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

Factual Questions
21

Oregon- Can You Shoot a Home Intruder in Oregon: Castle Doctrine - LegalClarity
" ORS 161.219 defines exactly three situations where you can use deadly force against another person. You must reasonably believe the other person is:

  • Committing a violent felony: A felony that involves the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person. A home invasion robbery, for example, would qualify. A property crime with no physical threat would not.
  • Committing burglary in a dwelling: Someone breaking into or unlawfully remaining in your home with intent to commit a crime. The statute does not require the dwelling to be occupied, so this can apply even if you come home to find someone inside.
  • Threatening you with deadly force: The other person is using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against you or another person."
    Trespassing or breaking into a detached shed does not apply.
22

Texas. The answer is already posted above, but I’ll give it another specific response.

How far from your house (or car, or work)? It depends. I’ll assume a normal suburban neighborhood home with a normal sized lot. We’ll say the person (not burglar) is 5’ish feet from the home poking around and has not entered yet. In that case, then no. Castle Doctrine (presumption that you believe deadly force is reasonable) would not apply. Or more simply, you can’t just shoot them for being on your property.

I think it would apply if the person broke in and were outside after. Or, they were in the process of trying to open your door/crawl through a window, etc. They have to be attempting to enter your home. With that said, I’m assuming you used “burglar” loosely. If not, then that is a loaded word that means someone inside/trying to enter your house and then that would change things.

Inside house = applies; definitely outside house = does not apply. Kinda in / kinda out / hard to tell = Depends on the specifics/jury/county, etc.

23

Yeah,I think the issue here was that a innocent bystander was killed. If it had just been the armed felons, likely less charges, and maybe no prison time. Still, a pretty foolish thing to do.

24

If it had been legal self-defense, the bystander would have been a tragic accident. It was not killing the bystander that turned it into a murder charge.

25

As a matter of law, perhaps. As a matter of prosecutorial discretion, who knows.