Does the Castle Doctrine (no duty to retreat if attacked in one's home)

[no_hypocrisy]

extend to cars? Do you have to "retreat" (e.g., drive away) if you're threatened while in a locked car like if someone tries to carjack you?

[Reasonable_Argument]

1. Depends on the state.

States like Georgia and Texas I believe consider the car an extension of your home. Here in Ohio, they do not as far as I'm aware. What you have to remember though, is that in states without Stand Your Ground there is a duty to SAFELY retreat. If you feel you can't then you should engage the threat, just be aware that without a SYG law you may have to defend your decision not to retreat in court.

[aikoaiko]

2. That's what I was going to write.

Look at your state laws carefully.

[BigAlanMac]

3. I suggest you check your facts at the OFCC forums

I don't think you are correct about Ohio.
Ohio castle doctrine, which is not SYG, covers your home, your vehicle, and IIRC similar places where you are an invited guest/passenger. All it does is state that the burden of proof of an illegal act is on the prosecution's shoulders. That is, they have to prove you guilty, you don't have to prove your innocence.

[Trunk Monkey]

4. In Colorado your car is an extension of your home

That said if you are in a locked car and can get away you should and if worse comes to worse and you have to fire your weapon inside your car you will suffer permanent hearing loss.

[littlewolf]

5. it is always better to be judged by 12

then carried by 6 .....

[slackmaster]

6. Here in California it doesn't extend to cars, but it does to workplaces and campsites

Do you have to "retreat" (e.g., drive away) if you're threatened while in a locked car like if someone tries to carjack you?

I don't believe there is any state where such a duty to retreat exists. You can always defend yourself if you are being assaulted.

[glacierbay]

7. I like Missouri's self defense laws

they're pretty liberal.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm

[Eleanors38]

9. Zimmerman in Florida is using a standard self-defense plea.

[HockeyMom]

11. This makes no sense

So if you stay INSIDE your car that is FLEEING? Getting OUT of you car is SYG????? You car isn't you home away from home CASTLE DOCTRINE????

[gejohnston]

12. that depends

in Wyoming, your current dwelling is your "castle" or home. If you are a homeless person living in a car, tent, refrigerator box, etc. it has the same castle protection as Dick Cheney's McMansion.

However, the castle doctrine only applies if the intruder is inside the dwelling and a reasonable threat. Although Wyoming does not have SYG, it does have civil immunity if your case is ruled justifiable homicide.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I suspect that person simply replied to the wrong post.

It is accurate: Zimmerman is not claiming SYG, he is claiming standard self-defense.

[Eleanors38]

14. Well, I think much ado is made about syg & castle...

Their purpose, imo, is to take the burden of proof from a person claiming SD and putting on the prosecution to prove otherwise. Autos were considered more like an "extension" of your home...before the war on drugs whittled that away, hence some state differences. I believe that a SD situation should not place a burden such as: "Why didn't you just drive away?" on the person attacked. Car, home, street, it's the state's burden to prove a crime. That is what Zimmerman's attorney is demanding with SD laws that are same as it ever was.

See: discontnt #10

[Berserker]

8. Here in Wisconsin

Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 to AB 69, passed in both houses, expands a person’s right to use deadly or substantial force against someone who unlawfully and forcibly enters their “dwelling,” “vehicle,” or “place of business,” regardless of whether such force is necessary or reasonable to defend against imminent death or substantial harm.

http://www.wisbar.org/am/template.cfm?section=Legislative_Advocacy&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&Contentid=106889

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. "duty to retreat"...

...is frankly a bad idea from any standpoint. If your primary concern is your personal safety, having to choose between chancing serious injury/death and chancing going to prison, really sucks. The idea of "duty to retreat" is a machination of law that simply makes it easier and more straightforward to convict someone claiming self-defense as a justification for their use of force. In my opinion, making convictions easier for police and prosecutors means that more innocent folks, who weren't able to afford an adequate defense, will have their lives destroyed.

There should never be a burden on anyone to prove innocence or prove that they tried to retreat.