Summations Only

... what if the things that we know for certain have happened happen?Oh, you missed that one off your list, maybe because you didn't make it up.

Then it was a tragedy?I mean, should we proverbially hang a guy because he accidentally shot someone?Have there been cases where gross misconduct got off scot-free?Are you talking about specific cases where the Castle Doctirne has been misapplied?Can you be more specific?

Hey ease up on the Queen man she has her own castle doctrine. I am a Canadian. I am authorized by law to protect my home and family by whatever means necessary. I own guns. I shoot them. They reside in a locked cabinet each with individual trigger locks. There are 350,000 people within 25 miles. Some of them look suspicious. A gun is quite literally the last thing I would reach for.Put the gun down...step out into the light.

What law? (out of curiosity) Of course. But when you do... its nice for it to be there. And its nice to be protected by a Castle Doctrine so that a criminal in your home doesn't have the error of the law on their side. As if anyone is promoting just shooting crazily?

I could be and I have. I have referred several times to the shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori by Rodney Peairs.To recap:Hattori, a sixteen-year old Japanese boy, and an American friend, Webb Haymaker, accidentally went to the wrong house and rang the doorbell. The door was opened by the property owner, Rodney Peairs. Peairs shot Hattori in cold blood, killing him. The law found Peairs guiltless because they had been on his property, namely his driveway, and Peairs suspected that Hattori was up to no good, or at least said that he did, which is all that the Castle Doctrine of Louisiana requires.This is a bad law.

I dont know, you will have to look it up. I was reading it the other day when you guys were talking about microwave stealing retards who posed a threat to your life. Even it didnt exist. I would still have the right to protect my home and family by whatever means necessary. What I said is a little misleading. Guns dont really play a part of my home defence plans as I dont really have any home defence plans. Please do not infer from this that I rely on the police for ANY measure of protection. This is more likely a result of not living in fear of those around me. If I were to use a gun to subdue an intruder it would most likely be theirs.I claim the right to defend myself regardless of the law but yeah, its nice to live in a society of reasonable people. Hmmm.

And yet it is the right to come out "gunz-blazin" without any fear of legal recourse if someone is needlessly killed which you are adamantly supporting here. It turns out that you personally are not a Dirty Harry wannabe psycho nut. But you are supporting a law which gives free-reign to those that are.That is the problem we have with this law.With AE I fear that even the pills will be of no use. In his case Electroshock treatment may be the only way forwards.

The Criminal Code of Canada recognizes a citizen's right to self-defense. However, the Firearms Act does not recognize self-defense as a valid reason to acquire a firearm. The Castle Doctrine doesn't seem to discourage people from just shooting crazily.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Your plan was to not wait and see if they had a gun, or were of any threat to you. Your plan was to unload 20 rounds on someone on your property, not knowing who the fuck it was or why they were there. That is a stupid plan, however, the Castle Doctrine will protect you. That is a stupid law. First, go fuck yourself, I understand the law just fine. I have NEVER said you or any other Virginia asshole isn't allowed to defend themselves, if you'd take the time to read and understand what the fuck I'm saying, you wouldn't make such stupid comments.The ONLY problem I have with the Castle Doctrine is that people are allowed to kill someone simply for suspecting them of a felony. That is not a good law. Fuck off, retard. I understand it just fine. The way you answered me was evasive. Instead of acknowledging it as an example, you took it literally.32 states allow you the right to shoot someone under suspicion of a felony. I don't own a gun, I have a big enough dick, but that doesn't mean I don't know how to read a law and understand it for what it is.Apparently owning a gun makes you a dumb fuck who can't keep up with a debate.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

That goes both ways. Yes, my point was to show that someone on your property or in your house wasn't positively, absolutely, 100% without a doubt there to hurt you or commit a felony, as you guys keep claiming.You didn't make any points after that, you just laughed it off. Ok, I didn't think it was funny but if you did, cool. But can you at least support your argument that every single person in your house is there to hurt you or commit a felony? Dude, YOU said you'd draw a loaded gun on someone. If they stopped moving but didn't leave you would then shoot them. Right? I asked why, you said because they may commit a felony. I asked, like steal a microwave? You said yes. You'd shoot them for suspecting them of going to steal your microwave.No one has put words in your mouth, and you and I usually keep things honest when we debate. If you are accusing me of making shit up about you then you need to re-read what YOU posted. Be straight up and say what you gotta say and save the silly faces for someone else.- Oni

So I took a look at the wiki page...It doesn't mention the Castle Doctrine specifically.This is what Peairs said about the situation:

quote:

---

At the trial, Peairs testified about the moment just prior to the shooting: "It was a person, coming from behind the car, moving real fast. At that point, I pointed the gun and hollered, 'Freeze!' The person kept coming toward me, moving very erratically. At that time, I hollered for him to stop. He didn't; he kept moving forward. I remember him laughing. I was scared to death. This person was not gonna stop, he was gonna do harm to me." Peairs testified that he shot Yoshi once in the chest when the youth was about five feet away. "I had no choice," he said. "I want Yoshi's parents to understand that I'm sorry for everything."

---

You're making it sound like it went: Ding-Dong Bang-Bang. And it doesn't sound like Peairs's blood was cold.It also says:

quote:

---

Peairs was acquitted under Louisiana's "Kill the burglar" statute.

---

I don't know if that is thier Castle Doctrine, or if its something else/additional.But the way AE was talking about Louisiana, they seem to have the loosest Castle Doctrine out there. I don't that makes every state's Castle Doctrine terrible.What Peairs did might have counted as 'misconduct' under Illinois Castle Doctrine, but I dunno.Further:

quote:

---

In a later civil action (95 0144 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/95), 662 So.2d 509), however, the court found Peairs liable to Hattori's parents for $650,000 in damages,

---

So Peairs didn't get off scot-free anyways. That particular case isn't convincing.

Not really. Under Illinois Castle Doctrine, you can still be wrong if you did any "misconduct". I think that's important to have in there. Yeah, you have a problem with what you think the law is, but you're wrong about it... You're arguing against a law that doesn't exist. People don't have "free-reign" without any legal recourse.

Indeed. I claimed that?I don't think I should have to wait until they're "positively, absolutely, 100% without a doubt there to hurt you or commit a felony". At that point, then they'd have the advantage. This is my house we're talking about here, I should be the one maintaining the advantage. If that means adding a little danger to those who are in my house uninvited, then so be it. I don't see any reason to. My position doesn't rely on that nor me knowing that for sure. No. I it totally depends on the situation. Hypotheticals are just too difficult to determine what I'd actually do.I wouldn't shoot someone in back, or someone really small, or old. But some big ass crazy eyed mofo might be taking one while he's not moving if I feel like it'd be the best thing to do. No, no, no. Not me. We were discussing the law and the justifications, not what I would be personally doing.And I'm not shooting them because they may commit a felony. Why do you guys alway omit the part about them having broken into my house!? Calm down. The deaf retard seem like quite the stretch to me... But I wasn't claiming that the person in my house had to be "positively, absolutely, 100% without a doubt there to hurt you or commit a felony" in the first place so it doesn't seem like it matters in the end.

OK. What constitutes "misconduct"? I am arguing against a law that allows you to intentionally shoot someone dead because they are on your property and you believe that they are going to steal your microwave (or whatever - let's not get too obsessed with microwaves)That is the law as you have described it to me. Can you intentionally kill people on your property legitimately with no more legal justification required than to say that you believed that they were going to steal something? No matter how inconsequential that item may be as long as it constitutes a felony.

I honestly don't know. Or are you just asking me my opinion? Well I see a difference between "justifying the use of deadly force" and "allowing intentionally shooting someone dead"... I'm not really sure.Its possible that the above could include some misconduct that would make it disallowed.And it'd sound better if you said:"Can you intentionally kill people use deadly force to defend yourself on your property legitimately with no more legal justification required than to say that you believed that they were going to steal something?"And still, I think it might depend on what made you believe they were going to steal something (as in whether it'd be misconduct or not)I doubt that "they were brown" would be a legitamate reason in court.