Summations Only

I think so, as long as there's no willful or wanton misconduct. More specific that directly quoting wiki on what the law says in the post that you just responded to? Did you not read it?Here it is again:

quote:

---

Illinois
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961
Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.
Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".

​

Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

---

I've already stated that I support the Castle Doctrine. Being justified doesn't mean I'm going to do it. I've outlined my plan in Message 66. I think I already linked you to that.Msg 122 isn't my only post in this thread... No, its not. I'm not sure how I can show that. I don't think I can help you.

If the result of every court case was known before the court case occurred we wouldn't need judges, juries or court cases at all now would we?That is a stupid question.

Do you agree that a law which allows you to use deadly force solely because you believe that someone will take your microwave is a poor law?Is this not what the "castle doctrine" as applied in your state stipulates?

So, you're agreeing that the home defender can't rely on the judgement of the judge and jury, he can only rely on his own judgement, during that situation, under law. As you allude to, the law doesn't allow judges and juries to rule on crimes that haven't happened yet.The law can't require you to do something that is illegal. Therefore you're admitting that laws that make it illegal to rely on your own judgement about whether or not someone is a threat to your safety are prima facie invalid.I think you have your answer.

Did you not see this in Message 251?:

quote:

---

Do you agree that a law which allows you to use deadly force solely because you believe that someone will take your microwave (as per Message 122) is a poor law?

That would be a poor law, but that is not what the Castle Doctrine says and that's not what I meant in msg 122.

---

Yes. For example, if we were standing on the street corner and you told me that you were going to steal my microwave then I shouldn't be justified in using deadly force to stop you right there. No, that's not what it says.Time to bring on the spin!

True. But many applications of the Castle Doctrine allow me to shoot him when it is not a case of me or him ending up dead. No we don't. To continue discussing the same example is hardly a non sequitur. It's more a sort of sequitur. Now that's a non sequitur, since I have never said one word against the right to self-defense. The term is self-evident. Self defense is defense of one's self --- one's person. But you are wrong. In many states the Castle Doctrine permits you to kill someone if (a) he is on your property (b) you think that he intended to commit a felony --- any felony. An "impending non-justifiable homicide" is not required. People do indeed have "unlimited authority to kill people on sight of their property", so long as they think (or say subsequently that they thought) the victim was up to no good.Peairs was found innocent, remember.

Fair enough. Though ideally one would warn him off first. Ringing a doorbell is not criminal. No. How much should you fear for your life when you ring a doorbell?

OK. So you do think that the castle doctrine as applied in your state makes it legally acceptable to use deadly force on the basis of believing that a microwave is going to be taken from your property.You also think that a law which allows the use of deadly force because you believe that someone will take your microwave (i.e. one who poses no other threat to you, your family, or your property) is a poor law.But you support and advocate the castle doctrine as applied in your state. Huh? And here is the law of the state of Illinois as supplied by CS previously (emphasis mine)

quote:

---

Illinois
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961
Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.

​

Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".

​

Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

---

So however you spin it you are advocating and supporting a law which makes it legally acceptable to kill someone based solely on the belief that they are going to take a microwave if they are on your property.NOT based on them being a mortal or physical threat. NOT even based on the belief that they are a physical threat of any sort. Based on the belief that they are going to steal your fucking microwave!!Keep taking the pills.........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

However you spin it you are advocating and supporting a law which makes it legally acceptable to kill someone on your property based solely on the belief that they are going to take a microwave from your property. As per the state law of Illinois as supplied by CS.NOT based on them being a mortal or physical threat. NOT even based on the belief that they are a physical threat of any sort. Based on the belief that they are going to steal your fucking microwave!!I think that is pretty screwed-up.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes, but someone in your home doesn't automatically make it a B/E. Your brother could be there, drunk, in the dark, disoriented. It could be an elderly person that walked into the wrong house, maybe you left your door unlocked. They are in the dark, frightened and here you come pointing a gun at them screaming that you'll shoot.I can describe a shitload of scenarios where there is no B/E happening, you can too. Being stubborn here doesn't help move the debate along. He could also be mistaken for many reasons and you may act in haste. Not every person in a home is there to commit a crime further than the suspected B/E, which in many cases may not evern be a B/E.I'm not saying you shouldn't approach the sutuation with caution, but there is no need for deadly force until it has been established that it is needed. An elderly person? A child? I'll give you that someone disoriented may be a threat, but not under the conditions I gave. In any case, you don't know why they're there - that's my point. You are clueless at the moment when you are surprised by someone. But there is no need to use deadly force until you can establish more. By all means use force to get them out, unless you identify them as someone who actually needs your help. In which case, there is again, no need to use deadly force. This is the first time either of us has claimed the intruder has a gun. You just pulled that out of your ass. However, if there is someone pointing a gun at you, you might want to do what they say and not ry to be Johnny Rambo. That's just advice, I haven't argued that someone with a gun is no threat so I have no clue what the fuck you're on about. I didn't say to believe it, I said there is a possibility that they are there for that reason, and until you can establish more about the situation other than there is a person in my house, deadly force doesn't need to be used. This doesn't mean you can't draw a loaded gun on them, by all means do that, but what need do they have to pull the trigger yet?Shouldn't that be the ultimate last resort? For fuck sake, YES, I get that. But not every state allows you the right to shoot if you suspect that the intruder will commit a felony. Only states who have adopted the Castle Doctrine allow you this. And not ever state has adopted it. Very good, I can read wikipedia too. But that wasn't why I refered to the Duty to Retreat law. I said not all states have adopted the Castle Doctrine, some have a Duty to Retreat law. That is all. I didn't mean, lets now discuss what Duty to Retreat means.- Oni

I have just realised the source of our miscommunication in this thread. WTF? Who anywhere, or at any point, in this thread has been talking about actions that take place anywhere other than on ones own property? Oh for heavens sake. You idiot. No. we are talking about the fact that the castle doctrine requires nothing more than your belief that someone found on your property is going to steal your precious microwave to give you the legal justification to blow their brains out. You blathering imbecile!! In a thread called "Castle Doctrine" did I really need to specify in every post that we were talking about actions taking place on ones property?I despair.....

Yes of course. But that's not to say that the judgement will be the best one, obviously. However, the Castle Doctrine runs the risk of someone acting in haste, making the decision to shoot and potentially kill somoene, without knowing the extent of the situation their in because it gives untrained, inexpereinced citizens the right to use deadly force when the only believe a felony, such as theft, will take place.Since people can have many reasons for impaired judgmement, and personal prejudice can effect the situation, it's not a good law to have. The way it was before, when you had to be in danger for your life or physical harm (which did NOT mean just because someone was in your house you were in danger for your life) was better because it forced some restraint on the home owner.Take the scenario I gave AE: He's out fishing and his boat capsized. He made his way onto land and happens to be on someone's property. Castle Doctrine says that the property owner can use deadly force if he thinks they're there to steal from him. And the best part is, he just has to tell the police, "Hey, they looked suspicious and I thought they were here to hurt me."Where as, before, the property owner didn't have that right. Sure, he could have pulled a gun on someone, asked them what the fuck they were doing on his property, did they know it was private, all that. But not shoot. We were never allowed that until now with the Castle Doctrine.Remember why we started this debate you and I. I commented to this statement from AE:
Message 32

quote:

---

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 said that could get you thrown in jail. Now, obviously, I meant in a situation where he just unloaded 20+ rounds on someone, say for example, who's boat capsized and they ended up on his property at night.To which you replied:

quote:

---

Nah, just "see a gun." It works great, especially if you're white and the intruder was of color.

---

You meant it as I joke, I think, but you can see how easy that situation can be quite real and not a joke at all. And we have the Castle Doctrine to thank for it.Face the facts, it's a shit law.- Oni

What is really uncalled for is even trying to explain gun rights and gun laws to people from Canada or the UK, or any Subjects to the House of Windsor. They can’t understand, and refuse to understand, just like I cannot understand why one would ever tolerate to have a Queen. I hear about being civilized and modern thought, all the while from people who live in a system of an ancient design like a monarchy. It’s quite hilarious. Who you (we) should be explaining this too, is the American libs, no one else really even matters. Who is being stubborn? It was plainly explained, you are the one with a ton of hypothetical situations trying to find an excuse that would not be fine for someone to defend themselves. The plan was fine, some people do not need the police to defend themselves. OMG when will it stop!?! The castle doctrine doesn’t cause anything. It is not an enabler. People are not droids that receive their programming from the legal system. I find such an opinion absolutely ludicrous.The 2nd amendment give individuals the right to own firearms, and the right to use them. Any citizen in America from 12/15/1791 — to the present day, who was threatened either by Amerindian, Bear, Wolf, Coyote, Burglars, Thieves, Home Intruders, etcetera and possessed a firearm could (and most would) use it in self defense of their person, property, and family. No matter how untrained and inexperienced.The Castle Doctrine is a law that protects Americans from legal action against them, when they were in their homes acting in self defense. In the past the castle doctrine was implied, because it is common sense, but in recent times as people got sued by the intruders they shot, or were singled out by liberal and overzealous state’s attorneys; a law (the castle doctrine) had to be created to preserve the age old idea and legislate common sense for those without it.It is unfortunate, but explaining common sense to a liberal about guns, is about as easy as teaching a monkey mathematics. Lol, you sound as knowledgeable on this subject as one of the Crown subjects. I clearly stated I would go to the Maryland side to exit the river instead of the Virginia side. Maryland has a form of the Castle Doctrine, while Virginia does not. Virginia is a duty to retreat state. Why would I go to the caste doctrine state? Because Maryland is a blue as Illinois, and Wisconsin, and much fewer residents in that state own firearms, because they are harder to own and transport. In Virginia almost everyone I know at least owns at least one firearm. I am never worried about the castle doctrine when I am trespassing on someone’s property, because the castle doctrine doesn’t enable or allow people to shoot at me. The 2nd amendment allows for that. If someone feels threatened or does not want you in their backyard and want to shoot at you they can and will, with or without the castle doctrine.
BTW I think only in Louisiana can the property owner legally shoot trespassers in the way I quoted you. And the best part is, you have no clue what you are talking about on this topic. In most cases we are still not allowed, we as lawful gun owners are just protected from assholes who do not want us to the have ability to defend ourselves. Not much has changed.
Before, no one would ever find your body, and everyone would wonder what happened to you. Now your family can grieve because you were killed, while committing a crime. Face the facts, it a great law, you just don’t understand it like most things on this topic. I would bet you don’t even own a firearm, and if you do, you have probably only shot it once or twice, though I would not be surprised if you have never shot it. Your assumptions and opinions are very similar (if not the same) as someone who has never shot or handled a firearm and wants to explain his/her take on them Edited by Artemis Entreri, : forgot to proofreadEdited by Artemis Entreri, : doh

I suspect if it made any practical difference more might take action against it. As things stand it is nothing much more than a decent method of fleecing gullible American tourists. You guys are suckers for it I suppose only those who have actually killed people should be allowed to make judgements on laws regarding killing people? In fact how can anyone possibly comment on the validity of murder laws unless they have a few murders under their belt themselves first huh? Why do you think that anywhere that hasn't implemented the castle doctrine denies you from protecting yourself? Do the phrases "reasonable force" and "proprtionate response" mean nothing to you? Heaven forbid that we should object to you having the right to kill kids on the basis that they might be stealing your apples without you facing any legal consequence!! What an outrageous violation of your rights!!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Its seems poeples' minds are made up beforehand and they're doing what they can to keep it that way.I think it says something about the weight of their arguments from the extent they have to go to reach their Reductio ad absurdum....what if its a deaf retard in your house?
...what if your boat capsizes and you have to crawl onto private property; they could just come out gunz blazin!
...what if its Spock who just got beamed up into your house, you wouldn't want to shoot him, would you!? Hear, hear!That is a really good point, actually.And further, it seems as if they think the existence of it is going to change "My Plan" from what it really is into me murdering people on microwave theft suspicion Granted, there are some situation where people have gotten overzealous and shot too early... and there's prolly plenty of the "I wish a motherfucker would" crowd out there, but I think it important to protect honest people who are protecting themselves. I don't see any reason to error on the side of the safety of criminals.Do you have a link to the history and/or emergence of Castle Doctrines? Are they so retroactive like that? I see Illinois was from 1961. The wiki page talks about English law. Don't bother doing homework for me, but if you know of something it'd be interesting. The arguments aren't so much about IF you can, but should it be justified...With the amount of wandering around in peoples' backyards that I did as a kid, I wouldn't appreciate the justification of running-out-gunz-blazin just becuase there's a person in your backyard. Although, if I had grown up in Texas, or Louisiana apparently, then I prolly would have been staying out of people's yards