Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Law

[thatcountrykid]

So short and to the point, what is your opinion on the above laws.

[lliam]

That That's-private-property-Leave-or-I-shoot-you-to-death-Hillbilly-thingy?

[phuckphace]

^it's more like BLM breaks into your house to steal your TV, aims a gun at you and you get to legally cap his ass

you can't just shoot somebody for no reason even if they're on your property. like say you don't make your car payment and the repo guy rolls up to claim the car back and you shoot him, you'd get sent up for murder.

to answer OP's question, I support it fully. I hope to someday be able to spray lead at a home invader just to say I did and drink delicious Euro tears

[Vlerchan]

I feel that lethal force should be justified insofar as it is [1] used purely defensively and [2] objectively proportional to the threat.

you can't just shoot somebody for no reason even if they're on your property.
In Ireland you can. Or at least violating your home-dwelling is reason enough to justify capping their ass (as per McNally).

I feel that's definitional excessive force.

[Microcosm]

Down here in Sweet Home Alabama:

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

[... and so on]

Source: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/13A/3/2/13A-3-23

I think you should totally be careful as to why you're shooting them. For instance, if someone breaks in with a baseball bat, you don't need to shoot to kill. You could just shoot to make them stop or immobilize them. With a gun, I think you should always be able to shoot to kill.

[thatcountrykid]

Down here in Sweet Home Alabama:



Source: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/13A/3/2/13A-3-23

I think you should totally be careful as to why you're shooting them. For instance, if someone breaks in with a baseball bat, you don't need to shoot to kill. You could just shoot to make them stop or immobilize them. With a gun, I think you should always be able to shoot to kill.

Imagine someone charging at you within say 10 feet. Are you gonna have time to aim and fire a good clean shot to wound. Most likely you won't even get your gun up. You'll just point towards them and start tossing lead

[Stronk Serb]

I support it. There was a case here where a guy broke into a basement and the owner locked him in there. He was charged with unlawful obstruction of the burglar's freedom.

[phuckphace]

I support it. There was a case here where a guy broke into a basement and the owner locked him in there. He was charged with unlawful obstruction of the burglar's freedom.

you've got Swedes writing your laws m8

[Stronk Serb]

you've got Swedes writing your laws m8

Yeah. No matter how much I dislike the US as a state, I admire it's legislature regarding the defence of private property.

[Porpoise101]

I'm for it, but I don't think that it's ok to be excessive and I don't know, kill someone for following you. I don't quite get what is controversial in the first place.

[Arkansasguy]

Down here in Sweet Home Alabama:



Source: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/13A/3/2/13A-3-23

I think you should totally be careful as to why you're shooting them. For instance, if someone breaks in with a baseball bat, you don't need to shoot to kill. You could just shoot to make them stop or immobilize them. With a gun, I think you should always be able to shoot to kill.

That's really bad tactically. If someone is within twenty feet or so and approaching you aggressively with a deadly weapon, you should shoot center mass. Shooting in the leg or what have you wont necessarily carry the same stopping power.

[Ragle]

I'm really not confortable with having any weapons in the house or so.

I read that Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Law means duty. So, if it's a kind of duty to defend your own grounds - I think, I'm going to build a high barbed wired fence around my properties.

And at night I let out my very aggressive Rottweiler pack, where the vocal cords were surgically removed.

If someone illegally enters the grounds, he won't hear the dogs barking and I bet it's guaranteed, he'll getting caught anyway.

Side effects:

I and the neighbours can sleep in peace.
Also next morning, the dogs are fed already.
And I have done my duty and defend my property without bothering the authorites or using firearms.

[sqishy]

east violating your home-dwelling is reason enough to justify capping their ass (as per McNally).

I feel that's definitional excessive force.

I did not know we could shoot people for trespassing here, but now I do.

[Microcosm]

That's really bad tactically. If someone is within twenty feet or so and approaching you aggressively with a deadly weapon, you should shoot center mass. Shooting in the leg or what have you wont necessarily carry the same stopping power.

Yeah I think it definitely depends on the scenario.

I like how the law recognizes this problem, though.

Whatever the person being threatened "reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose."

[thatcountrykid]

I'm for it, but I don't think that it's ok to be excessive and I don't know, kill someone for following you. I don't quite get what is controversial in the first place.
I think you're misunderstanding the law a little bit. The law says you have to believe you are in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death in order to use lethal force. You can be sure if you shoot someone in defense you will be arrested and investigated. Just saying you were scared doesn't count.

[Uniquemind]

Reminds me of a news story where a girl's dad burst into her room and shot her boyfriend dead thinking he was an intruder and was sexually assaulting her.

#hindsight is 20/20

He believed he was defending himself.

Good concept but bad bad bad gray areas left up to individual interpretation because of the lack of specifics.

[Vlerchan]

I did not know we could shoot people for trespassing here, but now I do.
It needs to be combined with the reasonable belief that the trespasser will engage in an unlawful act but in the past the courts have been quite lenient here.

I like how the law recognizes this problem, though.

Whatever the person being threatened "reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose."
The reasonable man test prescribed in the statute is in fact a Conservative* approach to this. It's referring to what was required in objective terms: which ignores the beliefs that the defendant might have possessed at the time.

In Ireland - in contrast - if the reasonable man test - an objective test - fails the defendant can turn to a subjective test. That is the court examines what the defendant believes was required at the time and then rules on whether his actions in turn - contingent on this belief - were required in objective terms. If it turns out that these actions were not - but were in fact justified in the defendants own mind - then the charge will be reduced to manslaughter.

I'm not sure if the state of the law in Ireland is common. From what I've studied it doesn't seem to be.

---

* Or would we consider the Irish approach conservative. Irrelevant I guess.

I also imagine the Irish approach works better in monoethnic societies without racial cleavage in terms of perceptions of criminality.


Good concept but bad bad bad gray areas left up to individual interpretation because of the lack of specifics.
The reason we operate in a common law system is that we recognise that unexpected facts might arise in cases. Nonetheless - under the statute that Microcosm produced - this is murder. You can claim is incorrect on an ethical - not a legal - level but the courts have had ample opportunities to adopt the dual subjective-objective test.

[phuckphace]

I feel that lethal force should be justified insofar as it is [1] used purely defensively and [2] objectively proportional to the threat.


In Ireland you can. Or at least violating your home-dwelling is reason enough to justify capping their ass (as per McNally).

I feel that's definitional excessive force.

agreed

I'm really not confortable with having any weapons in the house or so.

I read that Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Law means duty. So, if it's a kind of duty to defend your own grounds - I think, I'm going to build a high barbed wired fence around my properties.

And at night I let out my very aggressive Rottweiler pack, where the vocal cords were surgically removed.

If someone illegally enters the grounds, he won't hear the dogs barking and I bet it's guaranteed, he'll getting caught anyway.

Side effects:

I and the neighbours can sleep in peace.
Also next morning, the dogs are fed already.
And I have done my duty and defend my property without bothering the authorites or using firearms.

spotted the Euro with surgically removed testicles

what will actually happen: intruder spots the dogs, kills them, breaks in, shoots you fatally and as you're on the ground drifting into the abyss you say to yourself "well at least I'm not a fascist American gun-nut..."

[Sir Suomi]

I think if it's within the house itself, and there is reason to believe that harm would befall you, I completely agree with the idea. I do disagree, however, if the home invader flees the property. At that point, it's a matter that the authorities should handle.

Also, for those who really want a good home defense weapon, I suggest a Punt Gun...

http://1.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Punt-gun-1.jpg

[lliam]

^it's more like BLM breaks into your house to steal your TV, aims a gun at you and you get to legally cap his ass

you can't just shoot somebody for no reason even if they're on your property. like say you don't make your car payment and the repo guy rolls up to claim the car back and you shoot him, you'd get sent up for murder.


seems quite similar to german laws ... with the difference that there are rarely weapons available at home. However, who has them, has also automatic firing devices or such toys. Especially those people usually are lousy rich. You can smell'em miles away. I wish I would smell that way.

[Kahn]

what will actually happen: intruder spots the dogs, kills them, breaks in, shoots you fatally and as you're on the ground drifting into the abyss you say to yourself "well at least I'm not a fascist American gun-nut..."

That was quite the visualization.

I hate hypotheticals, though.

On the topic of the OP, I am in agreement with the Stand Your Ground law. I'm not quite sure what the law states here in Illinois, though.

[Vlerchan]

spotted the Euro with surgically removed testicles
I'll add that I wouldn't even bother with the dogs. If someone attempts to burgle me then I'm not going to confront them. You have a much higher chance of coming out of that situation alive - and I value that chance more than I value a few material trinkets. Least in Ireland - and across most of Europe - burglars don't go gunning for homeowners.

I also don't think it's shameful to live in a state where people are reluctant to kill each other either.

[phuckphace]

depending on the scenario, removing yourself from the situation immediately by running can sometimes be the smartest route. for example if you're caught in a room opposite the end of the dwelling where your weapon is located, it makes more sense in the interest of preserving your safety to dart for the nearest exit rather than remaining inside and possibly cornered by the intruder.

I obviously don't condone excessive lethal force. but there is something particularly shameful about people who are tacitly willing to be gunned down in situations where being allowed to use lethal force in self defense would've saved their life.

[thatcountrykid]

depending on the scenario, removing yourself from the situation immediately by running can sometimes be the smartest route. for example if you're caught in a room opposite the end of the dwelling where your weapon is located, it makes more sense in the interest of preserving your safety to dart for the nearest exit rather than remaining inside and possibly cornered by the intruder.

I obviously don't condone excessive lethal force. but there is something particularly shameful about people who are tacitly willing to be gunned down in situations where being allowed to use lethal force in self defense would've saved their life.

You'll never catch me running away. While a firearm is nice, I don't need it. It's my home and I defend it to the end. I have a right to feel safe in my home.

[Vlerchan]

depending on the scenario, removing yourself from the situation immediately by running can sometimes be the smartest route.
I'll rephrase.

In the U.S. the vast majority of burglaries don't involve violence against the property-owner. Like 93%. That's because three-quarters of burglaries occur whilst the owner is outside the home. Nonetheless within those burglaries occurring whilst the owner is inside the home about a quarter involve violence against the owner. I can't access Irish statistics but I imagine it's much fewer.

The reason this seems to be is that buglers don't want to escalate things. With that in mind offering them a reason to seems nuts. That's not me claiming that people shouldn't protect themselves when their lives are in danger - but I question to what extent the my-home-is-my-castle mentality contributes towards increased violence.

Home with guns tend to have a much higher likelihood of being host to a violent murder.

[dxcxdzv]

Home with guns tend to have a much higher likelihood of being host to a violent murder.
That reminds me the Nice Jeweler's case that took place a few years ago in France. Two guys robbed a jewelry with shotguns and injured the jeweler (no shooting this far).
Then the jeweler took a pistol and shot 3 times on them while they were fleeing on a scooter. One of the robbers died.
There was a vast polemic about the right of the jeweler to shoot at the robbers (his life at this moment was far from being threaten).

[Vlerchan]

There was a vast polemic about the right of the jeweler to shoot at the robbers (his life at this moment was far from being threaten).
What was the outcome of the case?

No English-speaking jurisdiction would have held in favour of the Jeweller.

[dxcxdzv]

What was the outcome of the case?

No English-speaking jurisdiction would have held in favour of the Jeweller.
Still not resolved. But the jeweler has been charged of voluntary homicide.
There's priority to the robber's case for now.