Castle doctrine says that you have a right to defend yourself - with deadly force in most cases - if you are in your home, yard or private office. Castle doctrine is considered common law,. States incorporating castle doctrine principles (1) In cases in which section 2 of the self-defense act does not apply, the common law of this state applies except that the duty to retreat. (2) As used in this section, 'dwelling' means a structure or shelter that is used permanently. Knights and brides maps.

A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law) is a long standing American legal concept arising from English Common Law that designates a person’s abode as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend himself or herself against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.Castle doctrine lays down that there is no duty to retreat from an intruder in one’s home. A justifiable homicide which occurs inside one’s home is distinct as a matter of law from castle doctrine’s no duty to retreat.

Wyoming has a limited castle doctrine. (Use of force in self defense.) It protects you if someone illegally enters or tries to enter your home.When the bill was introduced about 8 years ago it said you didn’t have to retreat even if on public property.

That provision was deleted by the Senate but they did leave in the immunity from civil action (6-1-602.) Governor Freudenthal signed that bill in 2008. However, in 2009, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled “A person is justified in using deadly force to repel the danger only if he retreated as far as he safely could before using deadly force.” Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111.The above case gets cited a lot, but actually, this was not your usual castle law circumstance. It involved a woman, her old boyfriend, and her new boyfriend.

It involved a machete, not a gun. No one was killed and there was a dispute about who started the incident. The main reason the case reached the Wyoming Supreme Court was the jury instructions. I would still rely on Wyoming’s castle law if anyone ever broke into my house. To go a Step Further with this topic:Florida Senate just rejected an Open Carry Bill that was passed by the House.The reason that this Bill should pass, is that persons with a Concealed License to carry, can be,and have been prosecuted when their weapon is accidentally displayed and then reported by someone who is a Gun Control person. People have been arrested and prosecuted for this.

It’s called ‘Reckless Display.’ The offender then has a Criminal Record, pays a hefty fine, and loses his Concealed Permit. This Bill would have eliminated that risk, but the law still stands as is, and is a strong deterrent to persons with Concealed Permits to carry in public. That is why a large portion of Floridians who have Concealed Permits, do not carry in public. I was told by a sheriff, Minnesota’s laws work if the victim of the home believes the perpetrator means to do harm to life at the moment of the defense shooting. Our unalienable rights given by our Creator shall not be infringed. The First Principle in the Declaration of Independence states as self-evident the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

All other laws are man-made attempts to regulate our natural and God-given rights.People in America MUST take a stronger stance with their true rights. We must all come to the understanding that all of these man-made legislations are nothing but power-grabs to continue to whittle away our basic rights. Castle Doctrine or not, if I am threatened by an unknown force, I WILL defend myself because I am not going to be someone’s victim. It’s a stance I believe 100% in and will die protecting my belief and my God-given right to do so.Those who adhere to our unalienable rights rather than fretting about all of these continuing laws to destroy our unalienable rights and our Founding documents stand a much higher chance of survival when facing brute force, imo. If it’s you or them, are YOU going to win, or will you reach for a copy of Black’s Law to see if you’ll have all of those laws in a nice, neat bundle before you protect yourself?. In Florida – one of the most well-armed States in the Union, we’ve the “stand your ground” law: “A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, ”Basically, as it says – you do not have some restriction to have to retreat.And in the same statute, there is no specific prohibition against using said force against ANY intruder. There is a case currently in the court – Elton Bandoo vs.

North Miami Beach Police Department – where a middle of the night search warrant raid was conducted against a person NOT listed as any type of violent past offender. The details hyped up have served to try to convict this fellow in the media; however, he stands a good chance of winning. As, if one reads the case with unbiased eyes, he should.Personally, I think any person has the right to defend their home, vehicle, person and the lives of others against any unjustified force. James,An internet search should reveal plenty of answers to your question. This is one result that I found:In Vermont if one is assaulted they may use force to stop the assault only to the point where the assailant stops. Self defense does not include the right to cause the assailant great bodily harm, or to use deadly force, unless the person in danger believes they will be killed or severally beaten themselves. Deadly force is justified in the defense of a person’s close relatives, spouse, or guardian.