Personally, I would stand at the door with a gun. I would be in my bedroom.

Although, my experience is that they probably will leave if they know someone is there. Even more so if the person is armed. Most home invasions are in the city. But, home invasion is so heinous that you are safe in the USA.

Not true in the UK as the two cases I mentioned show up.

Actually, I was talking about common law. Blackstone was lecture notes and not really definitive. He was very popular in the US, although controversial. About like using Micheal Bellesiles since he was intepreted as being against the Independence movement.

Blackstone was very strong on the rule of law, which was where Jeremy Bentham’s criticims of him arose.

As a practical matter, this is probably true, but the statute is written ambiguously.

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and

I don’t have a duty to retreat from my home, but do I have a duty to retreat within my home? Most lawyers on the matter have advised me that you do, though as a practical matter those types of cases aren’t really prosecuted. Either way, it doesn’t seem to me to be a big deal to change the law to reflect practice. Castle Doctrine for PA does a bit more than that, such as expanding it to vehicles and attached structures to a dwelling, but it’s not a radical change in the law, and certainly not a departure from what the common law traditionally was. The bigger change is the elimination of duty to retreat on the streets, which was present in common law, but under common law you could kill someone committing a forcible felony as well, and that aspect was never brought over into the statutory law.

I am aware of that, and I am not suggesting it is the law now. But the context of this post was the constant appeals being made in the media to desecrating traditional common law, which does not paint the entire picture.

Only a handful of states, that I’m aware of, still have common law self-defense. Most states self-defense laws are statutory laws. My assertion is that castle doctrine is not out of line with common law traditions on self-defense, and I’m using Blackstone as an example.

Wouldn’t you expect that a group of soldiers who were attacked by an angry mob would have a right to defend themselves rather than stand trial for murder? How about officials who were attacked by mobs while performing their official duties: wouldn’t they have a right to self-defence?

Sorry, but the British Soldiers in Boston were tried for the Boston Massacre and the Tax collectors who were tarred and feathered were just SOL..

They were tried, were defended by John Adams, and acquitted by a New England jury. They were engaging in self-defense. That was the law here as well as England.

If you take the actual British Common law tradition, you end up with situations like Munir Hussein and Tony Martin.

Yes, because Britain (fairly sure, but not certain) has largely replaced common law with statutory law when it comes to self-defense, just like most US jurisdictions. It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that the common law was wrong, and what’s replaced it is better, but historical common law, which I am speaking of here, allowed such things. Even I wouldn’t argue for a straight adoption of the common law as it existed in Blackstone’s time, but to say what we’re seeing with castle doctrine is radical and new is preposterous, yet the claim is repeatedly made.

So, I would personally, as do most British lawyers, look to Blackstone as a historical curiousity, but it is far from being an “authoritative source on the Common Law”.

Blackstone was always taken more seriously in the United States than he was in England, probably due to the lack of extensive law libraries in the former. Nonetheless, I’ll take Blackstone is reasonably authoritative on the common law at the time he wrote it, as I will St. George Tucker’s edition with commentary on American adaptation for American law at the time.

One does not have a duty to retreat within the home.

Also, did you actually read the Commentaries or just copy out certain sections? I ask because I am being lazy in not pulling out my copy of it.

Actually, at common law, there was no duty to stop someone from performing a crime. At common law, a private person may lawfully make an arrest for any felony committed in his presence, or for a misdemeanor that constitutes a breach of the peace (Restatement of Torts, 2d ed., sec 119; Dressler, p. 251). A private person can also make an arrest for a felony, even if not committed in his presence, if the felony has been committed and he has probable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it.

Got that “may”.

Police have more latitude in their powers to fight crime than do private citizens. For example, you can be sued if you make a mistake, but the police officer has some immunity.

Even then, a police officer can be sued if they use excessive force or act illegally.

US Courts tend to like Blackstone as a concept of the state of the Common Law at the time of the Revolution, but it is not definitive. It is the rough equivalent of a Reader’s Digest Guide to the Laws of England.

In fact, you will find that there was no agreement on the right of self-defence between the US and England.

Wouldn’t you expect that a group of soldiers who were attacked by an angry mob would have a right to defend themselves rather than stand trial for murder? How about officials who were attacked by mobs while performing their official duties: wouldn’t they have a right to self-defence?

Sorry, but the British Soldiers in Boston were tried for the Boston Massacre and the Tax collectors who were tarred and feathered were just SOL..

If you take the actual British Common law tradition, you end up with situations like Munir Hussein and Tony Martin.

So, I would personally, as do most British lawyers, look to Blackstone as a historical curiousity, but it is far from being an “authoritative source on the Common Law”.

That’s pretty much what Blackstone states.