A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine arising from English common law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend their place, and any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrines are legislated by state though not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine law. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home. Colorado isn't well known for heightened crime but it is a well populated state. [2] The law's nickname is a reference to the line "Go ahead, make my day" uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact.
Contents |
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.
In general, (one) or a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.
In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many versions of the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the use of lethal force. Without this clause, it is possible for an assailant to sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender, or for their next-of-kin to sue for wrongful death in the case of a fatality. Even if successfully refuted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) must often pay thousands of dollars in legal costs as a result of such lawsuits, and thus without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a defender acting lawfully.
The only exceptions to this civil immunity are generally situations of excessive force, where the defender used deadly force on a subdued, cooperative, or disabled assailant. A situation meeting this exception generally invalidates the criminal "castle defense" as well. In addition, someone who uses deadly force in self-defense is still liable for any damages or injuries to third parties who were not acting criminally at the time of the defensive action.
"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.[3] Therefore, any state that imposes a duty to retreat while in the home does not have a "Castle law": the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.
For states that do not require the announcement to be "verbal", other indicators may be used. These are typically not defined by statute, and would be left to the court's interpretation, but may include things such as laser sights or the cocking of a firearm. Care should be exercised in studying applicable individual state laws.
Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that the defender has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[4] Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[5][6]
In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905), where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:
The doctrine of "retreat to the wall" had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[7]
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)) when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[8]
Most gun control groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign denounce "Stand-Your-Ground" clauses as "Shoot First" laws (as in "shoot first, ask questions later"), asserting that the presumptions and other protections afforded to gun owners allow them virtual carte blanche to shoot anyone who is perceived to be trespassing. They also claim it will lead to cases of mistaken identity, so-called "shooting the milkman" scenarios. Gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association claim that such scenarios are unlikely and are not protected under most Castle laws; the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither.
As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama,[9] Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,[10] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,[11] West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, Nebraska,[12] New Hampshire, and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.[13][14][15]
Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" legislation already are considered "stand your ground" in their case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had "stand your ground" case law and passed "stand your ground" statutes due to possible concerns of the case law being replaced by "duty to retreat" in future court rulings. Other states, including Washington, have "stand your ground" in their case law but have not adopted statutes; West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law[16] before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self defense in their previous self defense statutes.
Utah has historically adhered to the principles of "stand your ground" without the need to refer to this new legislation. The use of deadly force to defend persons on one's own property is specifically permitted by Utah state law. The law specifically states that a person does not have a duty to retreat[17] from a place where a person has lawfully entered or remained.
In Oklahoma (according to the Oklahoma State Courts Network), the amendment changes a number of other aspects of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, the statutes concerning justifiable homicide. As 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1289.25 now lists circumstances in which it is presumed that a person who uses deadly force "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." In addition, it helps to protect law-abiding citizens from arrest when using deadly force. Law enforcement agencies must now have probable cause to believe that the use of deadly force was unlawful before an arrest can be made.
5-2-620. Use of force to defend persons and property within home.
(a) The right of an individual to defend himself or herself and the life of a person or property in the individual's home against harm, injury, or loss by a person unlawfully entering or attempting to enter or intrude into the home is reaffirmed as a fundamental right to be preserved and promoted as a public policy in this state.
(b) There is a legal presumption that any force or means used to accomplish a purpose described in subsection (a) of this section was exercised in a lawful and necessary manner, unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
(c) The public policy stated in subsection (a) of this section shall be strictly complied with by the court and an appropriate instruction of this public policy shall be given to a jury sitting in trial of criminal charges brought in connection with this public policy. History. Acts 1981, No. 880, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-507.1.
5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is: (1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence; (2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or (3) (A) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse. (B) As used in this section, “domestic abuse” means the same as defined in § 9-15-103.
(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety: (1) (A) By retreating. (B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is: (i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or (ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or (2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.
(c) As used in this section, “curtilage” means the land adjoining a dwelling that is convenient for family purposes and habitually used for family purposes, but not necessarily enclosed, and includes an outbuilding that is directly and intimately connected with the dwelling and in close proximity to the dwelling. History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 507; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-507; Acts 1997, No. 1257, § 1; 2007, No. 111, § 1.
Justification—Use of force in self-protection.[18]
(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.
(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
(1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or
(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:
a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and
b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and
c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961
Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.
Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".
Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).
Ind. Code Section 35-41-3-2 (b) A person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling...[19]
Montana Code Annotated 2009[20] Title 45. CRIMES[21] CHAPTER 3. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[22] includes the following.
45-3-103.[23] Use of force in defense of occupied structure.
(1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.
Section 30-2-7A NMSA 1978 provides that a homicide is justifiable when committed in the necessary defense of property. Although this statute has been a part of New Mexico law since 1907, the New Mexico appellate courts have never given the statute a broad interpretation. The New Mexico courts have consistently held, not always referring to the statute, that one cannot defend his property, other than his habitation, from a mere trespass to the extent of killing the aggressor. State v. McCracken, 22 N.M. 588, 166 P. 1174 (1917); State v. Martinez, 34 N.M. 112, 278 P. 210 (1929); State v. Couch, 52 N.M. 127, 193 P.2d 405 (1946).
New York's justification statute dates from 1968 and allows deadly force to be used in a number of circumstances. Under Penal Law § 35.15, in general, deadly force may be used as necessary to defend against unlawful deadly force used by another. Retreat is required when one knows it can be done with complete personal safety to innocent parties. Even then, no retreat is required when a person is in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor, or is defending against kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery, or is preventing arson or is terminating a burglary or attempted burglary of an occupied building as allowed by Penal Law § 35.20.
§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless: (a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is: (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
§ 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary 1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson. 2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three. 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.
Ohio's Senate Bill 184 (SB184) took effect September 9, 2008. This bill updated the Ohio Revised Code with sections pertaining to Castle Doctrine and other areas of the ORC that were known to be unclear.[24]
ORC 2307.601: No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle.
(A) As used in this section:
(1) “Residence” and “vehicle” have the same meanings as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code.
(2) “Tort action” has the same meaning as in section 2307.60 of the Revised Code.
(B) For purposes of determining the potential liability of a person in a tort action related to the person’s use of force alleged to be in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the person’s residence, if the person lawfully is in that person’s residence, the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence, and, if the person lawfully is an occupant of that person’s vehicle or lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person, the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another.
Effective Date: 2008 SB184 09-09-2008
ORC 2901.05: Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense.
(B)(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force.
Effective Date: 11-01-1978; 2008 SB184 09-09-2008
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011, Pennsylvania (PA) Governor Tom Corbitt (R) signed a bill extending that state's traditional castle doctrine protections to assaults outside the home. The new legislation passed both houses with overwhelming support and expands the state’s castle doctrine and stand-your-ground protections to allow the right to use a gun or other deadly force in self-defense in situations outside a person’s home or business.[25] It applies when "deadly force is immediately necessary to protect [...] against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat".[26]
It explicitly denies a duty to retreat and provides legislative protection from civil actions resulting from the use of deadly force in acts of self-defense. The PA General Assembly found that:
(1) It is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(2) The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a home is a person's castle.
(3) Section 21 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania guarantees that the "right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
(4) Persons residing in or visiting this Commonwealth have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles.
(5) No person should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or
attack outside the person's home or vehicle.[26]
While the findings specifically mention a defendant's home or vehicle, the amendments to state code enumerated by this legislation extend to any place that a person has a legal right to be, with a few notable exceptions (such as inside a prison).
The statute in Washington state appears to be very simply and broadly stated.[27]
The law allows use of deadly force in the lawful defense of oneself, a family member, or any other person, when there is reasonable ground to prevent action(s) of the person slain to commit a felony or to do injury or harm, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, on those in their presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which they are.
Washington state doesn’t have a specific Castle Doctrine law, but has no duty to retreat as precedent was set when the State Supreme Court found "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."[28][29]
§55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker in the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section.
(c) A person not engaged in unlawful activity who is attacked in any place he or she has a legal right to be outside of his home or residence may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker: Provided, That such person may use deadly force against an intruder or attacker in a place that is not his residence without a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that he or she or another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he or she or another can only be saved by the use of deadly force against the intruder or attacker.
(d) The justified use of reasonable and proportionate force under this section shall constitute a full and complete defense to any civil action brought by an intruder or attacker against a person using such force.
(e) The full and complete civil defense created by the provisions of this section is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing or escaping from the commission of a felony; (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or another with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or (3) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself or another, unless he or she withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(f) The provisions of this section do not apply to the creation of a hazardous or dangerous condition on or in any real or personal property designed to prevent criminal conduct or cause injury to a person engaging in criminal conduct.[30]
A Wisconsin "Castle Doctrine" bill, 2011 Assembly Bill 69, passed the Senate on Thursday, Nov 3, 2011 and the Assembly on Friday, Nov 4, 2011; Governor Scott Walker signed the bill on December 7,2011. The bill creates an automatic presumption of immunity for an act of self-defense for any person who uses deadly force while in his residence, motor vehicle, or place of business and is not engaged in illegal activity. The bill also limits civil liability when someone uses deadly force as outlined in the bill.
According to Matthew Henry's—and others'—understanding of the Torah, the prohibition of murder made an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.”[31]
A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.
— Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Exodus 22
The American interpretation of this doctrine is largely derived from the English Common Law as it stood in the 18th century. In Book 4, Chapter 16[32] of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he states that the laws "leave him (the inhabitant) the natural right of killing the aggressor (the burglar)" and goes on to generalize in the following words:
And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[33] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?[34] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.
Not only was the doctrine considered to justify defense against neighbors and criminals, but any of the crown's agents who attempted to enter without a proper warrant as well. It should be noted that prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution share a common background with current castle doctrine laws.
For the states with a Castle Doctrine, an external link is provided to the text of the specific statute, if available. If a direct link is unavailable, for example if the destination website uses JavaScript, the statute name and/or number is listed.
This list was last verified to be current on June 21, 2008.
No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.
No duty to retreat if in the home.
These states uphold castle doctrine in general, but may rely on case law instead of specific legislation, may enforce a duty to retreat, and may impose specific restrictions on the use of deadly force.
Israel passed a law, commonly known as the 'Dromi Law', defining opposition to intruders as legitimate self-defence in response to the trial of Shai Dromi, a farmer who shot intruders on his farm late at night.[42] In addition, Italy passed a "Castle Doctrine" style law in 2005.[43]
