Mississippi 'Castle Doctrine' Self-Defense Bill Signed Into Law

[Nym90]

I'd support it, but there are some potential problems. If there are no other witnessess, it could be used as an excuse to kill someone you don't like simply because they are on your property; how do you prove that they were trying to break in? How exactly is "break in" defined?

[Nym90]

This bill does not allow the owner to kill anyone who breaks into his property. The relevant part of the bill provides:

"The killing of a human being ... shall be justifiable ... [w]hen committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him ... in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be..."

You seem to have missed this bit out...

A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes it does

The bold sections there are pretty scary. I wouldn't support the legislation worded that way.

The burden of proof should be on the person who used the deadly force to demonstrate that the intent of the invader was to cause death or great bodily harm or to commit a felony.

[Nym90]

This bill does not allow the owner to kill anyone who breaks into his property. The relevant part of the bill provides:

"The killing of a human being ... shall be justifiable ... [w]hen committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him ... in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be..."

You seem to have missed this bit out...

A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes it does

The key word here is "presumed." The person using defensive force is presumed to have feared the commission of a felony whenever someone else breaks and enters into his home. I would assume that, like other presumptions--such as the presumption of innocence--this presumption can be overcome by the prosecution.

It seems to me that if you want to kill someone under this bill, then all you'd need to do is somehow get them into your house and then kill them, claiming that you felt the person was a threat to your bodily well-being.  Many "break and enters" do not actually have anything broken at all.

The bill uses the words "unlawfully and forcibly entering." This would involve, for example, breaking down a door. If I were to leave my front door wide open, and someone happened to walk in, this law would not entitle me to kill that person.

The burden of proof should be on the person who used the deadly force to demonstrate that the intent of the invader was to cause death or great bodily harm or to commit a felony.

How exactly is the owner supposed to know, let alone prove beyond a reasonable doubt, what is going through the mind of the trespasser? It is unreasonable to expect the defendant to prove the intent of the "victim."

Well, if the person has a gun or some other weapon on them, that would be pretty convincing evidence.

If they are looking to rob you, but they aren't armed, that becomes a tough case. If the person forcibly broke in, though, that would certainly argue in favor of intent to commit a felony. Ultimately it's for a jury to decide.

I'm not sure if I support the use of deadly force against the person in those circumstances in which they are unarmed.

[Nym90]

Well, if the person has a gun or some other weapon on them, that would be pretty convincing evidence.

Merely carrying a gun--exercising one's Second Amendment rights--does not indicate an intent to kill anyone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The trespasser may have concealed a weapon. Surely, we cannot expect the homeowner to wait until the criminal pulls out his gun.

Exactly, the perfect crime. Make it look like the man you invited into your home to have done away with was an intruder.

That is an interesting idea, but I do not see how it can be done. There must be evidence of unlawful and forcible entry on the part of the person who has been killed. Merely entering the house illegally is insufficient; the entry must be forcible. It would take an unrealistic amount of effort to indicate that the trespasser actually broke into a home when he did not in fact do so.

True, although trespassing with a gun in one's position can definitely reasonably be construed as some degree of intent to cause harm. If the gun was for self defense purposes, presumably you wouldn't be trespassing on someone else's property with it.

With regards to waiting until the gun is pulled out, the police are generally required to do this before they can legally kill someone. I wouldn't think it would make sense to allow private citizens more leeway in self-defense then it would the police. No analogy is ever perfect, obviously, but it's one way of looking at it.