beto wrote:I am trying to be the devil's advocate on what could be problems for an expanded castle doctrine
I wasn't clear suppose in the scenario of the man being shot while fleeing with a tip jar, the shooter was a white male and the victim was another race. Could the family claim the thiefs civil rights were violated as one, he was not a threat and two (maybe this should be one) race was a factor in the shooting? Even though the shooter was clear of state charges could this be brought up

The family could make any claim they want, but it doesn't mean they can support their claim for a civil rights violation. I'm fairly sure God has been named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit before.

One common civil rights type of claim are known as Section 1983 claims, which are brought against government actors such as law enforcement when there is pervasive and ongoing discrimination within that LE department. A 1983 claim doesn't fit your hypothetical.

Another basis for bringing a civil rights claim could be under the RICO Act, which is mostly a prosecutor's tool to target the leadership of a criminal organization. RICO also provides the basis for a civil lawsuit, where the object is to get a judgment of money (usually) for the injury.

There might be other statutes providing the basis for a civil rights claim (employment & housing laws provide these), but the family would be better off suing a shooter under basic personal injury law IMO. The shooter will always be able to claim he acted out of necessity to protect property or people, but this claim is only as good as the facts of the situation.

I still don't see any narrowing of the Castle Doctrine through civil rights laws. You might have competing claims--the right of self-defense vs. the right to not be discriminated against--but I don't see how it is structurally possible for a a civil rights law to erode a right of SD.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rico_act