58

At a young age, I remember being told by a teacher that if there are five or more native Americans in a group, it is legal to shoot them, because it is considered a war party. The teacher told me that this was an old law which is still in effect today.

I found a few references, but I don't know how credible they are:

  • Dumb Laws Web Site

    • South Dakota:

      If there are more than 5 Native Americans on your property you may shoot them.

    • Spearfish, South Dakota:

      If three or more Indians are walking down the street together, they can be considered a war party and fired upon.

  • Stupid Laws Web Site

    • Iowa:

      You may shoot Native Americans if more than five of them are on your property.

    • South Dakota:

      If there are more than 5 Native Americans on your property you may shoot them.

    • Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania:

      A group of 5 or more Native Americans are to be considered a raiding party and may be killed on the spot.

Could this actually be true? If it is, then does that mean there would be no repercussions for murdering a group of innocent people in cold blood?

(I hope nobody is evil enough to go out and do this.)

unor
  • 1,143
  • 9
  • 23
Evorlor
  • 845
  • 1
  • 7
  • 12
  • 10
    The fact that those sites list different states automatically makes me suspicious that this is total BS. – cpast Dec 24 '14 at 22:37
  • You might consider changing the accepted answer to reirab's answer, since cpast's answer doesn't actually answer your question, but simply shows that one such law in one state doesn't exist. And reirab's answer *does* answer your question much more generally. – Alan Munn Dec 25 '14 at 16:40
  • 9
    Some of these claims can be true but they have nothing to do with Native Americans. It can be legal to shoot someone on your property, even if he is alone, and regardless of his race, it's called home defense. – vsz Dec 25 '14 at 17:54
  • 1
    @vsz I think the assumption is that "on your property" rather than "in your home" means it applies even if they are outside and there is no fence or sign. – Random832 Dec 26 '14 at 13:44
  • 1
    @Random832, Castle doctrine varies by jurisdiction, and in some cases trespassing on someone's property is sufficient. It is worth noting, however, that castle doctrine is ***not*** a specific law, but rather a set of policies which can be used for defense in court, such as for justifiable homicide. – Brian S Dec 26 '14 at 16:35
  • 1
    As far as I know a fence or sign is required for it to even be trespassing in most jurisdictions. – Random832 Dec 26 '14 at 16:37
  • 1
    @Random832, I can't comment to all jurisdictions, naturally, but there is no such requirement in every single jurisdiction. In Australia, you can even get hit for trespassing without knowledge that you've entered private property at all. (Note that if you're _forced_ to enter an area, it's not trespassing; you have to enter the area intentionally.) – Brian S Dec 26 '14 at 16:42
  • 1
    @Random832, A quick Google search and layman's reading turns up no requirements for Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, or Oregon. Verbal warning is sufficient for Georgia, Hawaii (commercial property only), Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. Additionally, Texas allows a no trespassing warning to be represented as purple paint on posts or trees along the property border. (There are requirements for how much paint is required and how far apart the marks can be.) – Brian S Dec 26 '14 at 17:03
  • @BrianS A verbal warning would be instead of a sign. The context of the discussion is, I thought, whether it is trespassing / okay to shoot with _no warning at all_. – Random832 Dec 26 '14 at 23:27
  • 2
    This is one of those things that is so absurd that it is hard to argue it at first. Murder is illegal everywhere, anytime, by anyone against anyone. No exceptions except for self defense in limited cases. No law stating so is valid, full stop, regardless if it is "on the books" or not. – geoO Jan 13 '15 at 19:30
  • 5
    Check the facts here. In no locality in the US is it legal to use deadly force to protect any property of any kind, including your home. HOWEVER, if you can prove your life was in danger (and many people are in prison after losing this argument), then there are cases where self defense that resulted in loss of life of the assailant will allow you to not go to prison for murder. There are some states and situations such as involving car-jacking (again surrounding a preponderance of evidence that your life was in danger) where this kind of self defense is authorized. – Darrell Teague Apr 29 '16 at 17:55
  • 1
    @DarrellTeague guess again: "...is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, ... when that other person has made an unlawful entry ... and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight" http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/18-1-704_5.html – DavePhD May 20 '16 at 13:06
  • This isn't a debate. The law is very clear on this point. See a summary but the statues both federally and in every state (except perhaps Texas in certain circumstances) are about threats against you physically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law - wherein the general premise is QUALIFIED under the grounds that the attacker had reasonable belief that their life was threatened by an assailant (or believed 'serious harm' may be done)... it has NOTHING to do with protecting personal property. Check case law and case findings. – Darrell Teague May 23 '16 at 17:52
  • Regarding comments about 'Castle Laws' - this is about the requirement to attempt 'retreat' when faced by a perceived threat to avoid criminal prosecution when using lethal force - which is only POSSIBLY justifiable again if the assailant can prove they believed their life was in danger. Statute from NJ as an example: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A0500/159_I1.PDF "... 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..." – Darrell Teague May 23 '16 at 18:10
  • Could you please add a century tag? – Mindwin Remember Monica Feb 09 '17 at 12:13

2 Answers2

90

Even if such a law were still on the books somewhere in the U.S., it would be superseded by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which states (emphasis added):

Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All people within the jurisdiction of any U.S. state are ensured equal protection under the law, so any law saying that it's legal to shoot native Americans in a situation where it wouldn't otherwise be legal to shoot someone would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. Such a law would certainly be struck down by the courts if a case arose in which it were judicially reviewed.

[D]oes that mean there would be no repercussions for murdering a group of innocent people in cold blood?

Absolutely not, for the above reasons.

reirab
  • 4,095
  • 20
  • 25
  • 9
    Are Native Americans citizens, subject to American jurisdiction? – ChrisW Dec 25 '14 at 10:50
  • 9
    @ChrisW Yes: http://www.justice.gov/otj/about-native-americans – Alan Munn Dec 25 '14 at 13:31
  • @ChrisW - they are to a large extent (there may be certain edge cases, but they don't apply to things like Constitutional rights) – user5341 Dec 25 '14 at 15:30
  • 4
    @ChrisW -- "jurisdiction" in the last clause does not refer to _personal jurisdiction_; that is, it doesn't matter whether the person claiming the protection of the state is himself subject to state laws or not. If you shoot a foreign diplomat (i.e. someone who, unlike an Indian, is not personally subject to the state's jurisdiction) in Oklahoma, you can be tried by the State of Oklahoma (unless Federal prosecutors takes the case, of course). – Michael Lorton Dec 25 '14 at 20:32
  • @Malvolio I doubt that foreign diplomats are protected by the 14th Amendment. – ChrisW Dec 25 '14 at 20:38
  • 4
    @Malvolio The 14th Amendment doesn't _stop_ states from extending equal protection to those who aren't subject to US jurisdiction; it just doesn't _require_ it (for diplomats specifically, the United States has obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to protect them). The clause does mean "personal jurisdiction," which is why children of diplomats aren't citizens of the United States. – cpast Dec 25 '14 at 22:30
  • 1
    @ChrisW -- you can doubt it if you want, but for that down to mean anything, you have to find a case where a state denied protection to someone within its legal jurisdiction on the grounds that the person was within its personal jurisdiction. – Michael Lorton Dec 26 '14 at 02:04
  • 9
    Note that the clause in question says that a state may not deny equal protection to `"any person within its jurisdiction,"` not `"any citizen within its jurisdiction."` – reirab Dec 26 '14 at 05:13
  • 1
    Yes, I suppose that e.g. resident aliens (recent immigrants) tend to be protected too. – ChrisW Dec 26 '14 at 05:17
  • Diplomats are the exceptional case; it's not as if Oklahoma could execute a tourist (or even an illegal immigrant) without trial. – Andrew Lazarus Dec 26 '14 at 06:32
  • 1
    @ChrisW It's mostly irrelevant whether someone is a citizen. The "equal protection" applies to everyone, as does _almost_ the entire rest of the document plus Amendments. General discussion at [Rights, Privileges, and Duties of Aliens](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien), some specifics at [PLYLER v. DOE](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=202), [WONG WING v. U S](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=163&invol=228), and [YICK WO v. HOPKINS](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=356). – user2338816 Dec 26 '14 at 06:38
  • Did you debunk the claim or are you applying your interpretation of constitutional law to the situation? Is this a skeptics site or a law site? Laws have titles and sections. The burden of proof is on the claimant. What laws exactly allow this then? –  Dec 26 '14 at 20:50
  • 2
    @fredsbend The question "Is it legal in any state?" The Constitution applies to all states, so the answer to the question, as stated, is definitely "No." Whether there is a law that would allow that in some state does not affect whether it's actually legal because it would be superseded by the Constitution. The claim that it is legal in some state is disproved by the Constitution stating that it is not. – reirab Dec 26 '14 at 20:57
67

This 2005 Keloland news article tackles the claims about South Dakota, especially Spearfish, South Dakota.

It showed there was no such law in Spearfish.

Spearfish Mayor Jerry Krambeck said, "And of course we researched as far as back as we possibly could and this was totally false."

And there was was no such law in South Dakota:

Several websites also accuse the state of South Dakota of having a war party law. However, officials in Pierre say there's no such law on the books.

Nevertheless, Spearfish then passed a resolution saying that there isn't any law to that effect, but even if there was it was officially overturned.

So, for at least one of the places where this is claimed, it's false. I couldn't find good info about the others.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
cpast
  • 765
  • 6
  • 10