This report confuses me. A young man was shot and killed by the homeowner. His body was at the “end of the drive way”. I can see it as a stand your ground case, but the Chief Deputy is citing the castle doctrine. Which is it?
News report:
I think he misspoke. That statement is the only mention of the Castle doctrine that I found. All others refer to SYG.
It certainly seems to fall under SYG rather than CD.
Since it seems redtail23 answered that, may I ask a further question? (If not, sorry in advance and ignore me.)
I don’t understand how this works. You shoot your annoying stepson, then all you need to do is say “well I was somewhat worried”?
How can anyone ever determine the difference between “standing your ground” and just shooting someone you want to kill? Is there a criterium that they didn’t mention in the article?
I have searched the media in the area and I have not found any more information than is in The Birmingham News. It is unusual in that the homeowner knows the young man she shot. That is what caught my interest, but the only official word from the Jefferson County Sheriff’s office is the quote from the Chief Deputy that he doesn’t disagree with the the DA’s decision not to prosecute. There has not been a statement from the victim’s family that I can find.
Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia
The distinction between the two appears to be Castle is a subset of SYG.
IIRC from the “Affirmative defense” thread, in Florida self-defense is not so much an affirmative defense, as the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the person did not have a reason to perform self-defense. Not sure the law in Birmingham, but the gist is this -
Stand your ground says you do not have to try to run away before claiming self defence.
Castle says you can do more to defend yourself within your house than if you were out on the street.
She was being approached by someone, she warned them she was armed, they still did not stop, she was on her property and as far as she knew, the other person had no right to be there, and approaching her at 2AM.
Sounds like a clear case of self-defense; unless the prosecution can show she should have known she had no reason to be afraid - i.e. what the guy said, how well she knew him, was it lit well enough for her to recognize him, he assumed he had right to be on her property, did she fire without warning first, what are their relative sizes, … Without a lot of these pieces of evidence, I would not want to be the guy trying to get her conviction.
One argument against self-defense is “unreasonable excessive force”. Did you really have to shoot the guy? Castle or Stand Your Ground just means the prosecution also can’t argue “you could have run away - run inside - instead of shooting”. It just makes it that much harder to knock down the self defense argument.
nm
Seems to me that this is more of a Castle Doctrine case. SYG means she didn’t have to retreat, but where would she have retreated to? Castle Doctrine means that the intruder’s mere presence is enough justification for deadly force; since he didn’t appear to directly threaten her in any way, without Castle Doctrine I think she’d be screwed.
I also see no reason to believe her. Her boyfriend’s son walks up to her house and doesn’t identify himself? And she had time to go inside, get her gun, come back out, declare she was armed, and he still didn’t say, “Oh hey, it’s me?” Either he was high out of his mind or she’s lying about what happened.
The sign clearly states No Solicitors.
As I understand it, it’s generally thought of as the other way around: SYG gives you, in effect, a moving castle that you take around with you wherever you go so that, on the street or in your house, you don’t have a duty to retreat before you can use deadly force. Castle is also much, much older and a common law doctrine rather than statute; SYG laws have been something that lobbyists have mostly pushed in the last 20 years or so.
Anyway, whether it’s Castle or SYG seems to turn (to me) on whether the “curtilage” (basically, your yard and driveway and such) is considered part of your house for Castle purposes in the same way it is for 4th Amendment purposes. Also whether this would be considered curtilage at all, as it wasn’t enclosed. Honestly, I can’t remember how this is generally treated for Castle/self-defense analysis.
Open driveway generally accessible to the public is not considered curtilage. The space would need to be cordoned off in some way to prevent general access to be considered curtilage.
She could have retreated to her house, locked the doors, and called the cops. If he’d then attempted entry, it would definitely be Castle.
The fact that she had the time and opportunity plus made the decision to go inside, get a gun, and come back outside again to shoot someone kinda removes the whole “imminent peril” thing that justifies killing under the Castle Doctrine.
SYG is an extension of Castle; it extends to areas outside the home and it makes it much easier to claim self-defense. Under SYG as it currently seems to be handled, you can pretty much kill someone any time and any where that you “feel threatened”, with no obligation to attempt any lesser means of resolution.
gracer, yes that’s the problem with SYG laws. Some states are worse than others, but pretty much all one has to do is say “I felt threatened so I killed him” and you’re off scott-free. In Florida, for example, it seems that police believe they can’t arrest you or investigate once you’ve claimed self-defense. Astoundingly enough, there seems to be a tendency for increased homicide rates in areas with expansive SYG laws. Imagine that.
The story seems to indicate that, after being shot, the deceased then moved to the end of the driveway.
So it’s not clear where he was standing when he was shot. He was not necessarily in the driveway at the time he was shot. He may have been closer to the house, or even at the front door. Unfortunately, the story is not clear on that point.
Another “Castle Doctrine” case-gotta love it. :rolleyes:
The issue with the Zimmerman\martin case was that the guy followed his victim for a while (against the advice of 911) and (presumably) confronted him. The interesting thing there is to see how the court plays out Stand Your Ground when you follow someone, possibly in an intimidating manner on public property, and then they turn around and confront you (if that’s what happened).
In the OP case, something interesting is happening if the person appeared menacing, and came after her, she went inside, came out armed, and he still approached her after being warned (so she says). A guy who won’t back off when confronted with a gun is probably going to be considered "“threatening”.
So the question I guess is whether the lawn or driveway qualifies as “Castle” after the trespasser has been ordered to leave. If not, SYG it is.
The story has some offbeat elements: