This Guy Should Get a Medal (weapon, crime, Saddam, concealed carry)

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Redisca

But in your reading of the Castle Doctrine, it gives one the right to exact revenge?

No. Not at all. I see reasonable cause for the arrest of the homeowner AND the other guy with the latex gloves and will let the courts sort that out.

Now quit being evasive and back up your claims that you can gun down 7 year olds for walking onto your yard and get away with it per the castle doctrine.

You posted a link to a murder on public and claimed it was an example of the Castle Doctrine.

Let's revisit what would be a better example:
-Killing on their property (it almost always refers to the house and not yard fyi)
-Person gets away with it.

P.S. It also generally requires some sort of imminent threat.

Probably the worst example of the castle doctrine is when 2 guys rang the wrong door for a party and the homeowner shot them. I personally feel the guy should have done time in that case...but probably got a pass due to local sentiment etc.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by filihok

His position is in agreement with US law

You mean where he assumed guilt for the homeowner and not for the burglar pre-trial? Under what part of US law is unequal treatment allowed?

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Now quit being evasive and back up your claims that you can gun down 7 year olds for walking onto your yard and get away with it per the castle doctrine.

It's based on my interpretation of the relevant statutes, some of which allow the defense of any place which the shooter is entitled to occupy (which would include the drive way and the front lawn).

Originally Posted by Mathguy

You posted a link to a murder on public and claimed it was an example of the Castle Doctrine.

That's the defense that will be invoked in that case. And, depending on the background of the victims, it may very well succeed.

Originally Posted by Mathguy

P.S. It also generally requires some sort of imminent threat.

Actually, no. It only requires a "reasonable belief" that there is an imminent threat. This, of course, makes it more subjective. Since it is the jury that gets to decide whether the shooter's belief of imminent threat was "reasonable", it will come down to whether the act of shooting a trespassing child is in line with how the neighbors feel about such trespasses. Frankly, just looking at this site and seeing how many people believe it's acceptable, even commendable, to take life in defense of property, I am not optimistic.

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Probably the worst example of the castle doctrine is when 2 guys rang the wrong door for a party and the homeowner shot them. I personally feel the guy should have done time in that case...but probably got a pass due to local sentiment etc.

Exactly -- the local sentiment is what I'm talking about.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Redisca

It's based on my interpretation of the relevant statutes, some of which allow the defense of any place which the shooter is entitled to occupy (which would include the drive way and the front lawn).

That's the defense that will be invoked in that case. And, depending on the background of the victims, it may very well succeed.

Actually, no. It only requires a "reasonable belief" that there is an imminent threat. This, of course, makes it more subjective. Since it is the jury that gets to decide whether the shooter's belief of imminent threat was "reasonable", it will come down to whether the act of shooting a trespassing child is in line with how the neighbors feel about such trespasses. Frankly, just looking at this site and seeing how many people believe it's acceptable, even commendable, to take life in defense of property, I am not optimistic.

Exactly -- the local sentiment is what I'm talking about.

Fair enough.

I just think that while the Castle Doctrine is a *potential* defense, I have RARELY seen it used successfully. Many of the scenarios flying around are just hyperbole and there is no way in heck anyone would ever get away with gunning down some gradeschooler that walked into your yard after a ball.

As for the story you linked, even if they'd pulled into the couples driveway to turn around that coupled would absolutely still go to jail and we all know it. As it stands, they are as close to being able to using a Castle Doctrine defense as I am to being the next pope.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Redisca

It's based on my interpretation of the relevant statutes, some of which allow the defense of any place which the shooter is entitled to occupy (which would include the drive way and the front lawn).

My reading of the castle doctrine statutes suggests that it needs to be an interior space, including such as a tent or a car, and a place of human occupancy, as opposed to a storage shed or the like.

[Nevar242]

While the home owner may have over reacted just a bit, he should have been given a pass.
Hey any of you left wing libs tell you don't want to protect your family.
PS, all the perp would get is a slap on the hand .
He needs to be taugh why not to enter that house again. Bet he remembers and goes to a lib ass licking home next time
Hope it is not one of your homes when they let him skate .

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Nevar242

While the home owner may have over reacted just a bit, he should have been given a pass. .

What about the medal?

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by Nevar242

Hey any of you left wing libs tell you don't want to protect your family.

Again -- since the perp had been caught and restrained at the time he was kicked in the face -- what exactly was the homeowner protecting his family from?

Originally Posted by Nevar242

He needs to be taugh why not to enter that house again. Bet he remembers and goes to a lib ass licking home next time

The laws which make revenge illegal don't exist for the benefit of burglars and low-lives. They exist for the benefit of law-abiding citizens. Letting the low-lives off from time to time is the price we pay as a society to keep the law enforcement -- and our neighbors -- on a short leash. Permit vigilante justice in one instance, and the next time it is administered, the circumstances won't be as clear-cut. And things go down that path, you better pray some dude with a gun won't find some fault with you.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Nevar242

While the home owner may have over reacted just a bit, he should have been given a pass.
Hey any of you left wing libs tell you don't want to protect your family.
PS, all the perp would get is a slap on the hand .
He needs to be taugh why not to enter that house again. Bet he remembers and goes to a lib ass licking home next time
Hope it is not one of your homes when they let him skate .

This is great debates, not political.
What does this have to do with libs etc?
If I wanted to read incoherent rants in 3rd grade english, aimed at random groups I would go to the political section or whatever bar that apparently has wifi in your area.

[aveojohn]

Cops should a overlooked it.