Castle Doctrine

I will tell you to be quiet, yes I will. It is clear that you are one who would only ADD to the problems with violence in our society.

Oh yeah, you may not shut the hell up, I know; I'm just telling YOU exactly how I feel about your FEEBLE mindset. And yes, in light of what just went down in Florida... INTEND to be blatantly intolerant of the kinds of things you expressed.

Subsequent posts (since I told you to shut the hell up), reflect more sound thinking than you illustrated in the actual meaning of your words. I mean it, and I'm going to PUSH the notion (not just with you, but with everyone on every level I'm capable of).

I believe in self-defense. I surely do. But what you and others are generally advocating, is license to KILL and virtually no accountability for the same.

 

This is the essence of the 'proper' overall solution.

 

If you come into my home uninvited I am going to respond with deadly force.

It's nice that the law is on my side.

Yelling "STOP!" may prove ineffective. I have no problem with people defending their property with deadly force. Though it seems it would be difficult to show that the individual was in fact breaking into your car. If the individual is inside your car when shot, there shouldn't be any issue there.

If there was no question that the criminal was in fact breaking into your car or stealing from you, the use of deadly force should be perfectly legal.

 

Precisely. Two different laws.

~~~~~~~~

I support Castle Laws.

 

If you oppose the Castle Doctrine, then simply refrain from breaking into peoples homes.

The law will not effect you, problem solved.

 

I believe OP should have made a thread about the "Stand your ground" doctrine.

 

He is under no obligation to listen to the 911 operator. The 911 operator has no authority whatsoever.

How do you know he had no reason to suspect a crime? What if last week he'd seen someone breaking into a house? What if the teen was in fact acting suspiciously. You have no idea, you weren't there and haven't conducted any kind of investigation.

He was part of the neighborhood watch. Part of his responsibility is to protect his own and other people's property. Most state laws have ordinances whereby an individual is allowed to protect another person's property with their consent. Neighborhood watch presumably gives that consent. In America it isn't illegal to confront someone if you're not a Police officer.

So you think that the Police were trying to cover the incident up? They probably didn't want it to become blown out of proportion until an investigation had been carried out. What did the tapes reveal by the way? From understanding, nothing. No racial slurs or anything. Now that idiot Al Sharpton is all over the case trying to turn it into a racial thing. The suspect is reportedly Hispanic too which probably doesn't fit into Al's agenda too well.

1)This guy could have been entirely justified in shooting this teenager.

2)This guy could have committed manslaughter or 3rd degree murder when a fight turned into a shooting.

3)This guy could have simply shot this guy because he seemed suspicious without any racial motivation.

4)This guy could have shot the teenager in cold blood BECAUSE he was black.

5) This guy could have been suspicious of the teenager because he stereotyped and thought a black teenager was more likely to commit a crime. He could have confronted the teen without any intention of shooting him and then the incident escalated into a shooting. Would that make it a hate crime? How could you ever determine his motives for approaching the teenager originally?

I see these as the 5 possible outcomes. No one really knows what happened yet. The media is flocking to it because of the race issue which is very sad. Is every interracial murder a hate crime? Can't there be a dozen other reasons for murder?

 

"Stand your ground" is considered part of the so-called "Castle doctrine" stemming from 17th century English law. It has many different manifestations.

 

The OLD WEST was a pretty safe and law abiding place, far more so than todays world.

 

I guess they figure that if the criminals get away with the loot they will be happy, use the money to better themselves, and then become a productive member of society. And home invasion is not a gateway drug, it is not likely that the guy who gets away with one crime will decide to do others when a nice piece of tail is found sleeping alone.

"In her review last year of how rape cases are handled, Baroness Vivien Stern criticised the repeated use of a figure suggesting that only 6% of rapes lead to convictions. Statistics show that a majority of rape prosecutions result in a conviction." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14844985

 

Is my garden in my house? Did I not clearly state "more to the point IN MY HOUSE"?

 

I have a proportionality issue with that. What you are saying is that a property crime should have the death penalty as a punishment. They don't even do that in Iran! One of the hallmarks of a real justice system is that the punishment fit the crime. Death for stealing a GPS unit is clearly taking things too far.

 

if you need to run away you certainly do not have the right to life or property since that involves protecting it.

people are finally discovering that they have been screwed.

the gub wants to take control but yet when you sue them for not protecting you they win in court as they have no obligation to protect you.

blows that whole citizenship gig right out the window and most laws in most states right with it and shows are foolish and ill-informed the people are in this country to let it evolve in the first place.

let me be the first to say DUMMIES!

yes castle doctrine is a requirement if you want rights and protection.

 

Except that the hood was using the watch to guard the castles. If the criminal breaches the walls of the castle, if the homeowner at night with sleepy eyes is that ready to defend it, they are just as likely to take out a member of the family getting a late night snack.

 

I voluntarily retract that statement because I was obviously confusing "castle doctrine" which I actually support with "stand your ground" which is just begging to be abused.

 

yeh imagine how many criminals will think twice before they break in and try to steal your stuff huh.

Like I said the police cannot protect you and you do have the right to protect your property by any means necessary.

that is not to say shoot first and ask questions later however.

 

True. But I think the punishment still needs to fit the crime. Otherwise you are essentially just arguing for anarchy. Self defense does not apply to GPS units.

 

Hmmm... I'd have to see some stats on that.

 

Nonsense. Safe?

The government does have an obligation to protect us; however, that obligation cannot be enforced through the courts. It is enforced through the political process.

 

It would not matter anyway because the Wild West had so few laws! When almost everything is legal you have fewer lawbreakers.

 

Castle Doctrine differs widely from state to state and often includes the "right to stand your ground"..i.e. if you're in a public place that you have a reasonable right to be in you aren't expected to run away from someone attacking you, you can "stand your ground" and defend your right to stand there.

 

Stand your ground mostly only makes it no longer a given that if you defend yourself you go to prison, or may be at the mercy of a jury that does not get it:

"Despite this, he bought a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver during a trip to Florida."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

The only thing that makes the law begging to be abused is the investigators and the prosecutors, and ignorance on the part of those who never back down that assumes it is a license to kill.

Without stand your ground for quite a long time it seemed people were not innocent until proven guilty:

"A summary of Goetz's statements to the police had become public two months after the incident, drawing intense media coverage. Probably most damaging to Goetz's public support and to his claim of acting in self-defense was his statement that he had said "You don't look so bad, here's another" before firing at Cabey a second time. Media concentration on the summary's more (*)(*)(*)(*)ing portions created a public mindset that a wounded Cabey was shot a second time, with the second shot taken in a premeditated and deliberate way — an impression that stood uncorrected until the criminal trial two years later.[18] Eleven years later, at least one city newspaper was still reporting as fact that Cabey was shot twice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz#Cabey_and_the_.22here.27s_another.22_issue

I think there are quite a few more people who have been abused, repeately, who did not stand their ground. And suspect quite a few more victims of crime by those who were never taken care of by victims the first time and second time...than these sensational cases amount to.

 

Except in the case of Joe Horn, he wasn't protecting himself or his possessions. He shot two men in the back while they were running away after they tried to break into his neighbors house.

That is vigilante justice. Horn should have gone to jail. He didn't though. The Castle Doctrine protected him. If that Castle Doctrine covers that, then I should be able to gun down anyone I want on my property whether they are a threat to me or not.

 

I think the shot, dead, person laying on my property should have to prove they had no malicious intent when entering my property.

 

I think the idiocy of your kind of thinking, is about to go not trial in America.

I'm certain Trayvon Martin's death will not be suffered in vain.