[SSTX39]

Imo, this is good. This is very good. Simply because 1 of the things that criminals feed on is fear. If they don't know ur carrying & u retreat, its just gonna give them a rush & make them feel superior. Not to mention that the rush has further been planted in his mind that he's a big scary bad azz. Oh yeah, & he's still running free to do the same to someone else. I say fight fire with fire. No surrender no retreat & most of all no prisoners. I feel that every US state should adopt the castle doctrine & stop restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Well, those are my thoughts, what's yours?

 

[jglock22]

I feel the same way.

 

[Mosin]

Meh, the only difference between castle doctrine and no castle doctrine is whether or not I have to dig a hole in the backyard afterwards.

Thanks for saving me potential work, I guess.

 

[SSTX39]

Meh, the only difference between castle doctrine and no castle doctrine is whether or not I have to dig a hole in the backyard afterwards.

Thanks for saving me potential work, I guess.

Lol right haha....

 

[PanBaccha]

Imo, this is good. This is very good. Simply because 1 of the things that criminals feed on is fear. If they don't know ur carrying & u retreat, its just gonna give them a rush & make them feel superior. Not to mention that the rush has further been planted in his mind that he's a big scary bad azz. Oh yeah, & he's still running free to do the same to someone else. I say fight fire with fire. No surrender no retreat & most of all no prisoners. I feel that every US state should adopt the castle doctrine & stop restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Well, those are my thoughts, what's yours?

Exact sentiment here. Also another thing to remember, as I have been lately, are the infallable words of Henry David Thoreau who said in his essay 'Civil Disobedience' ~ "That government is best which governs least.”

 

[sebbie]

Meh, the only difference between castle doctrine and no castle doctrine is whether or not I have to dig a hole in the backyard afterwards.

Thanks for saving me potential work, I guess.

I was said to me by a British Captain "Sebbie if you are going to carry a gun you going to have to carry a shovel." The bad guys are everywhere.

For my house, I plan to use enough propellant in the round to ensure the intended targe will reach Mars.

 

[jglock22]

Every state needs a shot first ask questions later.

 

[gmaster456]

It's one of the few laws today that actually gives the power to the citizens.

 

[Tackleberry1]

The intent of "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws is to remove the burden of proof from the intended victim...IE, the CCW holder or home owner who was forced to shoot by the violent acts or intentions of the recently wounded/deceased.

They are not meant to grant any police powers to the public and I would caution anyone who thinks otherwise to look at George Zimmerman. Personally, I believe his story and think he acted within the law but that did not stop a politically motivated prosecutor from pursuing him in a Stand your Ground State...

In the end I'm confident the law will vindicate his actions but I'm not itching to walk a mile in his shoes unless I'm given no choice but to fire.

Tack

 

[25-5]

Imo, this is good. This is very good. Simply because 1 of the things that criminals feed on is fear. If they don't know ur carrying & u retreat, its just gonna give them a rush & make them feel superior. Not to mention that the rush has further been planted in his mind that he's a big scary bad azz. Oh yeah, & he's still running free to do the same to someone else. I say fight fire with fire. No surrender no retreat & most of all no prisoners. I feel that every US state should adopt the castle doctrine & stop restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Well, those are my thoughts, what's yours?

Castle Doctrine & stand your ground? What head shots are for!

 

[locutus]

Castle Doctrine & stand your ground? What head shots are for!

Castle doctrine laws aren't difficult to pass if you're willing to work for them.

But for some reason, "stand your ground" laws are really tough, even in conservative states.

If there are any attorneys on this board, would you research whether or not there's a correlation between states with a stand your ground law, and states that impose the death penalty?

I've heard several anti death penalty legislators say that stand your ground is simply a way to impose the death penalty for minor crimes. (which I think is BS)

 

[SSTX39]

The intent of "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws is to remove the burden of proof from the intended victim...IE, the CCW holder or home owner who was forced to shoot by the violent acts or intentions of the recently wounded/deceased.

They are not meant to grant any police powers to the public and I would caution anyone who thinks otherwise to look at George Zimmerman. Personally, I believe his story and think he acted within the law but that did not stop a politically motivated prosecutor from pursuing him in a Stand your Ground State...

In the end I'm confident the law will vindicate his actions but I'm not itching to walk a mile in his shoes unless I'm given no choice but to fire.

Tack

He/she who polices under a ccw deserves any sentencing given. A ccw endorsement is extremely far from a bade, I agree. As far as Zimmerman, I have no clue. I wasn't there so ill leave that to the law.

 

[drvsafe]

In NJ there is no castle law, which scares the poop out of me because while my wife and younger child's bedrooms are on the 2nd level of our home, our 2 older children sleep on the main floor, which clearly make it difficult to impossible for me to be able to round my family up and flee if an event requires me do to so. So god forbid if there was ever an event in my home, the burden of proof would be on my shoulders to prove that I had justifiable cause to protect myself and my family with lethal force.

Crazy...IMO

 

[StoneCat]

In NJ there is no castle law, which scares the poop out of me because while my wife and younger child's bedrooms are on the 2nd level of our home, our 2 older children sleep on the main floor, which clearly make it difficult to impossible for me to be able to round my family up and flee if an event requires me do to so. So god forbid if there was ever an event in my home, the burden of proof would be on my shoulders to prove that I had justifiable cause to protect myself and my family with lethal force.

Crazy...IMO

Well no matter where everyone is in the house, you need a plan, same as if there were a house fire. For home invasion, designate "safe" rooms, and look at reinforcing the doors/locks. Castle doctrine or no, its a much better outcome to sit behind a locked door with a weapon and a cell phone, than to engage in a violent confrontation.

As for the family, a good suggestion I heard was to get a coaches whistle. One loud call means to get to the safe area, two means evacuate the house according to the fire plan.

As for "duty to retreat". I'm no expert, but it was my understanding that you are obligated to retreat, BUT CAN USE FORCE IF THE ASSAILANT(S) ARE BETWEEN YOU AND THE ONLY EXIT.

A second story bedroom, with one door seems to me like a great place to not only create a tactical advantage, but also "stand your ground" if it comes to it...

 

[dog2000tj]

my home is my castle and I am king in my domain