Seventeenth-century jurist Sir Edward Coke of England once asked, “Et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium? – “And where shall a man be safe if it be not in his own house?”
Virginia Delegates Ben Cline and William Janis asked the same question. They both introduced legislation in the General Assembly to codify our natural right to use justifiable force within our homes to fend off intruders without fear of criminal and civil liability. Delegate Cline’s bill was incorporated into Delegate Janis’s, and Janis’s bill passed the House with a vote of 95-4, but the bill was later killed in the Senate Committee on Courts of Justice a few days ago.
The “Castle Doctrine” is the idea that you have an inalienable right to defend yourself in your home to whatever degree necessary to repel the invaders of the “castle.” Your home is supposed to be the ultimate point of safety – once that has been violated, all bets are off. You’re (obviously) in a last-stand situation. I was surprised to find out that in the commonwealth citizens do not have an absolute right to defend themselves within their homes. Such a notion is absolutely ridiculous and poses a threat to the well-being of law-abiding citizens.
Our right to defend ourselves is our ultimate claim to a status as a free people. You cannot be free if you cannot assert yourself as an individual. Therwise you are at the whim of whatever others may choose to do to you. Being able to defend ourselves and our property against the unjust is not just an action but also a strong statement: “I will not let someone do this to me. I am free to oppose you.” Each time a person fights back and wins, that’s a deterrent to everyone else who would think of invading a home and attacking the residents.
Think about it. No one robs houses in the country for a reason. A lot of rural residents have guns, and the owners aren’t afraid to use them. In a city like Richmond, that’s usually not the case, and the criminal element is well aware of that. The police, try as they might, cannot be everywhere at once. They cannot prevent all crime but usually try their best to respond to it. That puts the average citizen in situations where they sometimes must act without such aid. The Castle Doctrine bills were designed to empower the citizens and allow them to act as common sense would dictate – you do what’s necessary to protect yourself.
Furthermore, depriving the rights of good citizens to protect themselves helps those who ignore the law. Look at where such thinking runs amok, as in the U.K., where a farmer was recently sued for shooting a burglar and killing another. I’d say the farmer had every right to do that. The burglars were out to take something from him, and he responded only when provoked by their willful intrusion. How is it that a criminal comes out ahead when he was the one who put the farmer in that situation? Why was no one blaming the criminals for driving out there? That’s stupidity at its finest.
So thanks a lot, Senate Committee on Courts of Justice – the next time another Harvey family killing happens, that blood is on your hands. Either a family gets massacred, or the parents could get a murder charge for acting “incorrectly” in a high-intensity situation. Either way, the people lose. We need to stop worrying about what could happen to criminals and focus on the people who are usually the victims – good, decent people.