|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Castle Doctrine | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I meant initial danger, like for your life. If I'm in there for your TV your life isn't at risk. But you're acting like its no biggie... you just there for the TV, its not immediately threatening people with certain death so getting shot isn't warranted. Well, it is a biggie. And there's people like me who will shoot you. I'm not going to let it get to the point of me thinking that I'm about to die. You simply being there committing a felony is enough for me to start shooting (with the assumptions in my plan). If you're on the ground, or running away, then I'm not gonna shoot you in the back or while your unaware of me. But just because I'm not about to die is not a reason that I'm going to not protect myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
So, what constitutes "wanton misconduct"? Shooting into the darkness because you think you're in danger? My point here is that the average castle-defender isn't able to make good shooting decisions in the best of conditions, never mind in the dark when he's half asleep. Well in my state its restricted by "willful or wanton misconduct" I mentioned earlier in the thread that I know a lot of people who own guns but I don't know a single one that would consider having a loaded gun in the house with his children. They know that's more of a danger to their children than any intruder. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes, that is why I'm making the person aware that I am there and that I have a gun. And that is why I will identify my target before I shoot.
If they aren't going to run away and I've identified the target as someone I feel justified in shooting, then that's what I'm going to do. I'm not going to wait until I'm about to die.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Answering questions with questions? Me no likey... Oh, I'm sorry that simple questions make your positions look so insane, but that's because they are.
Should someone die for trespassing? No one should ever die for any reason. I'd like people to stop dying from jumping off of bridges, but our bodies are not immortal and they will frequently die from sufficient application of force - like the force exerted by the ground against your accelerated body, or by the necessary and legal force a homeowner had the right to use to lawfully remove you from a place you broke into and entered.
If the intentions are unknown and their capabilities are unknown, then it logically follows that the physical risk is unknown too. No, because unknown intentions and capability are inherently risky. The risk is not unknown at all.
Draw your gun, stop the intruder in their tracks and call the cops...why not that? Why shoot? I couldn't say. That's a judgement that only the person in that exact situation can make. We can't make it in the hypothetical. Shooting may be the right thing to do. It may be the wrong thing to do. A resident has the right to use force to repel an intruder. Whether they must use force is a question only they can decide.
Also, how are you at risk with a trespasser? Because there's a trespasser putting me and other residents at risk. Do you not understand the concept of "risk"?
In that scenario no one is at risk, there's just been an innocent mistake. There is abundant risk, because someone is engaged in an illegal act in someone else's residence, which puts the residents at risk. Drunk persons, because of their impaired judgement, present a physical risk to those around them. That's why so many people are injured in proximity to bars.
So... Should someone die for trespassing? Should they? Nobody should ever die for any reason. Will they? It's a strong possibility, because people are not immortal.
But your agrument is that it IS. That's not my argument at all, and I challenge you to find even a single statement where I've said anything of the kind.
you then proceed to fire at them which made YOU the judge, jury and executioner. Not at all. They've not been apprehended, tried, and executed; they've died as the result of the application of force meant to bring a risky situation - that they instigated - to a safe and immediate end for the benefit of the legal residents of that home.
Semantics... Semantics is the study of meaning, so if you mean to say that what I mean and what you mean are two different things, then yes I completely agree.
A quick and safe end is, stopping the intuder from advancing on you, locking yourself in your room and calling the cops. But objectively that's neither quick - you have to wait for the police; safe - he broke into your house, he could just as easily break into your room, and the strongest doors in a home are the exterior ones; or an end - he's still there, engaged in a crime right in your living room. You haven't brought the situation to a close at all.
What you're advocating is taking the law into your own hands, letting untrained and inexperienced civilians be judge, jury and executioner. I'm not and have never advocated that position. And the law is quite clear - residents of a home have the right to use force to expel unwanted intruders. And that's the sensible position - lawful residents of a home shouldn't be the ones expected to bear the physical risks and consequences of another's illegal activity. People who engage in crimes are the ones who should bear those risks, not anybody else. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So, what constitutes "wanton misconduct"? Shooting into the darkness because you think you're in danger? I'd count that. You should identify your target before you shoot.
My point here is that the average castle-defender isn't able to make good shooting decisions in the best of conditions, never mind in the dark when he's half asleep. What are you basing that on? I think I'd do fine. Good decisions aren't that hard if you follow simple gun safety rules. Don't point it at anything you don't want to shoot. Identify your target. etc. Announcing your intentions helps too. I don't think its as bad as you seem to.
I mentioned earlier in the thread that I know a lot of people who own guns but I don't know a single one that would consider having a loaded gun in the house with his children. They know that's more of a danger to their children than any intruder. I don't have children. What do you mean by "loaded"? I have two clips full of bullets in the case sitting beside the gun, but not in the gun. Is that "loaded"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Well, it is a biggie. And there's people like me who will shoot you. I never thought otherwise, but it doesn't make it right.
You simply being there committing a felony is enough for me to start shooting (with the assumptions in my plan). And that, in many cases, will make YOU the criminal. Not because I say so, because our judicial system works like that. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That must be one amazing microwave! No, but it's his, and the law gives him the right to use necessary force to protect his possessions. It's tragic that someone may die as a result of the use of that force, but it's tragic when people jump off bridges and die as a result, too.
Agreed, but once you have established that you and your peoples are protected, the next step is to allow cops to do their job. If the person is still in your home, refusing to leave, and helping themselves to your things, you're not protected. You're being victimized, the exact fucking opposite of protected. The situation has not been brought to a quick and safe end because the situation has not yet ended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My point here is that the average castle-defender isn't able to make good shooting decisions in the best of conditions Um, no, completely backwards. The "average castle-defender" makes exactly the right decision potentially millions of times every year, when they don't shoot people who shouldn't be shot at, and shoot people who should. Human judgement is not universally perfect among all known individuals but that's not an applicable or even reasonable standard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
And yet you've been shown in this very thread that trained police officers can't do it reliably, in broad daylight.
I think I'd do fine. Good decisions aren't that hard if you follow simple gun safety rules. Don't point it at anything you don't want to shoot. Identify your target. etc. Catholic Scientist writes:
For the average well-informed five-year-old, I'd say yes. What do you mean by "loaded"? I have two clips full of bullets in the case sitting beside the gun, but not in the gun. Is that "loaded"? As I said earlier in the thread, though crashfrog disagreed, the intruder has most of the advantages. The only way you can even the odds a little is by being a greater danger than he is to the innocent bystanders. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
Sure it is. The greater the potential consequences, the nearer to perfection our behaviour has to be. Killing a human being for threatening your microwave doesn't come anywhere near the level of a "good decision". Human judgement is not universally perfect among all known individuals but that's not an applicable or even reasonable standard. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And yet you've been shown in this very thread that trained police officers can't do it reliably, in broad daylight. I don't know what you're referring to. Trained police officers can't reliably make good shooting decisions? I find that hard to believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3692 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
Hello Onifre,
onifre writes: And that, in many cases, will make YOU the criminal. Not because I say so, because our judicial system works like that I live in Texas and by their laws, CS would not be the criminal.
Texas castle doctrine writes: SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. In this case the mere act of robbery is enough to justify the use of deadly force. Doesn't make it right, but it does make it legal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
No one should ever die for any reason. I'd like people to stop dying from jumping off of bridges, but our bodies are not immortal and they will frequently die from sufficient application of force - like the force exerted by the ground against your accelerated body, or by the necessary and legal force a homeowner had the right to use to lawfully remove you from a place you broke into and entered. Do you think trespassing is a crime for which someone should be shot over?
No, because unknown intentions and capability are inherently risky. Risky? Yes. But the PHYSICAL risk is unknown. Which is how you originally worded it.
Because there's a trespasser putting me and other residents at risk. Do you not understand the concept of "risk"?
I do, but you have now chosen to exclude the use of the word "physical" risk. How, how is a trespasser putting you at physical risk - that is the question. You have only determined that someone is trespassing, their intentions are unknown - so, how are you and other residents at risk of being physically hurt?
Oni writes: So... Should someone die for trespassing?
CF writes: Should they? Nobody should ever die for any reason. Will they? It's a strong possibility, because people are not immortal. Dude, why are you being an asshole about this? Just answer the question straight up, I'm not gonna say "Ah ha! I got you!" Or pull out some other angle. Is traspassing a legit reason to kill someone? I personally don't think so, because there could be reasons, non-threatening reasons, why they've trespassed. I think before shooting, it would be best to determine their intent a little better. Granted, without putting yourself at risk. Determine their intent with cuation, like, by pointing a loaded gun at them. Do you diagree? If so why, if not, cool. We would agree.
Not at all. They've not been apprehended, tried, and executed; they've died as the result of the application of force meant to bring a risky situation - that they instigated - to a safe and immediate end for the benefit of the legal residents of that home. So is it your position that someone trespassing, who's intent is unknown, has placed you in physical risk? How?
And the law is quite clear - residents of a home have the right to use force to expel unwanted intruders. The Castle Doctrine says that, but that is not the case for every state. In some states, and look at CS's link, you need to be in danger of death or great physical harm. Someone trespassing doesn't put you in either of those two situations.
People who engage in crimes are the ones who should bear those risks, not anybody else. Agreed. But I don't write laws, and in some states shooting someone for simply trespassing, or for taking your microwave, however awesome it is, will get your ass thrown in jail. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Oni writes: That must be one amazing microwave!
CF writes: No, but it's his, and the law gives him the right to use necessary force to protect his possessions. Not in his state. He would be fucked, maybe go to jail, just for a fucking microwave, which apparently now isn't that awesome.
If the person is still in your home, refusing to leave, and helping themselves to your things, you're not protected. Your life is NOT in danger. In some states you have to be at risk of death or great physical harm, someone stealing a microwave isn't putting you in that situation. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
This is what I'm refering to. Here's a line from the article that you may also have forgetten:
ringo writes:
I don't know what you're referring to. And yet you've been shown in this very thread that trained police officers can't do it reliably, in broad daylight. quote: Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024