Jury is Out on Castle Doctrine
Yesterday a friend of mine had to report for jury duty. Yes, jury duty. I know - I know, some of you are cringing in your chairs right now - jury duty? - but someone's got to do it.
I've been called for jury duty three times, myself and consider it a civic duty I'm more than happy to comply with. Where else do you get a front row seat to the inner workings of the criminal justice system and have a say in, not only how the law is carried out, but the players in whatever case you're there to witness?
And yet, my friend went in with trepidation. She'd never been called for jury duty in all her 36 (or is it 37?) years and since this was her first time she kept me as updated as she could throughout the day.
I don't know how jury duty works everywhere, but I'm sure the basics are the same: you get a noticed from the city/county/state, call in to verify you're needed the night before reporting, arrive the next morning to sit in a room full of people as the district attorneys and defense attorneys decide who they want to sit in on their case and who they want to dismiss from service.
My friend was finally dismissed late in the afternoon, but she knew enough about the case that we were able to look it up afterwards.
This man, Philo Roberts-Bicking, had a roommate and at one point, two more men - brothers - moved in with Roberts-Bicking his roommate. I don't know any more details than what's in this article but apparently, at one point, he and one of the brothers kept butting heads over the living situation to the point where one of the brothers said he'd personally kick him out of the house. Roberts-Bicking blew off the threat and went to bed but later that evening one of the brothers came into his bedroom to, supposedly, fulfill his threat of physically dragging Roberts-Bickering out of the house.
Roberts-Bickering, however, slept with a gun within reach and fired on the the brothers as they came into his room.
None of that is in dispute.
So a man, in his own home, felt threatened by other men who also had a right to be in the home. Had they come from without, the Castle Doctrine would take effect. But, what about when they're legally allowed to be in the "castle?" What if they're invited in and then something happens? Are you allowed to defend yourself with deadly force?
Colorado's Castle Doctrine reads as thus:
Did Roberts-Bickering have a right to defend himself from threat of physical harm by persons who were invited into the house as a whole, even though his room was his private domain within the house?
Some people might say yes: a threat is a threat and we have a right to defend ourselves from threats, especially in our own homes. Others, however, might claim the two brothers had every right to be there and therefore the Castle Doctrine doesn't apply.
Now, I'm not going to get into details about legality of the living arrangements. I don't know who was on the lease or how the rent was divvied up among the four residents or if these questions even matter when considering the application of the Castle Doctrine. What I'm interested in is, does the right to use deadly force exist within a structure when all parties are allowed to be there?
Let me ask you this, does a battered spouse have a right, or even an imperative, to use necessary force to defend self or their children, against the batterer? Does an abused child have the right to defend herself/himself from an abusive parent?
And yet, the letter of the law states the threat must have made an unlawful entry into the dwelling. Obviously, the two brothers didn't make an unlawful entry into the premises.
So, what does the internet collective think? Was Roberts-Bicking justified in his defense of self? A man did threaten him with physical harm and then, without permission, entered his room when he was in a vulnerable state (sleeping) or does this particular case not meet the sniff test for the Castle Doctrine?
http://englewoodherald.net/stories/Englewood-man-charged-with-attempted-murder,191983
I've been called for jury duty three times, myself and consider it a civic duty I'm more than happy to comply with. Where else do you get a front row seat to the inner workings of the criminal justice system and have a say in, not only how the law is carried out, but the players in whatever case you're there to witness?
And yet, my friend went in with trepidation. She'd never been called for jury duty in all her 36 (or is it 37?) years and since this was her first time she kept me as updated as she could throughout the day.
I don't know how jury duty works everywhere, but I'm sure the basics are the same: you get a noticed from the city/county/state, call in to verify you're needed the night before reporting, arrive the next morning to sit in a room full of people as the district attorneys and defense attorneys decide who they want to sit in on their case and who they want to dismiss from service.
My friend was finally dismissed late in the afternoon, but she knew enough about the case that we were able to look it up afterwards.
This man, Philo Roberts-Bicking, had a roommate and at one point, two more men - brothers - moved in with Roberts-Bicking his roommate. I don't know any more details than what's in this article but apparently, at one point, he and one of the brothers kept butting heads over the living situation to the point where one of the brothers said he'd personally kick him out of the house. Roberts-Bicking blew off the threat and went to bed but later that evening one of the brothers came into his bedroom to, supposedly, fulfill his threat of physically dragging Roberts-Bickering out of the house.
Roberts-Bickering, however, slept with a gun within reach and fired on the the brothers as they came into his room.
None of that is in dispute.
So a man, in his own home, felt threatened by other men who also had a right to be in the home. Had they come from without, the Castle Doctrine would take effect. But, what about when they're legally allowed to be in the "castle?" What if they're invited in and then something happens? Are you allowed to defend yourself with deadly force?
Colorado's Castle Doctrine reads as thus:
"...any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.I think the question in the Roberts-Bickering case is whether the Castle Doctrine applies. Now, I'm no lawyer, but from what I was told by my friend about what the DA and defense attorney told her the case was about, I have to conclude that's the argument the defense attorney will make: Roberts-Bicking was in his home - in his own separate room (from what I understand) - when the two brothers, who had already threatened violence, entered his room uninvited.
Did Roberts-Bickering have a right to defend himself from threat of physical harm by persons who were invited into the house as a whole, even though his room was his private domain within the house?
Some people might say yes: a threat is a threat and we have a right to defend ourselves from threats, especially in our own homes. Others, however, might claim the two brothers had every right to be there and therefore the Castle Doctrine doesn't apply.
Now, I'm not going to get into details about legality of the living arrangements. I don't know who was on the lease or how the rent was divvied up among the four residents or if these questions even matter when considering the application of the Castle Doctrine. What I'm interested in is, does the right to use deadly force exist within a structure when all parties are allowed to be there?
Let me ask you this, does a battered spouse have a right, or even an imperative, to use necessary force to defend self or their children, against the batterer? Does an abused child have the right to defend herself/himself from an abusive parent?
And yet, the letter of the law states the threat must have made an unlawful entry into the dwelling. Obviously, the two brothers didn't make an unlawful entry into the premises.
So, what does the internet collective think? Was Roberts-Bicking justified in his defense of self? A man did threaten him with physical harm and then, without permission, entered his room when he was in a vulnerable state (sleeping) or does this particular case not meet the sniff test for the Castle Doctrine?
http://englewoodherald.net/stories/Englewood-man-charged-with-attempted-murder,191983
Comments