Klingon00 wrote:Rhino wrote:Ohio already has castle doctrine.
Unless I'm mistaken, Castle Doctrine /= Stand Your Ground. One concerns what happens inside your private property and vehicles and the other concerns outside your home, in public space, or on property you do not own.
They're the same thing, though many people don't realize it. Castle doctrine statutes rarely, if ever, use the terms castle doctrine or stand your ground (SYG). Realistically no statute should. Castle is a doctrine or a principle, not a finite rule that could be considered a statute. That's why it's implemented in so many different ways by different jurisdictions. Stand your ground isn't even a doctrine or principle. It's a slang phrase made up by the media. In the context that gun owners typically discuss castle doctrine or SYG, we are arguing the principle of duty to retreat, and that's really what these statutes are dealing with. Some people try to get technical and differentiate between castle doctrine and SYG, most often based on whether events occur inside or outside the home. But if you really wanted to get overly technical with the terminology, castle doctrine doesn't even apply to firearm related discussions at all.
The principle of castle doctrine as it's used today surrounds the duty to retreat. Historically, castle doctrine evolved from English common law, and was originally the principle of "An Englishman's home is his castle." It had absolutely nothing to do with the duty to retreat or firearms. It was developed to prevent unwanted intrusions into the home by corrupt or power crazed officials of the crown. It was adopted by the colonists in America and into common law here as the principle of "A man's home is his castle.", and was later codified in the fourth amendment to the Constitution. So you can't technically say specifically that any particular modern law is verbatim 'castle doctrine' under the original concept unless the law happens to say the King's men can't enter your house without your permission.
The underlying basis of the castle doctrine principle surrounds the inviolability of the home. That has always been the case since the days of English common law. If that principle had remained unchanged over the years, then castle doctrine based statutes should thus be limited to matters of the home, or 'castle'. However, people, and our laws, have not stuck to that original principle. The principle of inviolability of the home has been morphed into the principle of inviolability of the person, and the doctrine has thus shifted beyond the home. The shift started somewhat logically at first, by merely extending from the structure to the property as a whole. Then it extended to vehicles in many jurisdictions, Ohio included. Now the so-called stand your ground laws extend the concept even further. But no matter where it extends to or what conditions or restrictions are attached, it's still the same principle, doctrine or concept of inviolability that's being dealt with, and it still manifests in where and how the duty to retreat applies or doesn't apply. People may call it "stand your ground", "make my day", or they may call it something else entirely, but it's all still the principle of castle doctrine.
Castle doctrine and so-called stand your ground laws both deal with the principle of duty to retreat. Stand your ground isn't even a legal principle or concept. It's just a slang term invented by the media. If they weren't the same thing, then your vehicle wouldn't be in the Ohio castle doctrine statute because a vehicle isn't your 'castle'.
