'Castle law' redirects here. For the hill in Scotland, see.A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including ) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the, though many other countries (see below) invoke comparable principles in their laws.A person may have a to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one's own home. Deadly force may either be, the and for charges impeded, or an against applicable, in cases 'when the actor reasonably fears of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another'. The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in many jurisdictions.

Free Coolmath Games online tower defense games including Bloons Tower Defense, Bubble Tanks Tower Defense, Castle Defense, and Emoticon Tower Defense. Tower Defense at CoolmathGames.com Skip to main content.

Castle doctrines may not provide civil immunity, such as from suits, which have a much lower.Justifiable homicide in self-defense which happens to occur inside one's home is distinct, as, from castle doctrine because the mere occurrence of —and occasionally a requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the of is much less challenging than that of justifying a homicide in self-defense. With justifiable homicide in self-defense, one generally must prove to a, against, the in the intruder's mind to commit or a. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide in self-defense provision pertaining to one's, it has a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom. The doctrine can be misused as a for in private spaces. The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student and Scottish businessman.

Contents.History The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in since the age of the. In the term is derived from the dictum that ' an Englishman's home is his castle' (see ).

This concept was established as English law by the 17th century jurist, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium and each man's home is his safest refuge.English common law came with colonists to the New World, where it has become known as the castle doctrine. The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from their home, although this has always had restrictions, such as having increasing powers of entry since the late-20th century.According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator, the prohibition of murder found in the contains an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. 'If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home-defender and must make restitution.' In the early United States. 'Trespassers will be shot' signBy the 18th century, many US state legal systems began by importing English common law such as Acts of Parliament of 2 Ed. III , and 5 Rich.

II in law since 1381—which imposed criminal sanctions intending to discourage the resort to self-help. —,Not only was the doctrine considered to justify defense against neighbors and criminals, but any of the Crown's agents who attempted to enter without a proper warrant as well. Prohibitions of the share a common background with current castle doctrine laws. In 1841, The was passed to 'appropriate the proceeds of the sales of public lands. And to grant 'pre-emption rights' to individuals' who were already living on federal lands (commonly referred to as ').

During this same period, sprung up all over the US advocating and the castle doctrine. This was in concurrence with the culture of which led to and the, the last of which ended by the.On the American frontier On the, the doctrine of no duty to retreat extended outside a residence. It asserted that a man in an altercation that he did not provoke was not obliged to flee from his attacker, but was free to stand his ground and defend himself. A state Supreme Court justice wrote in 1877,Indeed, the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed.American West historian Richard M. Brown wrote that under the circumstances, for a man in the American West to flee under such circumstances would be cowardly and un-American.Legendary dentist and gambler successfully used this defense when he shot Billy Allen as he entered a saloon. Holliday owed Allen $5 (equivalent to $140 in 2019) which Allen wanted paid and had threatened Holliday.

Although Allen was unarmed at the time, Holliday had received reports that Allen had been armed and looking for him earlier in the day. During the subsequent trial, Holliday asserted he was within his rights and the jury agreed. He was acquitted on March 28, 1885. Current position. 'I don't call 911 (with a pistol image)' sign in TexasToday, the penal and civil forcible-entry laws of most American states forbid the use of force in the recovery of possession of land. At most the Castle Doctrine is an for individuals inevitably charged with criminal homicide, not a permission or to commit homicide—which is generally unlawful. A minority of states permit individuals who have the right of immediate possession of land to use reasonable force to regain possession of that land, with Texas being the only state to allow the use of deadly force to regain possession of land or property.The term 'make my day law' came to be used in the United States in 1985 when Colorado passed a law that shielded people from any criminal or civil liability for using force against a home invader, including deadly force.

(The law's nickname is a reference to the line 'Go ahead, make my day' (meaning 'do something so I have an excuse to kill you') uttered by actor 's character in the 1983 police film.)Conditions of use. This section needs additional citations for. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: – ( December 2013) Each jurisdiction incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws in different ways. The circumstance in which it may be invoked include the premises covered (abode only, or other places too), the degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance required before deadly force can be used, etc. Typical conditions that apply to some castle doctrine laws include:.

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle. The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties). The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary. The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force. In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home: must be there legally; must not be fugitives from the law, themselves, or aiding/abetting other fugitives; and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty.In Colorado, the make-my-day statute provides the occupant with immunity from prosecution only for force used against a person who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, but not against a person who remains unlawfully in the dwelling. Immunity from civil lawsuit In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the castle doctrine, particularly those with a 'stand-your-ground clause,' also have a clause which provides immunity from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them).

Without this clause, an assailant could sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain & suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender; or, if the force results in the assailant's death, his/her next-of-kin or estate could launch a suit. Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) may still have to pay high legal costs leading up to the suit's dismissal. Without criminal/civil immunity, such civil action could be used as revenge against a lawfully acting defender (who was, originally, the assailant's victim).Use of force in self-defense which causes damage or injuries to other, non-criminally-acting parties, may not be shielded from criminal or civil prosecution, however.Duty to retreat In US jurisdictions where the castle doctrine applies, there is no before deadly force is used against an intruder by a person in their home or, in some jurisdictions, just simply where the person can legally be. Stand-your-ground. Main article:Most states in the United States have stand-your-ground laws where individuals can use deadly force in any location one is legally allowed to be without first attempting to retreat.Culpability of intruder In Colorado, the make-my-day statute 'was not intended to justify use of physical force against persons who enter a dwelling accidentally or in good faith.'

In other words, 'the unlawful entry element requires a culpable mental state of 'knowingly' on the part of the intruder.' State-by-state positions in the United States.

'Trespassers will be shot' sign in EnglandIn a defendant may seek to avoid criminal or civil liability by claiming that he acted in. This requires the jury to determine whether the defendant believed that force was necessary to defend him or herself, his or her property, or to prevent a crime, and that the force used was reasonable. While there is no duty to retreat from an attacker and failure to do so is not conclusive evidence that a person did not act in self-defence, it may still be considered by the jury as a relevant factor when assessing the merits of a self-defence claim. The was repealed by the. This duty never existed when a person is somewhere he has a lawful right to be, but due to the repeal, now extends to public places, etc.Germany German law allows self-defense against an unlawful attack, without any duty to retreat. Courts have interpreted this law as applicable to home invasion, including the use of lethal force against law enforcement in cases where the home owner was of the mistaken belief that the intrusion was an unlawful attack on his life. Ireland Under the terms of the Defence and the Dwelling Act enacted in 2011, property owners or residents are entitled to defend themselves with force, up to and including lethal force.

Any individual who uses force against a trespasser is not guilty of an offense if he or she honestly believes that the intruder was there to commit a criminal act and posed a threat to life. However, there is a further provision which requires that the reaction to the intruder is such that another reasonable person in the same circumstances would likely employ. This provision acts as a safeguard against grossly disproportionate use of force, while still allowing a person to use force in nearly all circumstances.The law was introduced in response to.

The Act largely places previous Irish common law jurisprudence regarding self-defense on a statutory footing. Israel law allows property owners to defend themselves with force. This law was introduced in response to the trial of, an Israeli farmer who shot Arab intruders on his farm late at night in 2007. Italy Italy passed a law in 2005 that allowed property owners to defend themselves with force but required proof that the intruder posed an immediate physical threat. In 2019, the law was expanded to say that a property owner can protect his or her property with a firearm against perceived threats without fear of being prosecuted. The law also offers free legal aid and defence counsel costs for those who kill or injure an intruder. Sweden Swedish allows for defence of property (not only one's home) as well as persons.

The force used in defence must be proportional to that that is under threat. That is, deadly force can not be used in self defence unless the threat includes deadly force, for example against a simple theft. Sweden also have a that provides for arresting e.g. Trespassers until police arrives.See also., obligation to withdraw rather than attack, overridden by castle doctrine., the blameless killing of a person, such as in self-defense., which applies the castle doctrine to any place., 1604 case establishing the ' rule in English common law, and where the 'castle doctrine' phrasing comes from.History.Related sayings.Notes.