Awareness Wednesday :: Unintended Consequences — The Castle Doctrine

castle doctrine - Mormon Women for Ethical Government

When I was a child I dreamed of having a castle. As I got older I realized a more realistic goal would be an English Tudor. Today I am happy to have a comfortable, small house of my own. Houses — our homes — are the symbol of our prosperity and comfort. The symbol of the good life.

The Bible gives us an indication of the emotional connection we often have to our houses. The promise of a wonderful future is described in this way: “And they shall build houses, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree [are] the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands” (Isaiah 65:21-22).

The law has given special protections to the home. Most prominent is the “castle doctrine,” as it is called in many states. The castle doctrine asserts that the occupant of a home has the right to protect that home. If someone comes into the home unlawfully, the occupant has the right to use varied levels of force to repel an attack or protect property. These laws do not require the homeowner to retreat if it can be done safely. Some states’ castle doctrine laws also apply to a car. Other states have expanded these laws to cover all people, everywhere they go. These are commonly called “stand your ground laws.” There is no duty to retreat from anywhere you are lawfully allowed to be.

Imagine you are a teenager walking in a relative’s neighborhood. A man in an SUV is driving slowly behind you. He gets out of the vehicle and follows you on foot. You walk faster, but he finally touches you. I always told my kids that if a stranger tried to grab one of them, they should fight any way they can. This is the lesson we teach our kids under the umbrella of stranger danger. On February 26, 2012, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin resisted a stranger who tried to grab him. The stranger, George Zimmerman, killed Trayvon.

The police initially failed to arrest Zimmerman. They said that once Martin resisted and fought, Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground. No district attorney was brought in to review the matter. Zimmerman went home to his castle that night.

Martin tried to stand his ground. He is in the ground.

After an outcry by the community, Zimmerman was finally arrested and brought to trial. He was acquitted.

Imagine you are a young father in a convenience store who looks through the window and sees a man yelling at the mother of your child, who is seated in your car. You approach and push the man away from your girlfriend. The stand your ground law was invoked in one such case — the murder of Markeis McGlockton. He was killed by Michael Drejka, who had approached a vehicle occupied by McGlockton’s girlfriend and child to argue about handicapped parking. To protect his family, McGlockton shoved Drejka to the ground. Drejka shot McGlockton. The police did not arrest Drejka. The sheriff stated that “he had to shoot to defend himself. Those are the facts and that’s the law.”

Only after an outcry by the community was Drejka arrested. He was found guilty at trial.

In both of these cases, the deceased party was a young, black man. The killers were able to convince the police they had a right to stand their ground. It did not matter that in both cases the altercations were initiated by the killer. The police were legitimized in their failure to protect people by the magic words, “I was afraid for my life” — no matter how negligible the actual threat.

Former police officer Amber Guyger, the murderer of Botham Jean, was just convicted. The castle doctrine was invoked in her defense. She walked into the home of a stranger, a black man named Botham Jean, by mistake. She saw him and shot him. She claimed she thought she was at her own door. It was late in the evening, and she was on her on her way home from work. She could hear that there was someone inside. Although she had a police radio with her, rather than radio for help or use her cell phone, she opted to open the door (which had failed to lock when Mr. Jean came home) and eliminate “the threat.” Botham was in his castle, sitting on his sofa eating ice cream and watching TV when Guyger made the decision to confront him.

It took three months for her to be indicted for murder. This killer’s lawyer argued that even though she was mistaken in believing it was her home, she was justified in entering and shooting Botham Jean because she had no duty to retreat.

These laws have been utilized not as a defense but as an offense against people of color. Yes, the laws were presumably enacted to allow people to protect themselves within their homes. But they have never been applied fairly to minority people. If the intent was to allow all people to protect themselves from actual threats, we must look at how they have been invoked.