|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Castle Doctrine | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But that's not really the "Castle Doctrine" as understood in the US --- it limits one to necessary force. I think "necessary force" is the standard in the US as well. But the law understands that a firearm is a lethal weapon. I'm no lawyer, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4258 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
The only other question would be to distinguish between levels of force for police and ordinary citizens. Supposing an intruder was unarmed and the homeowner was, if the intruder charged the homeowner, would they be able to justifiably shoot (stab or strike with a blunt object) the intruder? of course. the only time I am home is in the evening, and its dark then, I am not going to wait until "i see" that they have a weapon, I'll draw down with my glock, and send 10 hallow points, and reload and send 10 copper jacketed rounds if I have too. I'll justify a shooting when I see them, and I will have them in my sights before I say one word, now wether I shoot or not is hard to say, but I will be ready to shoot. I always keep two loaded 10 round magazines for my 9mm, and 10 rounds (7.62mm X 39)loaded for the carbine. If i go down I'm going down swinging (hopefully shootin).
In lieu of this, I feel that the homeowner, in the spirit of the Castle Doctrine, should be justified in firing upon the intruder, which, again, is only in direct reference with the subjects actions.
word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
I'll draw down with my glock, and send 10 hallow points, and reload and send 10 copper jacketed rounds if I have too... ...I always keep two loaded 10 round magazines for my 9mm, and 10 rounds (7.62mm X 39)loaded for the carbine. Are you certain that they will actually fire when they are that sticky?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
I searched a bit, but nothing resembling this came up in Dutch news sources. Though I don't doubt this could've happened. Though I think that the judge would've thrown out the case.
There are some crazy rulings in favor of thieves against law-abiding homeowners. I heard a rumor (not sure if it's actually true) where a man successfully sued a homeowner for falling through his skylight. Uhhhh, WTF were doing on his roof in the first place, that you'd have the audacity to sue him?
Yes, my thoughts exactly.
The judge should be disbarred from practicing law ever again, IMHO, for such a shitty ruling... Provided, of course, it's not an urban legend.
As far as I can tell, it is. I don't find our judges to be particularly stupid, even though the media might throw a tantrum from time to time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think "necessary force" is the standard in the US as well. If you look at Hyro's link to WP, some state laws say that lethal force is automatically justified if you suspect that an intruder intends to commit a felony (which would include burglary). This in effect makes it open season for killing intruders, whther or not this is "necessary force".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
of course. the only time I am home is in the evening, and its dark then, I am not going to wait until "i see" that they have a weapon, I'll draw down with my glock, and send 10 hallow points, and reload and send 10 copper jacketed rounds if I have too. Then you'll go to jail...with no guns...and lots of "intruders." - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Even if true, is there a problem with that?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are some crazy rulings in favor of thieves against law-abiding homeowners. I heard a rumor (not sure if it's actually true) where a man successfully sued a homeowner for falling through his skylight. Uhhhh, WTF were doing on his roof in the first place, that you'd have the audacity to sue him? I think you're thinking of the Ricky Bodine case. It was a school, and he was up on the roof to steal a floodlight. The case was settled out of court. There were special circumstances that led the school board to settle: the skylights had been painted over (with aluminum paint on an aluminum roof) and couldn't be recognized as skylights; the board were aware that students went up there for non-criminal purposes such as retrieving sports equipment; in spite of this they'd done nothing to make the skylights safe such as putting up barriers or warning signs; and a few months previously a student (on the roof for non-criminal purposes) had fallen to his death through a skylight in a neighboring school in the same school district. Now under these circumstances a lawyer could make the argument that, unlike a regular homeowner, the school board had neglected a duty to the public in general to make their roof safe --- a duty not nullified by the fact that the particular guy who ended up in a wheelchair had been up there to commit theft. Such an argument might just have swayed a jury, and so the school board decided not to roll the dice.
The judge should be disbarred from practicing law ever again, IMHO, for such a shitty ruling... Provided, of course, it's not an urban legend. It should be noted that if it the trial had gone all the way and Bodine had been awarded damages, that would have been a verdict, not a ruling, and it would have been down to the jury, not the judge. --- In summary, this particular case doesn't really reflect the general state of the law, either in the state of California where this took place, nor anywhere else. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Nah, just "see a gun." It works great, especially if you're white and the intruder was of color.
I don't think people should be shot willy-nilly, but, you know? I don't think people should feel like breaking into someone else's house doesn't put their lives at risk. And I kind of think the physical risks of engaging in crime should be borne by the criminals, not by the victims. And I think maintaining that principle is worth a few human lives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Even if true, is there a problem with that? Is there a problem with: (a) imposing the death penalty for crimes against property; (b) substituting suspicion for proof; (c) uniting in one person the office of plaintiff, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner? You know, I think there might be. And I think the parents of Yoshihiro Hattori might agree. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 378 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
This in effect makes it open season for killing intruders, whther or not this is "necessary force".
Even if true, is there a problem with that? Well I can think of a couple but I would say the main one is that it goes against the principle that any real justice requires that the details of the case be considered. Does a hungry man deserve to die because he tried to steal some of your food? On the other hand I find myself in agreement with Ted Nugent when he said something like "I dont need the state to tell me that I have the right to defend myself."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But none of those are applicable in the case of breaking into someones home.
It is not a property crime, it is an invasion. It is not substituting suspicion for proof, the person broke into someones home. It is not uniting in one person the office of plaintiff, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, it is protecting ones home. And yes, the parents of that kid did feel bad and I'm sure that even the person that shot the boy felt sad, BUT as happened in that case, the only crime committed was breaking into someones house. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dogmafood writes: Does a hungry man deserve to die because he tried to steal some of your food? But that is unrelated to the issue. No one says someone deserves to die for stealing food, no one even said anyone deserves to die. The question is whether or not you have a right to protect your home from invasion? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
If you look at Hyro's link to WP, some state laws say that lethal force is automatically justified if you suspect that an intruder intends to commit a felony (which would include burglary). This in effect makes it open season for killing intruders, whther or not this is "necessary force". You're right, some states essentially have a shoot-on-sight policy. I think Texas has really loose laws in this regard. My own personal opinion requires some discretion on the part of the homeowner, but obviously far less than with someone in law enforcement. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Well I can think of a couple but I would say the main one is that it goes against the principle that any real justice requires that the details of the case be considered. Does a hungry man deserve to die because he tried to steal some of your food? Well, to a degree you are right. But you also need to think about it in an actual context. Think of it from the homeowners perspective. The homeowner is going to have no clue as to the intentions of the intruder, particularly if they are armed, nor is he going to be provided time to figure it out. Surely the homeowner isn't going to invite the intruder to sit down and have a friggin' cup of tea with him to discuss what his victimizer's intentions are, so... yeah... I do agree that some discretion is advisable. I don't think you should be able to turn some guys head in to a canoe just because he simply poked his head through your window, but generally speaking, citizens have every conceivable right to protect themselves, their family, and their property. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024