[michigan0626]

A couple things Im a little unsure about with the castle doctrine. Must you currently occupy said house, car, business?

ie:

1) You come out your house and see your car door open with a man bent over the front seat? It is reasonably safe to assume that he has tools required to steal your car or other effects, therefor these tools, (crowbar, screwdrivers) can be use for weapons, there for it is reasonably safe to assume he has weapons? Do you have legal ground to shoot him since you are not currently occupying the car?

2) You get out of your car and see your front door open. There is a man walking through the foyer towards the frontdoor with a ski mask on and something in his hand. You believe it is a gun or other weapon. Can you shoot from outside the front door even though you do not currently occupy the residence and it can be assumed that he is leaving/retreating? Then does that come to a case of distance you are from the front door? 5 feet from door/intruder, 15 yards from door/intruder.

This are just a couple of the grey area what ifs that I sometimes think about when talking/thinking about the castle doctrine. Im sure the answers depend on the state, but talking in generalities.

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack.

taken from wikipedia

[Swampbilly]

When it comes to Castle Doctrine, you definitley better study up on State laws...not every State in America has Castle Doctrine. Some states have some form of a "Castle Doctrine", but it really is not defined to its best potential...North Carolina for example, although they may soon enhance that with a new version.


A good Castle Doctrine should contain provision for :

No duty to retreat

Shifts burden of proof from the homeowner

Protects and prevents the homeowner from being extorted for money by being sued in civil court by the criminal dirtbag's or the criminals surviving family


Regards,

Swampbilly

[USEBOTHHANDS]

Originally Posted by michigan0626

A couple things Im a little unsure about with the castle doctrine. Must you currently occupy said house, car, business?

ie:

1) You come out your house and see your car door open with a man bent over the front seat? It is reasonably safe to assume that he has tools required to steal your car or other effects, therefor these tools, (crowbar, screwdrivers) can be use for weapons, there for it is reasonably safe to assume he has weapons? Do you have legal ground to shoot him since you are not currently occupying the car?

2) You get out of your car and see your front door open. There is a man walking through the foyer towards the frontdoor with a ski mask on and something in his hand. You believe it is a gun or other weapon. Can you shoot from outside the front door even though you do not currently occupy the residence and it can be assumed that he is leaving/retreating? Then does that come to a case of distance you are from the front door? 5 feet from door/intruder, 15 yards from door/intruder.This are just a couple of the grey area what ifs that I sometimes think about when talking/thinking about the castle doctrine. Im sure the answers depend on the state, but talking in generalities.

taken from wikipedia

it just depends on how your state has the law laid out. the question(s) you raised are good questions, and you can bet your @ss that a slick lawyer will be trying to convince a jury by pointing out those same actions the criminal took (or was taking), especially if he is still alive.

some states' castle doctrines (similar to Louisiana) give you the right to defend yourself, your family, and the public b/c YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO "PEACEABLY" BE THERE (IN THAT AREA); some states do not. some states' castle doctrines still require you to retreat to the farthest part of your home, away from the danger, and if the danger is "forced" on you there, then you have the right to defend yourself with letal force, but again, IT DEPENDS ON YOUR STATE.

but i can tell you, it isn't worth killing someone for stealing your car stereo. it is yours, but a $200 stereo is not worth it. if you came home and there is someone standing in your front door with your microwave, is he/she threatening you? use of deadly force is most likely NOT warranted in either of these cases. UNTIL YOUR LIFE, YOUR FAMILIES' LIFE, OR YOUR NEIGHBORS' LIFE IS THREATENED, don't take someone else's life in exchange for "things."

i know it makes us angry, but things CAN BE REPLACED, LIVES CANNOT! my daddy has taught me that since day one.

[masterPsmith]

All I can say is that I live in a rural desert area where the closest Sheriff's substation is 23 miles away. There is a lot of open, desolate desert for the local pukes to rest in peace and feed the coyotes if need be...............

Jim......

[diggsbakes]

Zhuk,
That's truly a sad story and state that your country is in. My heart goes out to ya'll and I thank the lord that by his grace I live in a (relatively) gun-tolerant country. But I guess there are many fortunes that we all have that are taken for granted. . . . I do NOT take my guns for granted. . .

[therewolf]

Even Castle Doctrine isn't open permission to "take out the trash".

If you see someone ripping off or trashing your car, while it's parked in the

driveway, then the state thinks that's

perfectly OK, as long as your personal safety is not threatened. They are free

to steal or destroy as much as your stuff as they can carry away.

The reason the doughnut-suckers get there quickly if you tell 911 you shot the BG, is they don't

really want to take the risks or struggle arresting a BG who has no source of income or money for the state to

take away, they really want to get their meathooks into YOU. You are a an important source

of income to them. So of course you will be graced with their prompt attention, if they have reason to

think they can open a fresh can of money.

[Swampbilly]

Originally Posted by therewolf

Even Castle Doctrine isn't open permission to "take out the trash".

If you see someone ripping off or trashing your car, while it's parked in the

driveway, then the state thinks that's

perfectly OK, as long as your personal safety is not threatened. They are free

to steal or destroy as much as your stuff as they can carry away.

The reason the doughnut-suckers get there quickly if you tell 911 you shot the BG, is they don't

really want to take the risks or struggle arresting a BG who has no source of income or money for the state to

take away, they really want to get their meathooks into YOU. You are a an important source

of income to them. So of course you will be graced with their prompt attention, if they have reason to

think they can open a fresh can of money.

That's the case in most "crimes"...the bad guy, with little money for the state to extort, is often slapped on the wrist, or ignored, while the donut patrol is out on the highway skinning money from the working class over traffic tickets.


Regards,

Swampbilly

[JTJ]

Anti-Gun Senator Shoots Intruder

State Senator R.C. Soles (D - NC) Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City , N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.
The intruder, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties.
The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.
"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do as I say and not as I do."
Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.
It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine.
But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.

[therewolf]

Well, I think SOMEBODY should acknowledge the big, hairy, stinky ELEPHANT

in the room.

This guy BELIEVES in gun control, right? He, by his own mouth, admits only

bad people use guns and for bad things,right?

Yet, he took a gun and killed somebody.

Maybe he's one of the very murderers he's pushing gun laws about.

Who's to say he didn't legitimately murder someone, (possibly someone blackmailing him?) and is now using "self defense" as an improper
justification?

It looks awful fishy to me...

[USEBOTHHANDS]

the guy didn't die

musta shot'em in his pinky toe!