Castle Law question

Not sure if this has been discussed or not.

If, say, I live in Meridian but I am spending the weekend at my father-in-law's house in Gulfport.

And say, hypothetically, somebody comes to my father-in-law's house and breaks in and threatens us with bodily harm.

If I shoot him, am I protected by the Castle Law?

I think so because it is my temporary residence.

What if I were just visiting my father-in-law for dinner (not spending the night)?

Would the same apply if I were in a motel room and somebody breaks in?

I know the law applies to my home, vehicle, trailer, boat, and business. But is it extended to wherever I am staying?

Let your Father-In-Law shoot


Interesting question

I don't count on a law to protect me....I'm busting a cap...if I need to...Castle law or no Castle law

It is Mississippi Statute 97-3-15, and it states in part that:

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:

(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or 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;



308th_sps

I think that's where the law gets confusing, the next paragraph says "his dwelling" and so forth.

What troubles me about the Castle law despite the CLEAR intent
of the legislature to codify our rights at home and away to be safe
and secure in ourselves and our possessions is that many jurisdictions are widely ignoring it, Jackson and Hinds County
being two examples. What it will take is a state supreme court
case challenging the abuses of power by authorities to finally
put an end to this nonsense. When the JPD spokesperson for
Jackson ever comments on the law, she's vague, evasive and
"unclear" on the official JPD stand on the case, they give lip
service to it since its statutory law and as such cannot be
officially ignored but if you have to defend yourselves, some
sleazy shyster will come along soliciting the deceased's family
to sue the heck out of you anyway. In theory, your firearm
under the Castle doctrine law should be immune from even a
temporary "custody seizure" but JPD and Hinds SO is going to
confiscate it anyway and good luck ever seeing that again, you'll
be lucky if they then don't go to your home with or without a
valid search warrant to search for other "illegal" guns.

There is a good explaintion of the "castle law" on the Mississippi Criminal Defense blog, here's a link but the site is down for the next couple of days http://mississippicriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/04/15/mississippi-castle-doctrine/

It says it's wrong to call it a castle doctrine law because the new law was an addition to the justifiable homicide laws.
According to the lawyer who did the blog, you can defend yourself no matter where you are as long as you have a right to be where you are. Home,car,your business,Walmart,etc.
You have no duty to retreat from danger, like in some states you have to run before you can defend yourself and it gives you ammunity from being sued if you have to defend yourself with deadly force.
Check it out in a couple of days it explains it really well.

Depends on the situation, all based on reasonable expectations of harm or imminent danger during the encounter

308th_sps wrote: It is Mississippi Statute 97-3-15, and it states in part that:

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:

(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or 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;

308th_sps

Thanks. I think that nails it.

Now I am wondering exactly what "the killing of a human being by procurement or omission" means.

Does by procurement mean a hired killer?

Does omission mean you didn't render first aid or call 911?

You're thinking about this too hard. If you feel threatened and afraid for your life, or anyone's life, wherever you are, you are justified in taking action to stop the threat, even using deadly force, if necessary.

That's how I interpret the law.

Libertyrules wrote:You're thinking about this too hard. If you feel threatened and afraid for your life, or anyone's life, wherever you are, you are justified in taking action to stop the threat, even using deadly force, if necessary.

That's how I interpret the law.

Oh, I agree 100%.

Wherever I am, if I (or any loved ones) are actually threatened, I will take whatever action is necessary within my ability to prevent harm to myself or my loved ones.

I just kind of like to understand the rules.

One of my favorite signs was at a county fair game of chance (where you could supposedly win a teddy bear for your girlfriend):

"If you don't know how to play this game, ask and we will explain it to you. If you still don't understand, go play some other game."

To take it just a bit further - the people you protect don't have to be your loved ones.

Libertyrules wrote:You're thinking about this too hard. If you feel threatened and afraid for your life, or anyone's life, wherever you are, you are justified in taking action to stop the threat, even using deadly force, if necessary.

That's how I interpret the law.

Yep. I agree. If someone is a threat to your life then a little hot lead is guaranteed to cure what ails them. There's not a jury in the great state of Mississippi that will convict you for protecting your life or the lives of innocent bystanders. Potential civil complications may still get you though. Still, it's better than being dead.