Dad spent nearly 2 years stationed on Guam between WW2 and the Korean War.

AG: Self-defense is ‘inherent right’

There are many scenarios that can justify the use of deadly force, for instance, a home invasion or a person carrying a machete while aggressively approaching you on your property. Both could be arguments for the castle doctrine law on Guam, but as Attorney General Douglas Moylan stressed, the facts must support that an imminent threat of death or serious injury was present.

On Saturday, the Francisco C. Chargualaf Gymnasium filled with residents of Malesso’ and the surrounding southern villages. All wanted to learn more about the laws in place that allow them to protect themselves and others through deadly force on their property and curtilage.

Moylan explained that through the castle doctrine, Guam law provides homeowners the right to use deadly force to defend their homes or vehicles with protection from prosecution when acting against threats such as home invaders and burglars.

“This isn’t just about firearms, OK? This is about any weapon that you use. The focus of the law is a right to self-defense and the right to use deadly force, and there is a presumption that if, in certain areas, that you’re threatened, you have a right to use deadly force. Whether you’re using a machete, a knife, a bow and arrow, anything that causes the potential injury or death to another person, that is what the castle doctrine speaks to,” Moylan told the audience in attendance.

Moylan referenced the recent amendment to the castle doctrine, which extends those “certain areas” to curtilage.

Curtilage legally refers to the immediate land and buildings surrounding a home. An example would be the yard between the front door and public easement, where children may play or an area where one can expect to have reasonable privacy from government intrusion, like a shed at the back of a home.

“There is an inherent right for everybody to be able to protect themselves and to protect their loved ones and to protect one another,” Moylan said.

Several southern residents who spoke presented scenarios like a homeowner catching a thief stealing a lawn mower as the suspect turns to get away. Or an individual trespassing on property and taking produce and firing a warning shot. They all questioned how to know if the requirements of the castle doctrine are met in different scenarios.

“No. 1 is, whenever you’re confronted with a situation, always try to think when is the last moment can I use deadly force? If you do that, and … if you have the presence of mind to be able to think, I’m not going to, for instance, if you have a gun, I’m not going to immediately shoot what I’m seeing in my house, which the castle doctrine, I think, was originally designed for. But I (the homeowner) want to figure out (how) not to harm somebody as much as possible until they become that clear and present danger to you. Because if you use that type of rule, you’re probably going to be able to get through our AG’s office analysis when the police come there and do the police report and then send it up to our office so that we don’t charge you,” Moylan said.

However, Moylan cautioned against pulling the trigger on a retreating culprit.

“And just to jump to the front of the line here, if you guys see the guy that came into your house at 2 o’clock at night, turn around and then try to get out of the house because he saw you, you guys made eye contact. Please don’t shoot him,” Moylan said.

While Moylan was not advocating for shooting another person, recognizing that many crimes committed in Guam are fueled by methamphetamine addiction, he did support the right to defend oneself as allowed in the castle doctrine law.

“You can use deadly force if the person is using a weapon against you. You have to use nondeadly force if the person is coming to just fight you,” Moylan said. “You can’t just pull out the firearm and shoot him in the street.”

Application of the castle doctrine law comes down to the “fact patterns” of the case and whether the AG green lights the prosecution.

“So, you literally can have somebody killed by you, the police officer would put together the report, what they’re seeing, different statements, and then it would come up to the AG’s office. My first group would be looking at it and, especially if it caught my attention, it would be brought to me, or they would have the sense of mind to bring it to me, and then I would sit down with them and then go over the facts on what happened,” Moylan said noting the need for the facts to justify the use of deadly force.

Moylan referenced the Dave Barber Shop shooting, where the shop owner shot a burglar in the leg as the suspect entered their private living quarters. He noted the shop owner was afforded criminal and civil protections of the castle doctrine law and not charged.

Moylan encouraged residents, if faced with the need to use deadly force against an aggressor at home or in a vehicle, to aim for the leg or fire a warning shot.

“When you shoot somebody, you don’t need to hit them between the eyes. You don’t need to hit them necessarily in the heart. You can hit him in the leg. You can hit him in the kneecap,” Moylan said.

Moylan repeatedly stressed that castle doctrine law does not protect one’s property from theft or damage. For the doctrine to apply, the threat of imminent loss of life or serious bodily injury must be present to respond with deadly force.