Define: "Forcible Entry"

[JAB]

The Castle Doctrine allows the presumption that you are in danger; you don’t have to prove it. But if the Prosecutor can prove that you were not in danger that presumption is gone and you can be sent to prison.

Would the prosecutor simply have to prove you weren't in danger or would he/she have to prove that you knew you weren't in danger and that a 'reasonable' person would not have been in fear of death or serious bodily injury?

Sure, shooting someone in the back as they run away might provide such proof (to my non-laywer mind, that would depend on if they are running toward the door or toward the knife block on the kitchen counter, or maybe toward the bedroom where your wife is, etc.) However, would finding an uninvited intruder, especially a stranger, in one's home not cause most reasonable people to have at least some fear of death or serious bodily injury?

As for what might constitute forcible entry:

39-11-611. Self-defense.

(a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Business” means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;

(2) “Curtilage” means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;

(3) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;

(4) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and

(5) “Vehicle” means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.

So, according to the statute, it appears to my non-lawyer mind that the intruder doesn't even have to be in your home for 'illegal entry' and the 'presumption' to apply - they can be in the 'curtilage', on your front porch or even in a tent in which you are staying. No doors or any real security to overcome on a tent (I guess one could put a lock on the interior zipper pull and lock it to a tab sewn onto the inside of the tent) but still the 'presumption' seems to apply.

Edited May 19, 2010 by JAB

[DaveTN]

Would the prosecutor simply have to prove you weren't in danger or would he/she have to prove that you knew you weren't in danger and that a 'reasonable' person would not have been in fear of death or serious bodily injury?

The Prosecutor can’t prove what you knew or what you didn’t. The Castle Doctrine is simply a presumption that you were in danger. If he can tear down that presumption; you will be convicted. It is not a law that says you are considered to be in danger of death or great bodily harm; no matter what. (As some would have you believe)

The jury is a “Reasonable Person†if they believe he has proved you were not in danger; you have a problem.

In this country the only time you get a free kill is when there is no doubt that you were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. Even then some still end up in prison.

[Guest Jamie]

At my house, "Forcible Entry" will be demonstrated by the number of dog bites the person has in addition to the bullet holes.

( "Take a bite out of crime" isn't just a cute slogan around here. )

J.