Summations Only

That still isn't a crime against the person, is it? But the laws only allow lethal force if you suspect that they're there to commit a felony. What can I say but --- oh yes it is. That's exactly what it is. No, in that case the only crime committed was walking up someone's driveway and ringing his doorbell. But because Peairs suspected for no reason whatsoever that the kid might be going to commit a felony, he shot him and the law was on his side. Is that a good law?

I can't say whether the ruling (judgment/verdict) was right or not. The law seems fine to me.And breaking into someone else house is the crime, regardless of why someone breaks in.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If the intruder is armed their intention is obvious although it could be a police officer. I would also think that it would be important to determine what the actual intentions are before dispatching someone. Absolutely. That protection should not employ more than the minimum necessary force.Edited by Dogmafood, : I used the wrong words

Niceeee, the serious crashfrog has made an edgy joke. Well done, sir. In principle, I agree. But split-second decisions are not the best. Many trained law enforcement people have made the wrong choice and "though" they saw a gun, only to find out they shot, in many cases, an innocent person. In some cases it has even been a kid.So AE's point about shooting someone before you know whether they have a gun or not, is not a good way to react. And, in many cases, has landed the shooter in jail... where they get intruded, in the butt.- Oni

No, walking up a guy's driveway and ringing his doorbell was the crime. And being suspected of criminal intent without a shred of evidence.

I have said I don't know the specifics of the case and it could well be a miscarriage of justice as well as poor judgment.BUT, I still don't see the problem with the Castle doctrine.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That it legalizes Peair's actions, amongst other injustices.

I take your point about needless shootings. But, you know, I'm not sure that people who are intruding in someone else's home deserve to be afforded the extreme benefit of the doubt. There's a certain allowance to be made for the possibility of honest (or drunk) mistake, but it's violates the fundamental principle of not expecting the victims to shoulder the burden and risk of criminal decisions to expect a home defender to exercise excessive due diligence.Of course, people who exercise no diligence at all are just as bad and shouldn't own firearms.

I get that, and I do believe people should be allowed to protect themselves and their home/family/property. But shoot to kill without evidence of a weapon, I personally don't think I could.In fact, I'd rather unplug and hand someone my flat screen TV then have to shoot them in the chest and kill them over it. I would still have sympathy for an intruder (having been one once when I was about 17). People fuck up and make mistakes in their lives and they don't deserve to die over it.- Oni

Don't be so melodramatic. It isn't imposing a death sentence, it is protecting oneself, which is more a law of nature than it is an abstract, punitive concept. There's not a whole lot of leeway. If you are in someone else's home because you broke in, you aren't there as the welcoming committee. So by your rationale, if someone ran up to with a knife and you defended yourself, you are the judge, jury, and executioner, provided the assailant was killed in the process.You are turning the victim in to the victimizer, and the victimizer in to the victim. What a back assward concept.... er... ass backward concept. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

And how do you suppose to gather the intentions of your assailant? Ask them?Woman asks, "Are you here to rape me?!"Intruder replies, "No, of course not" (as he's slipping a condom on)Something tells me that someone willing to break in to your house might have no compunction with lying to you.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

English Common Law does allow for the use of force in protecting property as well as persons, or simply in preventing a crime. The concept was codified into statue law in the 1967 Criminal Justice Act:A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."So if someone tries to steal your TV, or invades your home, your entitled to use a reasonable level of force to stop them. You’re just forbidden from engaging in any punitive violence - only what is necessary to prevent the crime or protect yourself, others around you and your property.

I don't know that I could either, and I own no firearms so really I guess I can't.And, you know, I've had people open my front door and walk into my apartment by mistake. Obviously I didn't immediately leap up and gut them with a sword. If I thought that would be the safest, fastest resolution of the situation I would too. If I thought that the safest, fastest resolution of the situation was to attack with a weapon that's what I'd do. Ultimately what we're agreeing on is that the most important tool in personal defense isn't a firearm or training - it's your own ability to arrive at an accurate judgment about the tactical situation you're in. And you can't pre-judge something like that. Probably not. But if someone is going to die as a result of their mistake - which often happens when the "mistake" is aggressive, armed criminality directed at others - I would rather it was them. No offense.

I think I need to point out one thing that is a basic in every self defense class I know of.The goal, whether it is martial arts, shooting, knife fighting is NOT to kill someone, it is to stop the threat.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If you're given the special privilege of owning a firearm I think it's not at all unreasonable to also expect you to exercise additional diligence when deciding where you point that firearm before pulling the trigger.