Castle doctrine -

[Joe Harper]

http://www.polksheriff.org/NewsRoom/...sIntruder.aspx

Another gun law at work!

[corny]

I would have never opened the door to allow that boy into the house. Doing that put this guys family in danger. Had this been a rampaging killer on the loose...and he managed to overpower...or even shoot the homeowner....his wife and kids could have suffered at the hands of this invader before the police arrived.....

But.... once that boy came into the home I believe the HO had every right to send him on his way to hell.... where he most likely will end up come judgement day.

Someone banging on your door screaming and sh*t..... call the police after arming yourself.... then stand back and wait....

If he enters the home.......blast that motherf****r and keep firing till you are sure he is no longer a threat.

Shoot fast though... you dont want a bullet going into him once he is on the floor..... they will get you for murder then........lol

I know someone that happened to, boy put a bullet in his uncle after his uncle was down on the ground inured. That boy is in prison for life right now.... and he was actually defending his mother and his aunt from his uncle who was outside the house firing wildly into the home.

[the mojo]

Looks justifiable,but on second thought he was former Navy.

Those no good swabbie rice picking,fish eyed mofos could'nt hit the broad side of a barn with a tin cup.

[printer2]

William opened the front solid door and continued to yell at Deese through the screen door to leave. Deese then opened the screen door and ran into the Cornwells' home. William retreated, fumbling with his handgun, causing an accidental discharge of one round into the ground. After the shot was fired into the ground, Deese stopped briefly, took off his shirt, yelled, "You wanna fight?" and ran directly at William. William fired one more round into the Deese's chest, killing him.

First off, why open a door to allow someone into your house? You would think since he shot and hit someone in the past that he would have experience it is better to have a perpetrator on the outside rather than in.

Second, that is what one off duty RCMP officer told me, after you plug the guy, fire a shot into the wall and say that was the warning shot. After the warning shot you say the guy kept coming, you had no choice but to shoot him.

[tunnel_rat]

This idiot had it comming. Thank God and Samuel Colt for Guns. In the lib's world only deranged criminals would have them. Now THATS utopia. ?

[printer2]

This idiot had it comming. Thank God and Samuel Colt for Guns. In the lib's world only deranged criminals would have them. Now THATS utopia. ?

What a dumb thought.

[Hugh B]

What a dumb thought.

I think the way it is understood in most other countries is that you do not have a right to defend yourself. This is one of the many things that sets the United States apart from the rest of the world.

[barbar]

I think the way it is understood in most other countries is that you do not have a right to defend yourself. This is one of the many things that sets the United States apart from the rest of the world.

What a total load of BS.
If that were the case then "self defense", could not be used in a criminal court case as a method of legal justification for doing harm to a criminal.

[Hugh B]

What a total load of BS.
If that were the case then "self defense", could not be used in a criminal court case as a method of legal justification for doing harm to a criminal.

In England and Canada you can be charged as a criminal when you defend yourself against an attacker. In those two countries self defense is not an acceptable retort against violence.

[the dangling wrangler]

Here's a castle doctrine case that didn't turn out well for the defendant. Some judges just don't get it I guess.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/lo...n_slaying.html

[Tool-Slinger]

What a total load of BS.
If that were the case then "self defense", could not be used in a criminal court case as a method of legal justification for doing harm to a criminal.

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

Then check this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...ng_controversy

The link is a notoriously liberal source pretending to be 'neutral' but it does have much information.

At the end of the day you still got one english serial victim jailed, and one american good neighbor vindicated. The contrast is sure to amaze and befuddle.

[barbar]

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

Then check this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...ng_controversy

The link is a notoriously liberal source pretending to be 'neutral' but it does have much information.

At the end of the day you still got one english serial victim jailed, and one american good neighbor vindicated. The contrast is sure to amaze and befuddle.

This is my understanding (taken from your link)

English law permits one person to kill another in self defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used.

In the engilsh case, the crims, were fleeing the property when shot. So it could be said that the victim of the original crime was in no danger and used unreasonable force. (right or wrong, I will hold judgement on this one, I suppose the real question is where are the boundaries!!!)

Is a piece of furniture worth someones life??

I am not 100% sure on this point, but there was a defense, that could of being used in this situation, "the law of provocation" (it has recently been repealed in NZ due to over and mis-use) if he had been robbed 10 times, he sure would have been provoked into his actions.

[Tool-Slinger]

This is my understanding (taken from your link)

English law permits one person to kill another in self defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used.

In the engilsh case, the crims, were fleeing the property when shot. So it could be said that the victim of the original crime was in no danger and used unreasonable force. (right or wrong, I will hold judgement on this one, I suppose the real question is where are the boundaries!!!)

Is a piece of furniture worth someones life??

I am not 100% sure on this point, but there was a defense, that could of being used in this situation, "the law of provocation" (it has recently been repealed in NZ due to over and mis-use) if he had been robbed 10 times, he sure would have been provoked into his actions.

Those are basically two extreme cases worth puzzling over. Either case is an atrocity in effect, but there is a stark difference in the legal frame-work for just outcome and future deterrence based on common knowledge.