The following is an illustration of the potentially serious problems
posed by changes in no-retreat laws, the "Get Away with Murder" laws:
Imagine that a nine-year-old girl is playing with her dolls outside her home.
In the house next door, a known drug-dealer, Red Rock, is selling
drugs when he notices a rival drug-dealer, Yellow Man, with
whom he had an earlier confrontation, coming down the street.
Red Rock retrieves a semiautomatic assault rifle to defend himself.
Shots are exchanged, and in the aftermath, the little girl,
once playing innocently, lies dead.
Both Red Rock and Yellow Man claim self-defense through
the unprecedented changes in the Castle Doctrine law. (Although
Red Rock was a criminal, a “prohibited person” can
possess a firearm for short periods of time in matters of self-defense.
So long as Red Rock did not own the firearm nor live in
the residence where the firearm was located, he could invoke
a legal defense under the expanded Castle Doctrine.)
If law enforcement cannot prove that Red Rock was engaged
in an unlawful activity and that his fear of imminent bodily harm
was unreasonable, he could claim self-defense. Likewise, assuming
Yellow Man could legally possess a weapon, he would
be justified in using a firearm in self-defense. This eliminates
any legal recourse, civil or criminal, for the violent death of an
innocent nine-year-old girl. Because the legislature provided
blanket immunity for “self-defense,” courts are faced with situations
in which a deadly defense may be legally justified, even
if negligently or recklessly executed.
On the other hand, if the Castle Doctrine had not been expanded,
Red Rock would have been required to retreat to an
area—such as his home—that was safe. If he had done so,
then innocent bystanders would have been spared even if the
confrontation had occurred.
Would this shooting have been avoided if the Castle Doctrine
were not expanded? Perhaps not, but the family of the victim
would have legal remedies, and the two perpetrators could be
held responsible for their actions rather than using the Castle
Doctrine as a shield from the criminal and civil justice systems.
Sadly, this scenario is not fictional. It is based on a 2006
homicide case in Miami-Dade County.
