is in his dwelling may use force or violence against another who is unlawfully attempting to enter his dwelling” – the dwelling, in this case, being a fenced-in yard:

NEW ORLEANS — The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office will not pursue a case against the Marigny homeowner who shot a teenage boy on his property last July, putting an end to a legal debate that has lasted nearly a year.

“As District Attorney for the parish of Orleans, I must answer two questions. What did the law allow Merritt Landry to do? And, do I possess evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Landry acted contrary to the law?" District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro Jr. said in a statement. “A person who is in his dwelling may use force or violence against another who is unlawfully attempting to enter his dwelling. Furthermore, the law expressly prohibits the jury from considering the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence acted reasonably.”

Merritt Landry, 33, was arrested and accused of second-degree attempted murder in the shooting of 14-year-old Marshall Coulter.

Police said the teen climbed a fence into Landry’s yard in the 700 block of Mandeville Street at 2 a.m. on July 26. Landry fired once at Coulter, striking him in the head.

Coulter was in the hospital for some time with a severe head injury.

The grand jury didn’t take any action in the case as it convened on multiple occasions.

I will say, for what it’s worth, the lots in this part of New Orleans are very small and narrow. The yard is maybe a 20- or 25-foot square, or 20 x 30 or something like that. Hopping over a fence puts you steps away from someone’s back entrance.