In the Non-Castle-Doctrine State
Let’s workshop this poem about the dignity-shattering and agency-denying spiritual warfare directed at the so-called “most vulnerable populations” by those who claim to be their biggest advocates
scent of the day: Patchouly, by Profumum Roma (a dank and dark-soiled patchouli, teetering—with its feel of syrupy and minty chocolate, almost cinnamon-dusted espresso—on gourmand territory but held back by its animalic and medicinal facets and by a dusty sandalwood-frankincense combo that comes into greater prominence hours in while still leaving a creamy echo of pumpkin-pie-spiced hot chocolate)
In the Non-Castle-Doctrine State The burglar’s lawsuit cited cranial trauma caused by shoddy wall mounting, the 8k TV (Micro-LED) too high in street value for any BIPOC to be equitably expected to resist— flaunted (day in, day out) through arrogant bay windows audaciously aimed curbside.
"In the Non-Castle-Doctrine State" explores the surreal and paradoxical dimensions of legal and social systems that prioritize the rights of criminals over the rights of homeowners. The poem critiques the absurdity of a burglar’s lawsuit for cranial trauma sustained during a robbery, highlighting how societal and legal constructs are manipulated to such an extent that those committing a crime are portrayed as victims of circumstance. The title itself, referencing the “Non-Castle-Doctrine” state, situates the poem in a context where self-defense laws are weaker, underscoring the vulnerability of the homeowner. The poem’s depiction of a world where burglars can sue their victims reflects the disorienting inversion of justice, where personal property and safety are subverted by legal loopholes and cultural justifications.
The reference to the 8k TV, with its technical specificity—Micro-LED, high street value—serves as a symbol of modern consumerism and the social inequalities it both represents and exacerbates. The racial dynamics invoked by the phrase "BIPOC" (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) further complicate the ethical and legal landscape, suggesting that even the act of stealing is framed within a narrative of historical and systemic oppression, thus rendering it "equitably expected." The “audacious” flaunting of luxury through “arrogant bay windows” suggests a critique of both capitalism and the ostentatious display of wealth in a society where economic disparity fuels moral ambiguity.
The poem critiques not only the inversion of morality in legal terms but also questions the broader societal structures that facilitate this inversion. The contrast between the street value of the TV and the legal rhetoric used to justify criminal behavior points to a deeper conversation about race, class, and privilege. Through the absurdity of the lawsuit, the poem reflects a cultural moment where justice is mediated by identity and economics, and where accountability is obscured by a hyper-awareness of historical injustices.
Ultimately, "In the Non-Castle-Doctrine State" forces readers to confront the uncomfortable intersection of wealth, race, and legal protection, using irony and satire to expose the cracks in societal systems that both privilege and marginalize individuals depending on their position within these structures.
castle doctrine, self-defense laws, legal absurdity, burglary lawsuit, racial dynamics, economic inequality, social justice critique, consumerism, modern justice systems, capitalism critique.