Summations Only

One's home is not one's person. And a lethal defense tends to leave someone dead. Where, then, is the melodrama?As for laws of nature, we do not live in a state of nature. I would refer you to the Peairs case. Yoshihiro Hattori had walked up his driveway and rung the doorbell. There was in fact some leeway to suppose that he was not a prospective felon. No, that's just exercising the right to self-defense, so long as only necessary force was used. Au contraire. The person who ends up dead seems to me to be more the victim of any encounter. Who is more the victim, Hattori, the unarmed teenager gunned down for ringing the wrong doorbell, or Peairs, who suffered the admitted indignity of having his doorbell rung?

Tadaaa — There is CS advocating his right to kill people for stealing his microwave. My assertion was that CS is claiming his right to kill people if he believes that they are going to steal his microwave. Which he clearly is.I don't think that is "reasonable force" or a "proportionate response" to the potential loss of a microwave. Do you? That’s rich. Did you actually read what CS wrote? Here it is again without those confusing blue boxes:CS Writes: The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.Breaking into a house and taking a microwave is a felony.Did you see the word microwave? And he certainly is advocating the death penalty in the Dirty Harry, killing in the name of the law, sense of the term. Is he advocating that the state apply lethal injection (or whatever) under subsection blah of article blah blah of the penal code for microwave theft? No. Who needs that when you can just kill people yourself anyway? But that isn’t the castle doctrine as being advocated here is it?If you genuinely have cause to believe yourself (or your family) to be in mortal danger then it is conceivable that lethal force could be justified as being reasonable force or a proportionate response. A judge and a jury will need to make that assessment based on the evidence available.But the castle doctrine as being advocated here by CS means that if you find someone climbing out of the window with your microwave you have the right to shoot them dead no questions asked.I have a problem with that. Don’t you?

Yes, and better him than you. Yes, we do. Non-sequitur. I could point to 3 million cases, like the BTK serial killer, where killing the intruder would have been a far better option than 7 innocent people dead versus 1 very bad one dead. What is your distinction when this gives people the right to self-defense? The Castle Doctrine does not give someone unlimited authority to kill people on sight of their property. It covers people who otherwise is committing justifiable homicide (justifiable, being the operative word) in lieu of an impending non-justifiable homicide. Killing someone for ringing your doorbell hardly qualifies, so it's a non-sequitur.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

So RAZD is a crazy person that is incapable of using statistics. I read the whole thread he participated in and found no issue with the stats. I wouldn't suggest you looking at them if I did not feel he reported them correctly.Instead of an assertion how about showing us how RAZD is crazy and how he incorrectly reported the statistics.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Aren't those stats just for murder?Weren't CF's stats for violent crime?

I would never kill someone for stealing my microwave. Shooting at someone is "deadly force". Shotting at someone is not "killing them".The force is not warranted because of the theft, its because they've broken into my house and are committing a felony. I think shooting someone who is retreating might count as misconduct so you might be wrong about that, but I dunno.However, according to My Plan, Message 66, I wouldn't shoot in this case.In Message 162, you wrote: Seriously? Do you honestly think you'd be in any danger at all? Do you think I'd shoot? Have you not read my plan?You'd have to be in my house, not responding to me, not leaving, and looking like you're gonna do something crazy (like a felony).Even if you happened to end up inside my house, I'm still there yelling at you to which you could respond: "Don't shoot, I'm leaving"Hot damn you've really spun this one!

Deadly force: An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. LinkDeadly force is justified if you believe that someone is going to take your microwave? I can only spin what you write. Message 122 and Message 139But I am delighted to hear that you are not actually the psychopath these posts would suggest.But I still won’t be approaching your house un-announced without removing my Ipod headphones first.Just in case.

It could be, yes.Depending on the situation, using deadly force could be misconduct, and no longer justified.Its not as black and white as you're making it... where "stealing microwave" = "justified death" You certainly can!Did you not see these lines?:

quote:

---

But seriously, it wouldn't be me killing someone for stealing a microwave in the first place.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't be "killing" them. I'd be shooting at them in defense of myself and property.

---

Or this one from Message 231:

quote:

---

I would never kill someone for stealing my microwave.

---

or this:

quote:

---

The force is not warranted because of the theft, its because they've broken into my house and are committing a felony.

---

Its nice to know that me having a gun makes people think twice about what there going to do to me or my property.And really, you shouldn't break into anybodys house here in America. You're way better off going to Canada where they don't want anybody to be able to defend themselves.

But you just said that 41 shots "doesn't indicate reticence" either, so which is it?Of course, firing 41 times at a target is the precise definition of "overcoming reticence". And that's only ten rounds per officer, hardly excessive or "panicky" in a situation where they're under fire. I don't recall how many officers responded. 20? 30? It was a significant shootout, as you can imagine, and had a profound effect on police response doctrine.

Necessary and reasonable force has to mean the force you actually have available. If you can't safely physically engage with the assailant, for lack of training or strength, and a gun is the only other option you have, then the gun is reasonable force. Sure, but they're the victim of their own criminality. That's literally and legally true; if someone dies during the commission of a felony, the criminal is guilty of murder. If they're the one who dies they murdered themselves. Strange but true.Your standard puts innocent home defenders in the position of worrying more about the safety of the criminal than the criminal is concerned about theirs. That's a standard that fundamentally shifts the physical burden and risk of crime onto its victims. That standard is literally insane. When people decide to engage in crimes like home invasion burglary they're the one who agrees to shoulder the potential consequences, which may include their death.Home invaders should fear for their lives when they contemplate breaking in to steal microwaves (or anything else.) Nobody has been able to convincingly argue why this is not the case. Whether or not a microwave is worth dying for is completely beyond the point. The principle that people shouldn't break into homes is what is worth dying for.

First you said it was justified. Message 122CS writes: "The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.

​

Breaking into a house and taking a microwave is a felony."Now you want to qualify that? Good I am glad to hear it. Well you made it sound pretty black and white here: Message 122CS writes: "The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.

​

Breaking into a house and taking a microwave is a felony."Like I say I am delighted to hear that you have changed your mind on this. Yes. Like visiting. I wasn't breaking into your house. I was visiting un-announced. With headphones on. Apparently all it requires is that you believe that I am going to commit a felony against you to justify deadly force. Message 139A felony such as stealing your microwave. Message 122Neither Canada nor anywhere else that I am aware of advocates a position where nobody can defend themselves."Reasonable force"
"Proportionate response"
etc.Which now you have qualified your previous responses it seems that you agree with? I should of course have taken into account your propensity for contradicting yourself.

Where? Be specific. Except that he's clearly not, like he said. Yes. Did you? Did you notice that in the material you quote it doesn't say "death penalty," "stealing," or "microwave", so it's quite difficult to interpret those remarks as being about the death penalty for stealing microwaves?As I said - why are you having such problems interpreting plain statements in English? For instance, why are you under the deluded notion that "deadly force" and "death penalty" are synonyms? But the judge and the jury aren't going to have access to the same evidence you arrived at to make your determination that reasonable force is justified. Plus, they're going to have access to evidence you didn't, which may have led you to re-assess the situation but wasn't available to you at the time. You can't call up the judge and jury in the middle of a home invasion and ask them to get back to you in a week with a ruling on reasonable force. You may not be alive to get the message.That's why the Castle Doctrine is so important; it endangers home defenders in crisis situations to expect them to use anything but their own judgement to determine what force is appropriate. The Castle Doctrine ensures that proper deference is given to home defenders who acted reasonably on the basis of what they could know then, in the middle of a situation where they may have been fighting for their lives. You have a right to detain someone with the threat of force if you catch them trying to flee your home while breaking the law. Any citizen has a right to detain lawbreakers. If someone resists a legal threat of force by continuing to engage in a felony or attacking you, reasonable force is called for.And remember the point you've ignored several times, now - reasonable force has to mean the force you have available. If you can't safely engage with your attacker unarmed, and the only other option you have is a firearm, then shooting the firearm is reasonable force, by definition. You can't be expected to taser a guy if you don't own and can't get a taser.

I see you'd rather just spin quote mines into contradictions.Have fun.ABE:by the way, msg 122 was just a paraphrase of the law I quoted earlier in response to oniEdited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Have a read of Message 122 and tell me what you think that is saying.Fortunately for us all CS has indeed now changed his position on this. As long as he keeps taking the pills I am sure that the psycho version of CS will remain submerged and we can all sleep safe in our beds at night.But I would still advise caution to anyone visiting CS's house unannounced Message 139Just in case.........

Keep taking those pills..........