A West Virginia lawyer Hiram C. Lewis IV, 41, narrowly lost a race to become the state attorney general in 2008 but has now found himself on the other side of the courtroom charged with malicious wounding and wanton endangerment with a firearm. Lewis is accused of shooting a man at his home in Procious, West Virgina. He is invoking the Castle Doctrine, which allows citizens to use lethal force in defense of their homes. I have been a long critic of Castle Doctrine laws, which have spinned off various extensions for the work place, cars, and other locations. Called “Make My Day” laws in some states, we now have “Make My Day Better” laws allowing people to use lethal force in defense of other property like cars as well as laws like “Stand Your Ground” involved in the Zimmerman case and other cases in Florida.
Lewis claimed the man, Stephen Bogart, tried to break into his home and he shot him in the leg. He told reporters “I was totally within my rights. I was in my home when I made the, when I shot him, after he barged in my residence and busted the door down. It’s in God’s hands now, but we are a Castle Doctrine state.”
However, Bogart says that he was living at Lewis’ house. Yet, Lewis said Bogart was not a house guest or roommate. Rather, he says that he is a homeless veteran he had allowed to live for a week at his camp while he looked for work
Lewis is a sole practitioner who served as the GOP treasurer and ran against Robert C. Byrd for US Senate in 2006. He also lost a bid for West Virginia Attorney General against Darrell McGraw.
These laws are generally written, making it difficult to prosecute homeowners even in cases of mistaken intrusion as when drunken neighbors come into a home.
Here is the code provision:
§55-7-22. Civil relief for persons resisting certain criminal activities.
(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 or her 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 or her 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, herself 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, herself 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.
(g) Nothing in this section shall authorize or justify a person to resist or obstruct a law-enforcement officer acting in the course of his or her duty.
Note: WV Code updated with legislation passed through the 2011 4th Special Session
Note the standard is “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.” The question is whether Lewis reasonably apprehended that Bogart was there to harm him or commit a felony in the residence if he knew him. The key in the case may turn on the different accounts on whether Bogart was staying at the residence. Some reports state that Bogart was able to show that he had possessions in the home as proof that he was living there.
Lewis does not appear able to pay the $100,000 bail and remains in jail.
Source: West Virginia Recordas first seen on ABA Journal
Don’t know anything about West Virginia. Now, you don’t want to make the Kentucky guys angry. The West Virgina guys won. If you want to call it that.
CLH,
If I shoot somebody, it won’t be to tickle.
Sometimes bean bags result in the same event. Depends on the range and where you’re aiming.
Hey BarkinDog,
You don’t get to know who the booby is. It’s classified. You have to have a security clearance.
You can growl all you want. And Turley can’t do anything about it.
The West Virginia statute merely codifies common law or decision law on self defense, in the home and elsewhere. It does not say that a woman’s home is her Castle with a capital C or that one can shoot someone out on the street merely to stand ground. Now in this particularly case involving the lawyer who shot the bum who came into his house uninvited, it matters little that the homeowner shooter was acquainted with the guy. The one who got shot is a dumbbaarkkgroowwl. Censor that blog machine.
Slugs have too much penetrating power if I miss. I don’t want them hitting someone by mistake. The buckshot has a lower chance of causing unintended damage. If I shoot someone, I want it to be on purpose. I’m not actually advocating violence, and my house is not that easy to break into, and if I were being honest, I’d still call the police first, if given the opportunity. That’s also why I use the bean bag rounds- they tickle, but are less likely to end up with a death.
Who is the booby?
Lets see if the blog censors a dog’s bark and growl when it is not translated into English by the Dogalogue machine. Willard Romney is a barkgrooowwl.
Now that may or may not be a bad word. But Turley does not know. Inquiring dogs want to know why this blog is censored.
CLH,
Are you being mean? What about the twelve gauge rifled slugs?
Again, as in the Zimmerman case, no one knows diddly until the trial is done. Even then, of course, it doesn’t establish actuality, only facts. If he didn’t have justification for the use of deadly force, then oh well, sucks to be him. If he did, then oh well, sucks to be the guy he shot.
There is a reason that I don’t invite people I don’t know very, very well into my home. Ever. There are too many nutters in this world, and even perfectly rational, nice seeming people can flip without notice. Heck, I think most people on earth are nutters to some extent, myself included.
I don’t know if this is an instance where he had justification to shoot or not. The only time things like this make the news is when there are questions as to whether the SYG/Castle Doctrine were properly applied. In those cases, the courts will sort it out.
I’m tired of all the pustulent, pathetic, cowardly whiners who cry and moan and groan when some idiot gets himself shot. Don’t want to get shot? Don’t break into someone’s home, easy-peasy.
I have a semi-auto shotgun, the first four rounds are bean bag rounds. The rest are buckshot. I guarantee anyone who breaks into my home a very, very bad day. I don’t care if you’re drunk and mistook my house for yours. I don’t care if you’re trying to escape the bad man chasing you. I don’t care if you’re crazy and confused. I don’t care if you’re only fourteen and mommy didn’t love you enough. I really don’t care if you’re breaking into my home to cause harm or not. I’m assuming you are there to cause harm, period. The assumption of risk is on you at that point. You break into a home, for whatever reason, you are assuming the risk that someone will put a bullet into your head. I’m a wee nice, I have the bean bag rounds first. I can go through those in around two or three seconds. If you’re still moving (unlikely, but possible) you will die. I have no compassion for anyone who breaks in. Simple as that. 🙂
BarkinDog,
You better not criticize the booby.
My comments are awaiting moderation. One cant criticise Turley on this blog.
B Dog,
Did you have more than two links. That usually puts people in moderation. Nobody checks comments beforehand, that’s for the big blogs with many employees.
Censorship is a word of moderation.
Gary T
The booby traps. The booby sets in the car and wants the cop to do it?
Cop stayed outside. So did the booby.
A person should be able to feel secure in his own home. That is the last bastion of privacy and security anyone should have at the least.
Such SYG laws should not be justification for fraudulent booby traps though.
If a person has no legitimate business being in someone else’s home, then he must realize that he could be risking serious bodily danger.
Alternately, if he had a legitimate reason for being there, and gets injured by too zealous or duplicitous a homeowner, then I can surely see that homeowner being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
ID707,
No, you don’t get to contest a TRO before it’s issued. All they have to do is fill out the form.
I got a notice that I was supposed to go to a restraining order hearing injunction, but attendance wasn’t mandatory so I didn’t go. Then the restraining order became permanent. It’s good for four years. But that was almost two years ago, so the permanent restraining order expires in July, 2014.
Matt,
Don’t let me plague you, but as Malisha could tell us, who has the right to file a TRO, and don’t you get to contest it before it is issued? Or even notified?
I guess somebody, neighbor(?) could file againat me sith the social office, but with the taxes I pay, I should have girls waiting me hand and foot. Heh heh.
Integrity, integrity, integrity and privacy. Thy name is Sweden.
ID707,
Why send a cop on a welfare check?
Somebody unnecessarily filed a temporary restraining order. I laughed. Then the cop wanted to come in the house to do a welfare check. I gave him my drivers license at the door. No welfare checks.
Today I got a scheduled annual visit from a bureaucrat sociologist to see what my assistance needs were. No police, nothing unannounced. And completely pleasant.
I commented that the woman the year before had probably 30 years service; and had like old cops turned sour on people. She laughed, mildly, and agreed. She was a summer replacer and had one year more to study.
Why send a cop on a welfare check is my first question?
A Racine County cop told me one time he was going to come into my house to do a welfare check. I said I’m standing right here. If you want to do a welfare check, you’re doing it right now. He tried to open the screen door to come in. It was locked. I said, good thing. Maybe I would have gotten arrested. Then there would have been unnecessary legal charges.
Reasonably sure his life is in danger. “I just scare easy. Blame it on my Ma”.
This homeowner needs to spend some alone time in jail. Maybe he can stand his ground in his cell. I am sick of these self protection nuts shooting people who pose no real danger to them or their property. If he had the gun in his hand he could have told him to leave. The statute might not require a duty to retreat when in danger, but doesn’t he have a duty to be reasonable?