Castle Doctrine

I'd rather people have the liberty to kill to protect their property than to be forced to stand by as victims.

You are free to simply stand by and not defend your property if you wish.

It most certainly will not. His death will be a reminder for all who choose to attack another. We are not a nation of victims. Americans legally can fight back.

 

Once again you are stepping over the line, don't ever tell my to shut up in any fashion, I did not do you the disrespect of such action so don't you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing do it to me.

Second of all once again, I live here in reality and not some fairy tale land where we are all psychic and know a criminals intent. Thirdly rules of life still apply. Play football as a career there is a good chance you will get injured, eat McDonald's and other fast foods most of your life there is a good chance you will get fat, and lastly become a criminal and victimize people or their property and there is a good chance you can be shot and killed or have the (*)(*)(*)(*) beaten out of you.

Once again common sense, that's all that's at play here.

And you call me a problem? You are more worried about the criminal than the victim. If it was up to you and idiots like you criminals would know exactly who and when to strike, because god forbid we hard working tax paying citizens defend ourselves.

Once again, why don't you let criminals know you won't kill them
So they will leave us alone and just take from you.

 

And on what basis, pray tell, do you advocate such a glaring exception to the legal doctrine of presumption of innocence?

 

Who said I wouldn't? I just think death for stealing a GPS is a bit too much. Call me soft on crime. I can get my GPS back without a gun.

 

FYI, self defense is already an affirmative defense. That means, as it stands now, it is the burden of the person claiming self defense to prove it.

That is, if you shoot someone, you will be charged with a crime. If you want to claim the shooting was self defense, it will be your responsibility to prove it.

I'd rather place human life above property. Apparently, you disagree. How very sad.

 

The person who places property above human life is not me but the idiot who forfeits his own life to steal from an armed man.

 

I haven't been able to find a definition of which that is a necessary consequence - nor do any of the definitions I've seen exclude "I didn't do it", which would of course make presumption of innocence universally null and void.

Beyond that, the poster didn't just claim the burden of proof ought to be on the shooter, he said the "victim" should have to be provably guilty of a crime. This would put the shooter in legal jeopardy merely by his ignorance of statutes & caselaw - not just regarding self-defense, but regarding any threatening act the intruder might commit - coupled with his inability to analyze all of it in the space of a few heartbeats. Which of course is insane on its face.

 

"is about to go not trial in America."

Somewhat uncertain of what you were attempting to say here.

But I Binged Trayvon Martin. The whole first page hits were 100% leftist liberal sites.

So leftist liberal MOB RULE should trump LAW? Got it. No surprise.

The liberal mantra, "The end justifies the means."

And, of course, there will be a trial. That IS the normal course of events. And liberals NEED reminding that the shooter is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

 

One thing is becoming very clear: people should stay out of Florida. The way things are going bodies will be clogging the streets because all anyone has to do now is claim that the dead guy was attacking him.

We all know about the Zimmerman case. However, just this Wednesday a Miami-Dade Circuit judge dismissed a case against a black guy who had chased a Hispanic guy for a block and then stabbed him to death.

Miami judge decides fatal stabbing was self-defense

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html#storylink=cpy

So now the survivor can claim that the dead guy was the villain and get off
scot- free.

The question that needs to be answered is: Is this the type of society that we want to live in? Remember, you may well be the next victim.

 

I support Castle Doctrine, although I think it better applies to inside your house rather than just being in your yard.

 

The problem with Florida is that it already had plenty of violent crime before this law.

Florida has some serious gang and poverty issues that are worse than most other states, and as a result, some people might be more jumpy over there about self-defense than they would be in other states.

It's not that Castle Doctrine is the problem; it's the violent and desperate conditions that existed beforehand.

 

How is this an exception? Without a crime element, I can just shoot people who scare me.

 

And in Texas, that could be half the population at least.

 

Here's what you said:

I think the law should be crafted to give the burden of proof to the person claiming self-defense. ​

"Presumption of innocence" is a legal term of art. Here is one definition:

Presumption of innocence[:] the principle that a juror should vote to convict a criminal defendant only if the juror believes the accused to be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." A criminal defendant may not be convicted of a crime unless the government proves guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, without any burden on the accused to prove innocence. Since the authorities have the power to take away someone’s freedom, they are forced them to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and give the defendant the presumption of innocence.​

and here is another:

presumption of innocence

n. a fundamental protection for a person accused of a crime, which requires the prosecution to prove its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This is opposite from the criminal law in many countries, where the accused is considered guilty until he/ she proves his/her innocence or the government completely fails to prove its case.​

Any questions?

If a delusional man enters the house of a single woman around midnight, and upon seeing her, attacks her because he thinks she's a monster, has he committed a crime? In most US jurisdictions, probably not - in which case, by your logic, if she wounds him fatally, she ought to bear legal culpability for his death, even though she only did what anyone with a lick of sense would do under the circumstances.

 

That's a man defending his neighbor's castle, which is a perfectly legitimate use of deadly force.

 

So what? If someone is threatening the life or property of someone else, I would be perfectly justified in using deadly force. If I saw someone breaking into my neighbor's home, I wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force if necessary.

 

So it's not the "Castle Doctrine", it's the "It takes a village" doctrine.

 

You would be perfectly justified in using deadly force AFTER they beginning running away?

 

Don't play stupid semantic games. An individual is perfectly justified in defending their own life and the life of others.

 

It depends. The general principle is that I can utilize deadly force to protect others as well as myself. I am under no moral obligation to cower beneath my desk and wait for the police to arrive.

 

And apparently the TV's of others. With deadly force.

 

You're dodging. Horn shot two men in the back after they were running away from trying to break into his neighbors property.

Who's life or property were they threatening then?

 

Personally I do not know what is wrong with copying British or Australian law where you have a right to defend yourself but it must be in proportion to the threat. i.e. If I am a 6 foot male marine and a dwarf is kicking me in the shins I have a right to pick him up and ask him to desist, if however I am an elderly old lady faced with an aggressive assailant I can beat them to within and inch of their lives with my walking stick

 

Please, put away the strawman and address my argument.

 

I'm not defending Horn. I'm defending the right of an individual to protect his neighbor's life.