Castle Doctrine: Legal Origins and Home Defense Rights

[00:00:05]foreign the legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in western civilization since the age of the Roman Republic in common law the term is derived from the dictum that an englishman's home is his castle see samane's case this concept was established as English law by the 17th century Juris sir Edward Coke in his the Institutes of the laws of England 1628 for a man's house is his castle issimum refugee and each man's home is his safest Refuge the term Castle was defined in 1763 by Prime Minister William Pitt first Earl of Chatham the poorest man May in his Cottage bid Defiance to all the forces of the crown it may be frail its roof May shake the wind May blow through it the storm may enter the rain may enter but the king of England cannot enter English common law came with colonists to the new world where it has become known as the castle doctrine the term has been used in England to imply a man or woman's absolute right to exclude anyone from their home according to 18th century Presbyterian Minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry the prohibition of murder found in the Old Testament contains 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 he struck so that he dies the thief owes no blood debt to the home Defender but if the thief lives he owes a blood debt to the home Defender and must make restitution in common law a defendant May seek to avoid criminal or civil liability by claiming that he acted in self-defense this requires the jury to determine whether the defendant believed that force was necessary to defend him or herself their property or to prevent a crime and that the force used was reasonable while there is no duty to retreat from an attacker and failure to do so is not conclusive evidence that a person did not act in self-defense it may still be considered by the jury as a relevant Factor when assessing the merits of a self-defense claim the common law duty to retreat was repealed by the criminal law act 1967. this Duty never existed when a person is somewhere he has a lawful right to be but due to the repeal now extends to public places Etc a castle doctrine also known as a Castle Law or a defensive habitation law is a legal doctrine that designates a person's Abode or any legally occupied place for example a vehicle or home as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one in certain circumstances to use Force up to and including deadly force to defend oneself against an intruder free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used depending on the location a person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one's own home deadly force May either be justified the burdens of production and proof for charges impeded or an affirmative defense against criminal homicide applicable in cases when the actor reasonably fears imminent Peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another the castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in many jurisdictions Castle doctrines may not provide civil immunity such as from wrongful death suits which have a much lower burden of proof King Charles III took a verbal oath when he entered into service of his own free will this oath was to uphold the laws and traditions of this land an englishman's home is his castle and an assault on the castle is a recognized Act of war in Wartime the casualties of War are just that casualties of War he that knowingly or unknowingly enters into an act of War has still entered into an act of War of his own volition the occupants defending the castle cannot be held culpable for any casualties of War even though these casualties of War should end up dead this is recognized from the historic traditions of this land important note an enforcement officer is not a crowned bailiff he's just an employee of a company who has no real power over any living man or living woman and tries to extort money from them they are a third party interloper with no jurisdiction or authority there is a claim that bailiffs have been given increasing powers of Entry this is incorrect because a bailiff is a crown Corporation servant the crown Authority has no Authority without a legal agreement that the crown has an authority there is no material evidence to the fact that there is any legal agreement this fact has now been confirmed case Authority number wui05257f David Ward and Warrington Borough Council 30th day of May 2013 at court Tribunal the crown has no power of Entry the crown bailiffs do not have power of Entry any Crown Authority stops at the boundary of the property to proceed Beyond this point is a recognized Act of War where no such legal agreement exists then the bailiff who is only a bailiff by title only has no powers of Entry unless that Authority can be presented in the form of a legal agreement which must contain upon it two wet ink signatures one of which must be yours so a bailiff has no power of Entry without your consent to do so an assault upon the castle is a recognized Act of War case law at the end of this video supports these facts adetter is where there is proof of debt where there is no proof of debt then you are not a debtor the very presence of a bailiff who is engaged in a recognized Act of war is an assault on the castle it is reasonable for the police Constable to arrest the bailiff where there is a recognized Act of War if a police Constable does not arrest the bailiff on request then the police Constable is Guilty by default of malfeasance in a public office this carries a sentence of 25 years incarceration under current legislation for which the police Constable is culpable the police Constable is also Guilty by default of an act of fraud as he is on duty and being paid for his inaction the penalty for fraud is seven to ten years incarceration under current legislation for which the police Constable is culpable there is more charges that the Constable is guilty of like aiding and abetting but I want to keep this video as short as possible here is a small example of case law to support the information in this video the yellow wording is the case reference and is not read out to keep this video short is an English common law case reported by Sir Edward Koch who was then the Attorney General of England in the United States it is recognized as establishing the knock and announce rule in 1604 the court of King's bench gave judgment it is not a felony for a man to defend his house to the death if the debtor strikes the bailiff over the head with a full milk bottle after making a forced entry the debtor is not guilty of assault because the bailiff was there illegally likewise if the debtor gives the bailiff a good slap if a person strikes a trespasser who has refused to leave is not guilty of an offense license to enter must be refused before the process of Levy starts a bailiff rendered a trespasser is liable for penalties in tort and the entry may be in breach of article 8 of the European convention on human rights if entry is not made in accordance with the law a debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance this was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the Garden or driveway debtors can also remove implied right of access to property by telling him to leave a person having been told to leave is now under a duty to withdraw from the property with all due reasonable speed and failure to do so he is not thereafter acting in the execution of his duty and becomes a trespasser with any subsequent levy-made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling excessive force must be avoided a debtor can use an equal amount of force to resist a bailiff from Gaining entry another occupier of the premises or an employee may also take these steps also wrongful would be an attempt at forcible entry despite resistance bailiffs cannot apply Force to a door to gain entry and if he does so he is not in the execution of his duty a bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property like a Workman inside a house access by this means renders the entry unlawful the debtors home and all buildings within the boundary of the premises are protected against forced entry it is not contempt to assault a bailiff trying to climb over a locked gate after being refused entry if a bailiff enters by force he is there unlawfully and you can treat him as a trespasser a debtor cannot be sued if a person enters a property Uninvited and injures himself because he had no legal right to enter if a bailiff jams his boot into a debtor's door to stop him closing any Levy that is subsequently made is not valid if a bailiff refuses to leave the property after being requested to do so or starts trying to force entry then he is causing a disturbance a legendary case for the people knowledge is power fun Stars foreign