Is a Man's Home/Office/Car His Castle?

Two teenage boys stormed into the Oklahoma pharmacy. One was pointing a gun. The two female clerks at the front of the store ran to the back of the building. The pharmacist ran to the front of the store and shot one of the boys in the head. After chasing away the second boy, the pharmacist went back into the pharmacy, got another gun, and put five more bullets into the teenager who was lying on the floor. Yesterday, a jury convicted the pharmacist of murder and sentenced him to life in prison.
Years ago, an off-duty North Carolina sheriff entered small grocery store. He saw a man pointing a gun at a young female clerk who was standing behind the cash register. The sheriff took out his pistol and shot the gunman repeatedly. The sheriff became a local hero.
Effective December 1, 2011, North Carolina expands the “castle” doctrine. The doctrine, inherited from merry old England, provides that a person has no duty to retreat when attacked in his home. The new law states that a person can use deadly “defensive force” against another person who is unlawfully and forcefully entering a dwelling or residence. The law does not apply if the person breaking into the house has a legal right to enter the house or if the intruder is a law enforcement officer. It also does not apply in cases where the criminal gives up and tries to run away.
Prior law allowed the use of deadly force to prevent an illegal, forcible entry if the resident reasonably thought the intruder:
1. Might inflict serious harm, or
2. Intended to commit a felony.
The statute was vague. How could the resident determine the intentions of an intruder? How many North Carolina residents know whether a criminal act is a felony or a misdemeanor? What if the gun toting intruder only intended to commit a misdemeanor, but accidentally commits a felony? For example, theft of less than $1000 may be a misdemeanor. Anything over that can be a felony. Perhaps the thief and plans to steal $999.00, but misjudges the value of that necklace he’s grabbed. Now he’s committing a felony.
What if the intruder shouts, “Hey, I’m not going to hurt anyone? I just want your money.” Can you trust someone who’s breaking into your house to be honest about his intentions? How long do you have to think about the quandary? Will the intruder hang on while you call your attorney and find out what you should do? What if you ask your lawyer and he gives you bad advice? What if you knew your lawyer was an idiot?
But the new law is also vague. It allows a resident to use “defensive force,” but it does not define “defensive force.” So questions arise. Is it “defensive” force if you have a gun, but the criminal is unarmed? What if the criminal is the size of the incredible Hulk and you are a wimp? What if you have a bazooka and the criminal has a pen knife? What if you thought the intruder was armed when you shot him, but once you can take a closer look, you discover he has no weapon? Or that the weapon was unloaded? What if the weapon is a toy gun? Made of Lego’s? And you are nearsighted? And it's dark?
Is it “defensive” force if the criminal, seeing your gun, tries to run away? What if he yells, “I’ll be back!” on his way out the door? Is it “defensive” force if you keep shooting after the criminal has been hit? How do you know whether the criminal has been incapacitated? Can you predict what a medical examiner or CSI agent will say about the effect of your bullet to the intruder’s head? We’ve all seen movies where the seemingly dead bad guy manages to fire off another shot after the hero’s back is turned. What if your weapon is a sawed off shotgun with 00 buckshot? Is that a defensive weapon or an offensive weapon?
The new law would have no impact on the situation faced by the pharmacist and the sheriff mentioned above. Neither was in his home when the shootings occurred. However, the state legislature is considering Senate Bill 34. That bill would extend the castle doctrine to cases where a criminal tries to attack a citizen in his car or at a work site. The bill retains the worrisome reference to “defensive force.” So again, having shot the robber once in the head, did the pharmacist need to put five more bullets in him? If not, then the subsequent shots would not be “defensive.” Had the pharmacist been able to shoot the second robber whom he chased from the store, the new law would not have protected his actions because that robber had retreated.
In the case of the sheriff, Senate Bill 34 again leaves unresolved questions because of the use of the term “defensive force.” When asked why he continued to shoot the robber after having hit him once, the sheriff said that, in the panic of the situation, he just kept squeezing the trigger. In determining whether the force is “defensive,” should we take into account the frame of mind of a person who has been confronted with a gun-toting criminal? He may not actually need to keep firing in order to defend himself, but in the heat of the moment, were his “non-defensive” actions reasonable? What if the resident had been drinking before being awakened by the intruder? Should we judge his actions according to what a reasonable drunk person would do?
Both the new law and SB 34 contain another whopping loophole. They only address using “defensive force” when the criminal is about to or has “forcibly” entered a dwelling. What if the building was unlocked at the time of the entry? What if the resident thought the building was locked, but after the shooting, the resident finds that he forgot to lock the door that night? In the cases of the pharmacist and the sheriff, there was no forcible entry. How many work places are kept locked during working hours? What does OSHA have to say about locking workers inside of buildings?
All in all, the castle doctrine remains a bit unclear. If the legislature were dealing with a law punishable by a $50 fine, I wouldn’t worry so much. But in North Carolina, murder is still punishable by the death penalty. So, as for me, I probably won’t be shooting any intruders. I’m just not sure it would be legal.