We make consequential professional decisions about our careers. And most times, we seek help, from those we think that may know better. When I seek professional advice from people, I never  ask them to make the decisions for me. Largely, I only want them to help me understand variables, components, pieces and other elements which I may not know, and could be catalytic, for me to make the best decision, under the prevailing circumstances.

Sure, we like the professional mentor  to tell us what to do. Which university to select? – UNN; which company to choose?- MTN ; which country to emigrate to – Canada; etc. You want the answers direct and in an unambiguous way.

That is wrong. There is no way any individual will know everything about your background, and circumstances which could affect the choice of a university, a company, a country to choose, etc. The best an individual can do is to deepen your understanding of the university system and performance, opportunities in sectors and companies, and promises in global economies and  countries. Then, you can analyze using those  endogenous factors to arrive at the best call.

Indeed, sometimes, we feel let down by “suggestions” or “advice” given to us, from others, which we took line, hook and sinker, without any modulation, after years have passed. To avoid such feelings and get better at making decisions, change your style: do not ask for direct and specific decisions, rather, ask for clarifications on issues which, after you have processed them, will help you make the decisions, by yourself.

Yes indeed, personal responsibility is key. And firms on missions must discover their calls.

“For a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium; and each man’s home is his safest refuge”. 

The above quote was an excerpt from the book, “The Institutes of the Laws of England”, published in 1628 by Sir Edward Coke a renowned English jurist and this has come to form a solid foundation to the legal principle known as the castle doctrine.

             ******************

According to the castle doctrine, any place legally occupied or dwelled by a person is regarded in law as his castle and the dweller has every right to protect such place from trespassers, aggressors or from external invasion and he is permitted to use violence or force in the protection of the castle or his place of abode and If he, unfortunately, kills another person who was invading the home or his place of dwelling, he will be shielded and excused under the castle doctrine and will not be prosecuted for murder.

A man’s castle may include his home or even his vehicle or whichever place the person legally occupies, makes his place of abode, lays his head and feels safe and protected. 

He is therefore permitted and allowed in law as castle principle to in all circumstances, use force (up to and including deadly force to defend himself and his family against an intruder or trespasser and if the intruder sustains grievous bodily harm he will be free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force he used in the protection of his castle. 

As we may have come to know in criminal jurisprudence that in some instance that involves a person killing his aggressor, the question that is posed before the criminal court is for them to determine; “would it have been possible for you to avoid killing your aggressor”, if the answer is “yes”, you may be prosecuted but in castle doctrine, the court has held in numerous instances that it does not matter if you could have avoided killing your aggressor, you are permitted to go to any length in the defense of your castle (home). 

The castle doctrine as noted therefore serves as an exception to the rule that while defending oneself, reasonable force should be applied against the aggressor and you have it as a duty and it is expected of you to retreat and avoid violence when you can or when it is reasonable to do so but the castle doctrine lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one’s own home and he is permitted to go to any length in defence of his castle; use of deadly force is permitted.

By the reason of this principle, a homeowner is permitted to shoot a thief or armed robber who is trying to break into his home; it does not necessarily matter if the thief is armed of not. A car driver is as well permitted to ram over a car snatcher who is trying to snatch or burgle his car. 

This principle which is now renowned in the criminal justice system around the world is an adaptation from the old  European principle of the inviolability of one’s home.