Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,489 Year: 6,746/9,624 Month: 86/238 Week: 3/83 Day: 3/24 Hour: 0/3


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Castle Doctrine

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Castle Doctrine
ringo
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 391 of 453 (575671)
08-20-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by New Cat's Eye
08-20-2010 12:13 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Just because other people are idiots doesn't me we have to be ones too.
But doesn't it make you uncomfortable having the idiots on your side?
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't see where you've explicitly explained your position on the Castle Doctrine.
To be explicit, people need protection from gun-toting homeowners too. The principle of "if you think your life is in danger" is far too loose. Why not just let the courts decide if the homeowner reacted appropriately, like we do in civilized countries?
The Castle Doctrine tends to encourage the idiots who think they're Dirty Harry. Legislation that encourages idiots is generally a bad idea. To quote the redoubtable Admin, "Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-20-2010 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 7:20 PM ringo has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 392 of 453 (575673)
08-20-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by ringo
08-20-2010 7:10 PM


But doesn't it make you uncomfortable having the idiots on your side?
You think there aren't gun control idiots, too?
To be explicit, people need protection from gun-toting homeowners too.
They can protect themselves by not breaking into the homes of those people to commit felonies.
The principle of "if you think your life is in danger" is far too loose.
What other principle is there? Who else's mind are you supposed to think with, if not your own? Straggler couldn't say. Can you?
Why not just let the courts decide if the homeowner reacted appropriately, like we do in civilized countries?
If you think one untrained individual can't be trusted to discern when someone's life is really at risk, why do you think twelve of them will be able to?
The Castle Doctrine tends to encourage the idiots who think they're Dirty Harry.
Maybe it does. Since the Castle Doctrine applies only to homes, people who don't want to get shot by Dirty Harry wannabes can protect themselves by not breaking into their homes and committing crimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 7:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 7:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 393 of 453 (575682)
08-20-2010 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by crashfrog
08-20-2010 7:20 PM


crashfrog writes:
You think there aren't gun control idiots, too?
You can stop kicking that poor strawman any time. Nobody's talking about gun control.
crashfrog writes:
What other principle is there? Who else's mind are you supposed to think with, if not your own? Straggler couldn't say. Can you?
Of course I can and I think I have. We live in a society and to a certain extent, we think with a social mind. Society decides what force is appropriate to use in a given situation and society enforces that decision through the courts. What the Castle Doctrine does is take that decision away from society.
crashfrog writes:
If you think one untrained individual can't be trusted to discern when someone's life is really at risk, why do you think twelve of them will be able to?
They're twelve times more likely to, right off the bat, and they're not making the decision half-asleep and in the dark and the decision isn't a matter of life and death for them personally. So yes, I think they're more likely to make an objective decision, better for society as a whole.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 7:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 8:21 PM ringo has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 394 of 453 (575691)
08-20-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by ringo
08-20-2010 7:46 PM


Society decides what force is appropriate to use in a given situation and society enforces that decision through the courts. What the Castle Doctrine does is take that decision away from society.
The Castle Doctrine is society's decision on the use of force. Individuals don't enact the Castle Doctrine, societies do. It's not like you can just assert "Castle Doctrine" after shooting someone and get off scot-free; the Castle Doctrine merely clarifies what circumstances are appropriate for justified force, which is rarely a matter for courts in the first place.
If you have a problem with justice decisions being made outside the courtroom, then the problem you have is with prosecutorial discretion, not the Castle Doctrine. But be advised, we give prosecutors discretion over which cases to bring before the court because the court can only hear so many cases.
They're twelve times more likely to
Or twelve times less likely to. I can make up math, too!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 7:46 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 9:51 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 404 by xongsmith, posted 08-21-2010 1:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 395 of 453 (575725)
08-20-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by crashfrog
08-20-2010 8:21 PM


crashfrog writes:
The Castle Doctrine is society's decision on the use of force.
It's a decision not to make a decision. It's the equivalent of letting people drive where they decide when they decide instead of having society make decisions about rules of the road.
The main objection I have to the Castle Doctrine is that it's an exception to the way society usually handles itself.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 8:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 10:01 PM ringo has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 396 of 453 (575728)
08-20-2010 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by ringo
08-20-2010 9:51 PM


The main objection I have to the Castle Doctrine is that it's an exception to the way society usually handles itself.
I don't think it is at all. Society has never, under any circumstances, said "you need to check with the rest of us before you can make decisions in an extreme situation." The Castle Doctrine is simply the recognition not that people don't have to defer to society's judgment about their self-defense issues, but that they simply can't defer to them, because they're not available at the time.
When someone's coming at you with a weapon, there's simply no time to empanel a grand jury and have them arrive at a decision about whether force is justified. Preventing someone from using force to repel an attacker means that person suffers injury or death, and that's not fair at all - the person who was following the law shouldn't be the one who bears the physical burden of another's choice to engage in criminality.
And, sure, I know you say that you're not talking about opposing self-defense. But the standard you espouse indisputably is an obstacle to people defending themselves from attackers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 9:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 10:16 PM crashfrog has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 397 of 453 (575735)
08-20-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by crashfrog
08-20-2010 10:01 PM


crashfrog writes:
Society has never, under any circumstances, said "you need to check with the rest of us before you can make decisions in an extreme situation."
We're not talking about what happens before the fact. We're talking about what society does after a dead body is found in your living room with your bullets in it. I'm just saying that we should investigate it like any other homicide and decide whether you were justified in shooting. The Castle Doctrine limits or eliminates that investigation in favour of the shooter's claim.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 10:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 10:26 PM ringo has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 398 of 453 (575740)
08-20-2010 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by ringo
08-20-2010 10:16 PM


The Castle Doctrine limits or eliminates that investigation in favour of the shooter's claim.
No, it doesn't. It clarifies the circumstances under which force is justified, and that's all it does.
If you murder someone in your house you don't get to simply claim "Castle Doctrine!" and walk away from it. What happened in the Peairs' trial for the murder of Yoshihiro Hattori wasn't the fair application of the Castle Doctrine, it was anti-Asian racism by a jury from Louisiana. The subsequent trial (and conviction) of Todd Vriesenga for almost the exact same circumstances makes that pretty clear.
You can still go to trial for homicide in states that have the Castle Doctrine; otherwise why would the Peairs' even have been on trial?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 10:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 10:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 399 of 453 (575744)
08-20-2010 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by crashfrog
08-20-2010 10:26 PM


crashfrog writes:
It clarifies the circumstances under which force is justified, and that's all it does.
How familiar is the average homeowner likely to be with that "clarification"? How does he know before the fact whether he's justified in shooting in his particular jurisdiction in a particular set of circumstances? Isn't he more likely to just have an "I have the right to defend myself" mindset with no legal niceties at all?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 10:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:46 AM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 400 of 453 (575774)
08-21-2010 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by New Cat's Eye
08-20-2010 12:13 PM


Songtime - Cath And Frog Sittin In Their Tree...
Cath and Frog
Sittin in a tree
Planning their next shooting spree
Both of them are locked and loaded
Crash never been quite the same since his tampon exploded (Message 383)
Now someones at the door. Things get tense
Crash says "I believe that fucker will commit an offence"
Down from the tree
Pants around their knees
"Let's both shoot on the count of three"
Crash has an Uzi. Cath has a gat.
The fucker at the door finds the key under the mat.
Lets himself in
Moments later there is a "Ping!!"
"My microwave!" growls Cath - His head in a raging spin.
Slowly they approach
Quiet as a roach
Then Straggler appears
With headphones on his ears
Munching warm popcorn without any fears
He just popped round to say hi to the guys
Return a book and leave them one of his pies
But his back is to the door. Recognition is poor.
"Hands up and on the floor"
Cath shouts his warning
Strags just keeps yawning
"Hands up and on your knees"
But Strags can hear only Public Enemy
A one. A two. A one two three.
That precious microwave will be the last thing he ever sees
BANG BANG
Cath and Frog
Back in their tree
Killed poor Strags and got off Scott free
Oni at the funeral lays a wreath
Curse that law and adios to me
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-20-2010 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:47 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 408 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 12:22 PM Straggler has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 401 of 453 (575777)
08-21-2010 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by ringo
08-20-2010 10:39 PM


How does he know before the fact whether he's justified in shooting in his particular jurisdiction in a particular set of circumstances?
Nobody knows before the fact, which is why I'm an opponent to efforts (like yours) to put restrictions on people before the fact.
People in life-threatening situations deserve a wide latitude, particularly when they didn't choose to be there. People who choose to put themselves in those situations, like police, deserve a much smaller latitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 10:39 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by ringo, posted 08-21-2010 1:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 402 of 453 (575778)
08-21-2010 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Straggler
08-21-2010 2:38 AM


Re: Songtime - Cath And Frog Sittin In Their Tree...
I don't own any firearms at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Straggler, posted 08-21-2010 2:38 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Straggler, posted 08-21-2010 3:53 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 403 of 453 (575795)
08-21-2010 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by crashfrog
08-21-2010 2:47 AM


Re: Songtime - Cath And Frog Sittin In Their Tree...
I know.
Have you ever heard of artistic license?
C'mon - Don't be such humourless gimp.
If you don't like my little ditty you don't have to read it.
(**Strags huffs off testily**)
ABE - I notice that whilst you were keen to point out your lack of a gun you didn't make any effort to deny a budding tree based romance with CS. Hmmm.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:39 PM Straggler has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2620
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


(1)
(1)
Message 404 of 453 (575861)
08-21-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by crashfrog
08-20-2010 8:21 PM


Crashfrog says:
Ringo says:
They're twelve times more likely to
Or twelve times less likely to. I can make up math, too!
Statistically, a sample size of 12 is sqrt(12) better than a sample size of 1. Or, if you wish to be even more pedantic, sqrt(n-1) for some of these sorts of samples. What we are talking about here is Error and the standard deviation of a sample mean.
The Standard Error for 12 is equal to ~0.2887 the size of a sample of 1.
I'd be voting for the smaller error, myself. Ringo is far closer to the point.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 8:21 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 405 of 453 (575863)
08-21-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by crashfrog
08-21-2010 2:46 AM


crashfrog writes:
ringo writes:
How does he know before the fact whether he's justified in shooting in his particular jurisdiction in a particular set of circumstances?
Nobody knows before the fact, which is why I'm an opponent to efforts (like yours) to put restrictions on people before the fact.
That's still a strawman. I haven't said a word about putting restrictions on anybody. I want everybody who shoots somebody to be treated equally.
I'm saying that a Castle Doctrine can give the homeowner a false impression. He may think he has a wide latitude that he doesn't really have, which may lead to bad shooting decisions. He'd be better off without a Castle Doctrine, believing that he will be charged if he shoots.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024