Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Dec 8, 2011.
The law may be in response to this:
Only in America.
Do you see the castle doctrine being a good thing or a bad thing?
Colorado has this law and I fully support it
The castle doctrine and the possible reason obeygiant gave = ridiculous.
I don't think is ridiculous, but it seems like if someone breaks into your house it should be implied that you can defend yourself.
Ludricrous, irresponsible, and totally execrable. Apparently, the best way to deal with frivolous lawsuits is to kill the plaintiffs before they can sue.
There is a massive difference between the right to defend one's self and automatic recourse to deadly force.
and laws like this are also prone to abuse.
Dead men tell no tales.
If you have a 'castle', you probably have a 'clean' gun to plant on the perp, after the fact.
How? In all the states with stand-your-ground castle doctrine, name one case of abuse ...
Smartass comment aside, it is safe to assume an intruder intends to do me or my family harm and they do not need a gun to do it. A knife, rope, chemical, fire starter and numerous other things are just as harmful to sleeping residents.
The Horn case. A case of abuse of Gun laws.
Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury ... but you're going to go ahead and call that abuse based on 911 transcripts?
Oh, and your ignorance is showing ... the Horn case nothing to do with "gun laws".
Well obviously an intruder suing a homeowner for shooting him seems wrong to you as well? See my original post.
So that makes the law right - which gives similar legal immunity in a similar situation because some guy in texas got let off for shooting two men in the back.
Yes it does - but that doesn't make the law ethical. The real solution lies in overhauling the international comedy show known as laws around suing in America. Not sanctioning deadly force.
I don't think it is safe to assume. I will concede that a house intruder presents a real and inmmediate threat, but I do not like the idea of characterizing break-ins as necessitating a deadly force response.
One big problem I have with these kinds of laws is that they does not take into account the homeowner's ability to live with the fact that they killed someone for the rest of their lives. From a purely social perspective, our society does not discourage homicide enough - we only care whether it is done legally.
It does seem wrong. But I strongly question whether the "Castle Doctrine" is an appropriate response. Shouldn't we address the problem through reform of the civil court system, rather than making it easier to shoot people?
The law is absolutely right. I refuse to roll over for any intruder in my house or on my property. I will defend myself and my family. It only makes sense that I shouldn't have to worry about civil suits from the criminals who violated my property/home.
You must know that people do exist that would not be bothered by this "inconvenience".
So, when do you make the determination to use deadly force? When they pull a weapon - again, they don't need a weapon to do you harm. Besides, where have they already been? Kids' bedrooms? Are there more?
You're right about the mental aspect. I don't think a lot of people are prepared to take a life, which is good, meaning they will show restraint, and they will only use deadly force as a last resort.
Well then reform laws around what can be classed as a legitimate law suit. This law allows a situation where murder is legal - just because it happened to happen on you property.
You may be in your house - but you are also in a neighborhood, a city, a state, and a country that is governed by a multitude of laws. Your actions don't exist in a vaccum, and they should be (and are) subject to numerous legal limitations.
An intruder may be a murderous crook, but just because you're uncertain shouldn't mean that the moment he crosses your threshold that his life is completely at your mercy, irrespective of the circumstances. This leaves the door open to abuse, to an uacceptable degree.
By the way, the intruder who is suing the homeowner was shot in the back. And the homeowner claims he showed "restraint" by only shooting him once. To me that sounds like irresponsible and incorrect use of a firearm in a self-defense situation.
Does this uncertainty require the use of deadly force?
...or, they will make a split-second decision they regret for the rest of their life.
Do you mean the one when the man saw two guys robbing his neighbor, called 911, told them he was gonna go shoot those men and then went out and did just that? I'm sure there are a lot "guy shoots robbers in the back" stories in Texas so I'm just curious if we are thinking of the same one.
No one said it was required - ever.
It is possible. No one will know until they are put in that situation, so does that mean they shouldn't defend themselves?
I think we're thinking the same thing.
If it isn't required - why should it be allowed if it sanctions murder?
One can defend oneself without a gun.
Going back to the OP once more:
As I've already said, defense does not equal deadly force.
You're right. And in how many home invasions across the U.S. is deadly force actually used?