Posted: 12/9/2008 7:05:45 PM EDT
|
Does the "Castle" Law extend to your property like your yard? I know inside your home and your occupied vehicle. Does your "dwelling" also mean your yard?
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer. H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006. |
|
hopefully someone will chime in w/ facts, but from my recollection of this discussion w/ someone, I think my CWP instructor or some other relatively reliable source, indicated that the area immediately surrounding your house was included, but say someone w/ a lot of land, and you're somewhere on that land, but not near the dwelling portion of said land, then a different criteria may be applied to determine a just shoot, etc.
sorry I don't have time to research it right now, but maybe someone will disprove that, or reinforce it w/ more facts/details... I'm curious too, even though I could spit on my house from just about any corner of my lot...lol Karz |
|
Did a little digging and it appears that having a roof is part of the qualification for dwelling or residence. You may be liable if you are in the yard.
Here's the SC definitions and clarifications for the Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine If I find otherwise, I'll update this. F3 |
|
Ok, not to muddy the waters here, but can anyone help me out here? I followed the SC Gun Laws link under the sticky at the top of the hometown area here for the Carolinas, and ran across this interesting quote:
http://www.sled.state.sc.us/sled/default.asp?Category=sccwp&Service=Reciprocity Under duty to retreat: As a general matter, before using deadly force, even for self-defense, there are situations in which you have no duty to retreat. These include:
1. in addition to in your home, there is no duty to retreat within your home’s curtilage. State v. Jackson, supra, or beyond the curtilage. State v. Quick, 138 S.C. 147, 135 S.E. 800 (1926). So, the next obvious question is, how do you define curtilage? According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/curtilage cur⋅ti⋅lage /ˈkɜrtlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kur-tl-ij] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Law. the area of land occupied by a dwelling and its yard and outbuildings, actually enclosed or considered as enclosed. And according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage In law, curtilage is the enclosed area of land around a dwelling. It is distinct from the dwelling by virtue of lacking a roof, but distinct from the area outside the enclosure in that it is enclosed within a wall or barrier of some sort.
It is typically treated as being legally coupled with the dwelling it surrounds despite the fact that it might commonly be considered "outdoors". This distinction is important under US law for cases dealing with burglary and with self defense under the Castle Doctrine. Under Florida law, burglary encompasses the English common-law definition and adds (among other things) curtilage to the protected area of the dwelling into which intrusion is prohibited. Similarly, a homeowner does not have to retreat within the curtilage under Florida's Castle Doctrine. The curtilage (like the home) provides a reasonable expectation of privacy and hence is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See Open fields doctrine for how courts distinguish curtilage and "open fields", with the latter not providing privacy. Then the next point is it also says "OR BEYOND THE CURTILAGE" citing another case. Which to me says further out onto your property, but maybe not too far? This sort of reinforces my previous statement, where I was told previously that the area immediately surrounding your home may be considered part of your dwelling, but not out on your back 40... Sounds like it could be open to interpretation to a cop, DA, judge, depending on the uniqueness of your 'dwelling' nad subsequent 'curtilage' so I'm not stating anything black and white here, just helping myself believe I've not completely lost my ability to remember things I've heard before 
Any thoughts? Am I reading this as part of the general self defense laws, and not part of the particular castle doctrine bill? Maybe that's why the bill is there to define certain other factors, but this was already on the books? Maybe this portion of the law limits your criminal liability, proving a justified shoot, but maybe doesn't protect you from civil liability in or beyond your curtilage? Or is this somehow rolled in w/ the castle doctrine also, and offers additional civil protection? I do notice this SLED page is old, citing the Dec 2006 reciprocity states, and as I recall, WV was recently added, but not mentioned here. Karz |
| I have the castle doctrine posted and frogflyer has the definitions they do not say anything about curtilage it only states your home(porch or anything coverd by a roof) your occupied vehicle and your business or anywhere you have the right to be. Also to stand your ground no retreat required. |
|
Quoted:
I have the castle doctrine posted and frogflyer has the definitions they do not say anything about curtilage it only states your home(porch or anything coverd by a roof) your occupied vehicle and your business or anywhere you have the right to be. Also to stand your ground no retreat required. Ok, but I posted a link directly from the SLED site, so the same overall source of information, yes? Hence my question about the CURTILAGE and BEYOND CURTILAGE area on your property where you HAVE NO DUTY TO RETREAT according to SLED, and how that interacts with, and/or overlaps, the castle doctrine info you posted, as it seems quite relevant/related to me... Karz |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That helps but the yard was not mentioned. So i would guess not. The home, business and vehicle. No retreat is required. Correct, it says that in order for it to be considered "premise or dwelling" it must have a roof, so the yard is not part of it. And if you drive a convertible, better keep the top up 
|
| That is where all my info came from but i didnt see where yours was on there on the part i have post it does not say anything about a duty to retreat anywhere yours does. We have conflicting info. I dont know which one to use. I would say the best thing is to consult an officer or judge to see how everything works. |