???几年前曾经出过一个十元燕的案子。叶海燕在其工作室与多人发生纠纷。叶海燕（可能是出于自卫）用刀砍伤了若干人。国内一些人援引英美法中的城堡条款为叶海燕砍人事件辩护，曰：依美国法律的话，对非法侵入者可直接开枪，何况只是用刀？
?
?
叶海燕案的案情本文在此就不妄加分析了，毕竟都过去好几年了。但是我发现，其实现在还有不少人仍相信美国法律规定“主人可开枪击毙非法侵入者”的说法。所以翻出几年前这篇旧文来澄清以下吧。
?
?
?
关于美国法律此说法的来源是中世纪欧洲法律的“城堡条款”（castle doctrine），其原意为：一个男人的房子就是他的城堡；他有权使用暴力（包括致死性暴力，比如直接开枪）对付侵入者。该条款内容因为涉嫌对非生命权的保护超过了对生命权的保护，因此在今天的美国，即使没有废除，其适用也已受到严格限制。
一 从美国现存的一些法典的规定来看，城堡条款即使没有废除，其适用也已受到严格限制
首先代表美国刑事立法范本的《标准刑法典》（MPC，Model Penal Code）就已明确放弃城堡条款。美国五十个州加上联邦都有各自的刑法典。但在基本概念上的规定大同小异。美国法律协会（ALI）制定了MPC供各州在刑事立法时进行参考。MPC中的内容也确实被很多州大量借鉴。MPC本身虽非现实生效的法律，却是美国法学院学生学习刑法时必须熟悉的法典。应该说MPC可在很大程度上代表美国的刑法基本理念。
MPC 3.04条规定了自卫时使用“致死性暴力”（deadly force）的限制。其第2款b项规定：在自卫时使用致死性暴力是不合法的，除非行为人相信必须使用致死性暴力才能避免自身遭受杀害、严重身体伤害、绑架或被强迫的性行为。此外该条还进一步规定，即使行为人碰到以上情况，如果行为人完全可以通过逃跑安然脱身的话，那么也是不允许使用致死性暴力的，除非——这里终于提到了一下关于住所的内容——当时行为人是在自己的住所或工作的地方。[i]
就我们想讨论的问题而言，这里其实已经说得很清楚了。开枪自然是属于致死性暴力的。那么，只有在确信自己身处一些不开枪就要遭殃的严重情况下，法律才允许你开枪自卫。涉及你住所的条款，仅仅是免除了你的“逃跑义务”（duty to retreat），而与授权使用致死性暴力并无多大关系。
所以，如果仅仅是有人非法入侵了你的房子，必然构成上诉那些危险情况吗？显然不是。假设别人（比如一个小女孩）仅仅是走错了门，误入你家，你能直接向她开枪吗？肯定不行。要是真开枪了，那就是谋杀，而不是自卫。因为这时虽然有人非法侵入你的住宅，但并没出现那些必须开枪才能避免的人身危险。
在实践中，美国有些州已经废除城堡条款，如康涅狄格州。康州刑法典关于自卫的规定和MPC很接近：在自卫中不允许使用致死性暴力，除非行为人合理确信（1）对方正在或即将对自己使用致死性暴力；或者（2）对方正在或即将给自己造成严重身体伤害。而涉及住所时，仅仅免除了行为人的“逃跑义务”。（康州刑法典 Sec. 53a-19[ii]）
有的州则比较含糊地保留了“疑似城堡条款”。比如亚利桑那州州立法典的刑法部分规定，对非法进入或使用暴力闯入者可以使用致死性暴力，但行为人必须合理确信自己有生命危险或遭受严重身体伤害的危险。（Arizona Revised Statute, Title 13, Section 418[iii]）之所以说它是疑似城堡条款，是因为亚利桑那州的这个规定其实有些画蛇添足——当行为人合理确信自己有生命危险或遭受严重身体伤害危险时，致死性暴力本来就已可以使用，哪里还用得着管对方是否闯进你的屋子呢？
此外，即使有城堡条款的州，城堡条款的适用也受到严格限制。如俄克拉荷马州和阿拉巴马州都保留有城堡条款,它们的基本规定也非常相似，即：若碰到正在或已经闯入者，则预设房屋主人已受到致命或严重身体伤害的危险，因而可以使用致死性暴力自卫。
但是这规定的背后是极其严格的限制。
1.适用条件为，不但进入是非法的，而且必须是暴力侵入。两个州的法典中对此的用词都是“unlawfully and forcefully entering”。也就是说，如果对方是非暴力的进入（比如主人忘了关门时别人很平静地走进来了），或暴力但是合法的进入（比如警察为执行公务破门而入），都不能使用致死性暴力来对抗。
2.主人对危险状况的认识必须是“合理的”（俄克拉荷马州法典用词为“reasonable fear”；阿拉巴马州法典用词为“reasonably believe”）。如果一个小女孩在玩耍时砸了你们家窗玻璃，而你却认为这是她要暴力侵入你们家危害你的生命安全，于是你把小女孩一枪打死。那肯定是不行的。
3.法典中明确说了，只是预设（presume）非法侵入使得主人面临严重人身安全。这个词在法律上的含义是：如果对方不提供反证的话，法院即照此认定。但如果对方提供证据证明并非如此，那么法院即可推翻这个预设。也就是说，如果将来在法庭上检控方或被害人证明当时的环境下，主人无理由认为自己面临任何人身危险，那么开枪的主人还是要承担法律责任的。
4.此外在这两个州的法典中都规定了在某些特定情况下，即使遭遇非法暴力侵入，主人也不得使用致死性暴力。比如侵入者是你的父母、祖父母，或其他对你有合法监护权的人时，你不能对他们开枪。又比如当别人（不一定是警察）侵入时你正在进行某些非法活动的话，你也不能使用致死性暴力来对抗。
（具体内容见阿拉巴马法典Section 13A-3-23[iv]；俄克拉荷马法典Title 21, Section 1289.25[v]）
二 实践中几个相关判例分析
使得城堡条款引起国内误解的一个重要原因是1992年发生在路易斯安那州的服部案。日本中学生因为误解而进入他人的领地，被主人开枪打死。后法院判决主人无罪。此判决结果使很多人产生了对“对非法进入者可直接开枪”的印象。但事实上，该案发生在晚上。主人看不清进来的是谁。而且开枪之前，主人对被害人提出大声警告。可能因为语言原因，被害人没听懂，而继续向主人靠近。主人大声让被害人站住，而被害人仍在靠近。这时主人才开枪。因此这个案情其实比较符合城堡条款的适用条件。以当时的情况，主人相信自己正要遭受危险的这一认识是合理的。所以可以免除刑事责任。然而即使如此，在民事诉讼中，主人仍被判决向被害人父母支付巨额赔偿。主人对此不服，一直上诉到路易斯安那州最高法院。最高法院维持原判。[vi]
可见即使从服部案中也能看出，主人是不能随便向闯入者开枪的。否则即使免除谋杀的刑事责任，也要承担侵权的民事责任。城堡条款不是说只要别人到你地盘上你就能合法地要他的命。
另一个更直接的也距离现在更近的案例发生在佐治亚州。屋主开枪打死侵入者，被判重罪谋杀（felony murder）终身监禁。事情发生在2005年。被害人Epp是房子原来的主人，9月将尚未完全完工的房子卖给了被告人McNeil。12月某日被害人来到房子完成“要求的工作”（required work，判决书中仅仅用了这两个词，没有更多解释）。但被害人进来显然是没有经过允许的。因为被告人的15岁儿子La'Ron完全不知道有人进来，直到他发现院子里有个人。La'Ron认为被害人是非法侵入（就算是预约了上门修水管的工人也得先敲门打招呼，怎能自说自话直接进来？）要求他离开。被害人不肯。双方起了争执。La'Ron打电话让被告人McNeil回来，并说Epp用刀指着他。McNeil回来后，与Epp争执。这时McNeil和Epp分别站在McNeil的地产与McNeil邻居的地产上。争执中，Epp向McNeil走来，穿过了两份地产的边界线，到达了McNeil的地上。McNeil用枪指着Epp大声要他退后。Epp没有退后，反而继续向McNeil靠近。McNeil于是对准Epp的头部开枪。Epp当场身亡。
在法庭上，McNeil声称开枪是自卫，因为当时被害人用刀指着他。但是警方证据显示：被害人死亡的时候，裤兜里的刀是折叠好的。因此被告人开枪时并不存在被刀刺伤的危险，不能构成自卫。最后McNeil被判重罪谋杀和终身监禁。McNeil不服，上诉到佐治亚州最高法院。州最高法院维持原判。[vii]
佐治亚州刑法典中有类似于亚利桑那州的“疑似城堡条款”。只有在以下情况才能使用致死性暴力保卫自己的住宅：进入者的进入方式是狂暴的并且该进入是为了对居住者实施暴力人身侵害；如果侵入者不是居住者的家属的话，进入必须是非法并且暴力的（unlawfully and forcibly enter，用词和前文所说阿拉巴马州和俄克拉荷马州一样）；或者使用致死性暴力对抗之人合理确信进入者是为了某种实施某种重罪才进入，并且只有使用致死性暴力才能阻止。[viii]
有趣的是，州最高法院对本案持不同意见（dissent）的法官，在他的不同意见部分里提到了佐治亚州刑法典中的这个城堡条款。他认为McNeil是在自己的领地上，向非法侵入自己领地的人开枪。这应该受到城堡条款的保护。但是多数法官尽管对此事实无异议，却不同意应该适用城堡条款的观点。因此McNeil还是被判了重罪重刑。
后此案被重审。重审的结果是将“谋杀”的罪名改为了“故意致人死亡”（voluntary manslaughter）。仍然是重罪。不过由终身监禁改为了有期限的监禁。[ix]
从这个案例可见，城堡条款的适用是受到限制的。如前述，佐治亚州刑法典已严格限制城堡条款的适用，现在又加上州最高法院的判例（该案是佐治亚州最高法院的判决，对今后该州所有法院审理类似案件时有法律约束力），足以推翻“主人可开枪击毙非法侵入者”的说法。
小结：
本文提供了若干个州的刑法典以及《标准刑法典》中的规定，加上佐治亚州的一个实例。美国其余的情况限于篇幅，不能一一描述。但依据本文已经提供的资料，已足以证实在美国主人可直接开枪击毙非法侵入者的说法。即使其余中有个别州真的存在这种法律，也不能说“在美国”是怎么样的。比如卖淫在拉斯维加斯是合法的，能否因此说卖淫“在美国”是合法的呢？显然是不行的。因为在内华达州以外的其他州不合法。因此，基于本文已经提供的资料，可知“在美国，非法侵入住宅的，主人可以开枪将其击毙”的说法，不正确。
?以下为注释
[i] MPC相关规定原文。
MPC 3.04
(1) the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
(2) (b) the use of deadly force is not justifiable unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if
(i) he provoked, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury
(ii) he knows that he can avoid using deadly 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 that he has no duty to take, except that:
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
[ii] 康涅狄格州刑法典相关原文。
Sec. 53a-19.
Use of physical force in defense of person.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor, or if he or she is a peace officer, a special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, or a motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, or a private person assisting such peace officer, special policeman or motor vehicle inspector at his or her direction, and acting pursuant to section 53a-22, or (2) by surrendering possession of property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto, or (3) by complying with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform.
链接http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_951.htm#sec_53a-19
[iii] 亚利桑那州法典相关规定原文。
13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.
链接可从法典官网页面进入http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp 然后点击title 13再点击13-418即可找到
[iv] 阿拉巴马州法典相关规定原文。
Section 13A-3-23
Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
……
(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:
a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;
c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.
链接http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-3-23.htm
[v] 俄克拉荷马州法典相关规定原文。
Title 21，Section 1289.25
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or places of business.
B. A person or an owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business to further an unlawful activity.
链接http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782
[vi] 该案民事判决部分在路易斯安那州第一巡回上诉法院的案例名称和编号为Hattori v. Peairs, 662 So.2d 509(1995)。在路易斯安那州最高法院的案例名称与编号为Hattori v. Peairs, 666 So.2d 322 (1996)。最高法院的判决没有写理由，仅仅驳回了上诉。上诉法院的判决书全文可在此链接中看到：http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=295642265381394386&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
[vii] 该案在佐治亚州最高法院的案例名称与编号为McNeil v. State, 284 Ga. 586 (2008)
[viii] 佐治亚州法典相关原文。
O.C.G.A.§ 16-3-23. Use of force in defense of habitation
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
佐治亚州法典链接：http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp
[ix] McNeil在2013年3月假释。相关新闻链接：http://www.11alive.com/news/article/277243/3/John-McNeil-free-6-years-after-murder-conviction????
