Current Events > Do you believe in the Castle Doctrine?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I support the castle doctrine absolutely but not stand your ground. I believe there is never a duty to retreat when inside your home.

Theres never a duty to retreat anywhere. Nobodys ever gonna get on anybody for not retreating.

It's generally the part that comes next that has feelings mixed.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

Theres never a duty to retreat anywhere. Nobodys ever gonna get on anybody for not retreating.

It's generally the part that comes next that has feelings mixed.

Incorrect, in NJ for example you have a duty to retreat outside your home if you have a reasonable and safe way to get away, you must take it.

TonyKojima posted...

Incorrect, in NJ for example you have a duty to retreat outside your home if you have a reasonable and safe way to get away, you must take it.

I want this to mean waking up in handcuffs after sleeping through a burglary

^I mean are you gonna get prosecuted for chilling on the couch as the nice feller rummages through the place?

if you break into my home, you will be threatened with lethal force. i'd really, really, REALLY like not to use it.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

I want this to mean waking up in handcuffs after sleeping through a burglary

No inside your home you are legally allowed to use force including deadly force to protect your home and property inside the home. However in NJ deadly force must be justified, such as someone breaking into your house at 2am, they probably mean to do you serious bodily harm. It would be justified.

I support it within reason.

The legal definition of "reasonable force" in gun nut America is highly questionable.

Im inclined to say Im in favor of this, but Id have to think about it.

NatsuSama posted...

I support it within reason.

Such as?

Yes, if someone is sneaking into your home they don't have any good intentions. You don't know if they're a murderer, thief, rapist, or kidnapper.

If a person is capable of protecting themselves and/or loved ones then make that piece of shit really sorry they messed with you.

People who are of a more timid disposition probably ought to have some sort of plan to keep themselves/loved ones safe.

Let's face it though, much of the population doesn't magically transform into Rambo in potentially dangerous situations and I can't imagine how terrifying it must be to wake up to some creep in your house in the late hours of night.

TonyKojima posted...

Such as?

Honestly I'm too lazy to come up with specific scenarios I'd be in support of it. I just came here to voice my support for the Castle Doctrine is contingent on what I view as "reasonable force."

Legally speaking, the definition of "reasonable force" is very loose in gun loving America. Stand your ground as well.

Yes, until the threat is neutralized by either action on the part of the occupant or the retreat by the person breaking in.

Reasonable force seems like a pointless debate. If my life is threatened, there is no force that is unreasonable for me to apply to protect it.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Reasonable force seems like a pointless debate. If my life is threatened, there is no force that is unreasonable for me to apply to protect it.

A guy coming into your house and taking a lamp isnt life threatening. Or is it?

Yes.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

A guy coming into your house and taking a lamp isnt life threatening. Or is it?

If they approach you, one-punch-can-kill applies. You have no idea if they are there to steal a lamp or rape your daughter

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

A guy coming into your house and taking a lamp isnt life threatening. Or is it?

Are we expected to know exactly what someone who breaks into your home is going to do? They already broke in, if they get shot, that is completely on them

ThePieReborn posted...

Yes, until the threat is neutralized by either action on the part of the occupant or the retreat by the person breaking in.

That's generally Castle Doctrine. States probably vary, but in my home state (CA) someone actively fleeing is not a threat and any self defense argument is voided.

Yes and it's not up for debate.

I would like to, but it leads to people like the nuts who killed the girl for pulling into his driveway, or knocked on his door, or killed the boy who went onto the lawn to get his ball

The laws have cultivated this sort of mindset. this is why you guys are always posting online about your neighbours and "writing letters" to stick on their doors when they aint home instead of just having a simple fucking conversation...

zado19 posted...

I would like to, but it leads to people like the nuts who killed the girl for pulling into his driveway, or knocked on his door, or killed the boy who went onto the lawn to get his ball

The laws have cultivated this sort of mindset. this is why you guys are always posting online about your neighbours and "writing letters" to stick on their doors when they aint home instead of just having a simple fucking conversation...

Exactly where my head is at on me just answering this topic with a blanket support.

"Reasonable" in America isn't exactly reasonable IMO as the Castle Doctrine depending on state and local laws allows gun happy lunatics to shoot you for what I would definitely call not reasonable.

NatsuSama posted...

Exactly where my head is at on me just answering this topic with a blanket support.

"Reasonable" in America isn't exactly reasonable IMO as the Castle Doctrine depending on state and local laws allows gun happy lunatics to shoot you for what I would definitely call not reasonable.

To you what is reasonable?

TonyKojima posted...

To you what is reasonable?

I said already I'm not interested in providing examples. The question is way too broad to dig into a generic example. I don't think you realize just how far the Castle Doctrine goes in some states. It isn't limited to just inside your house, it includes much more, like your yard.

TonyKojima posted...

To you what is reasonable?

provide a scenario

Apparently DC proper does not honor castle doctrine

Kloe_Rinz posted...

If they approach you, one-punch-can-kill applies. You have no idea if they are there to steal a lamp or rape your daughter

What is "approaching you"? Surely entering someones house would already constitute this, right? But not every unauthorized entry is going to justify killing the person, right?

Its complicated. I always go full on grammar bitch on this issue, because "not retreating" is not synonymous with causing a human death even in conditions where it is completely justified.

zado19 posted...

provide a scenario

Two men break down your door.

zado19 posted...

I would like to, but it leads to people like the nuts who killed the girl for pulling into his driveway, or knocked on his door, or killed the boy who went onto the lawn to get his ball

The laws have cultivated this sort of mindset. this is why you guys are always posting online about your neighbours and "writing letters" to stick on their doors when they aint home instead of just having a simple fucking conversation...

There's a difference between some trigger happy psycho shooting at a little kid in his driveway and someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night. The difference is that the trigger happy psychotic redneck is a horrible piece of shit who should be locked up in prison for decades, and the one who found an intruder in their home doesn't want to take a risk of them or their loved ones being murdered, kidnapped, or raped.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

There's a difference between some trigger happy psycho shooting at a little kid in his driveway and someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night. The difference is that the trigger happy psychotic redneck is a horrible piece of shit who should be locked up in prison for decades, and the one who found an intruder in their home doesn't want to take a risk of them or their loved ones being murdered, kidnapped, or raped.

We had a few on 261 who felt it was never justified to use force to defend your home.

TonyKojima posted...

We had a few on 261 who felt it was never justified to use force to defend your home.

Ugh. I once had a teacher tell my kid never to hit back if she was being bullied. She was dumb enough to do it in front of me. I bitched that woman out really good.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

There's a difference between some trigger happy psycho shooting at a little kid in his driveway and someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night. The difference is that the trigger happy psychotic redneck is a horrible piece of shit who should be locked up in prison for decades, and the one who found an intruder in their home doesn't want to take a risk of them or their loved ones being murdered, kidnapped, or raped.

The problem with your logic is the Castle Doctrine does not legally just pertain to just breaking in your home depending where you live.

Legally it extends to just more than just literally "breaking inside your house."

So the question of supporting the Castle Doctrine is not as black and white as some want to make it sound. So when discussing reasonable force, yes legally the discussion of "reasonable force" can potentially go in the gun happy rednecks favor depending on what local laws the gun nut shot someone who very much could have NOT been breaking in a house.

We can sit here and call the gun nut a piece of shit who belongs in jail all we want. But legally speaking depending on local laws and how any trial goes, that gun happy redneck could possibly see no jail time if they can legally argue "Castle Doctrine." As just like the Stand your Ground law, isn't so black and white as some want to make it sound and the justice system isn't so benevolent as some wish it is.

It's not like reasonably innocent people haven't been shot and killed legally before under the Castle Doctrine or Stand your Ground laws.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

What is "approaching you"? Surely entering someones house would already constitute this, right? But not every unauthorized entry is going to justify killing the person, right?

Its complicated. I always go full on grammar bitch on this issue, because "not retreating" is not synonymous with causing a human death even in conditions where it is completely justified.

If youve got your weapon aimed at them, and youre shouting at them to get the fuck out of your house, and they havent already turned around to run away immediately, thats a threat. Its not a scenario where I personally would shoot someone, but I wouldnt blame someone else if they did.

NatsuSama posted...

The problem with your logic is the Castle Doctrine does not legally just pertain to just breaking in your home depending where you live.

Legally it extends to just more than just "breaking in your house."

So the question of supporting the Castle Doctrine is not as black and white as some want to make it.

I did not say that it was black n white. Unfortunately, there are fucked up people who will take any opportunity to be awful. Guns were originally supposed to be used for hunting, military, and protection. People use them to commit crimes. There are also other ways to protect yourself from a dangerous stranger in your home. Knives, fists, blunt objects, stun guns, pepper spray. It's not only about guns.

I am pro gun use for protection only, though I would never own one myself. I am also very much for heavy restriction and jumping through multiple hoops before someone is even considered to be allowed to own one.

But people acting crazy and cruel the way they are right now, sure makes me reconsider. And if they get gun rights taken away it's no one's fault but theirs and I will mock them endlessly.

TonyKojima topic

Beyond the reasons that have already been shared, Castle Doctrine without any real limit also has been used to include using force against people who are retreating from your home and also to justify continuing to use force after the threat was subdued.

Like even if I believe that you shouldn't have to retreat from your home, I don't think you should be able to flay people who enter your home even if they intend you harm.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

not say that it was black n white. Unfortunately, there are f***ed up people who will take any opportunity to be awful. Guns were originally supposed to be used for hunting, military, and protection. People use them to commit crimes. There are also other ways to protect yourself from a dangerous stranger in your home. Knives, fists, blunt objects, stun guns, pepper spray. It's not only about guns.

My point is that the Castle Doctrine extends to more than just "someone breaking into your home" in some states.

This isn't even about just gun nuts. It's thinking all cases of invoking Castle Doctrine period is justified, or a black and white matter.

So when people keep jumping to scenarios like "defending myself from the big bad person busting down my doors" that's one of the things I'm alluding to on some thinking this is easily a black and white thing. As that's not the only case it can be invoked. It getting an innocent person killed isnt even always a malicious act when invoked. Misunderstandings happen, paranoid types acting before assessing and more. All because for example someone was in someone else's yard, which is one example where the Castle Doctrine can be invoked and possibly legally upheld.

Yes, the law is MEANT to protect oneself. But what a law is meant to do, isn't necessarily how the law plays out. As the plenty of malicious and truly non malicious people who have gotten people killed invoking the Castle Doctrine which extends beyond just someone breaking into your house. There are more scenarios to the Castle Doctrine that some states and local laws allows one to invoke Castle Doctrine.

So when I said earlier in the topic that I support the Castle Doctrine, but within reason, that is what I mean. The law itself isn't as cut and dry as some think depending on the state and local laws.

Anteaterking posted...

Beyond the reasons that have already been shared, Castle Doctrine without any real limit also has been used to include using force against people who are retreating from your home and also to justify continuing to use force after the threat was subdued.

Like even if I believe that you shouldn't have to retreat from your home, I don't think you should be able to flay people who enter your home even if they intend you harm.

Even if they intend harm? What duty do I have to protect the life of someone who intends to do me harm?

NatsuSama posted...

My point is that the Castle Doctrine extends to more than just "someone breaking into your home" in some states.

This isn't even about just gun nuts. It's thinking all cases of invoking Castle Doctrine period is justified, or a black and white matter.

So when people keep jumping to scenarios like "defending myself from the big bad person busting down my doors" that's one of the things I'm alluding to on some thinking this is easily a black and white thing. As that's not the only case it can be invoked. It getting an innocent person killed isnt even always a malicious act when invoked. Misunderstandings happen, paranoid types acting before assessing and more. All because for example someone was in someone else's yard, which is one example where the Castle Doctrine can be invoked and possibly legally upheld.

Yes, the law is MEANT to protect oneself. But what a law is meant to do, isn't necessarily how the law plays out. As the plenty of malicious and truly non malicious people who have gotten people killed invoking the Castle Doctrine which extends beyond just someone breaking into your house. There are more scenarios to the Castle Doctrine that some states and local laws allows one to invoke Castle Doctrine.

So when I said earlier in the topic that I support the Castle Doctrine, but within reason, that is what I mean. The law itself isn't as cut and dry as some think depending on the state and local laws.

Well that's also true, and I won't argue with you on such good points.

If you break into my home I have no idea what your intentions are. I'm going to shoot you or very least seriously maim you if I see you.

"waah wahh hyperskate you think your valuables and family and pets are more important than a human life?"

yes.

hyperskate65 posted...

If you break into my home I have no idea what your intentions are. I'm going to shoot you or very least seriously maim you if I see you.

"waah wahh hyperskate you think your valuables and family and pets are more important than a human life?"

yes.

You could always get a team of attack chihuahuas, not only will they mob the little bastard and take em down, they'll even pick the bones clean.

I didn't answer the poll, but I will here:

It depends.

1) Does it apply equally? Do African Americans receive the same protections that white guys do? How about latinos or asians? Do women get the same protections as men?

Because how many times have we seen black guys get gunned down by cops for defending their own houses or property? Way more than you think. The 14th amendment says "equal protection under the law," but we are a LONG way from that. And with SCotUS turning the bedroom into a latrine on affirmative action, we just got further behind.

2) Do you require training in what you carry? And I am not just talking being able to aim at a target. Situational awareness, gun safety, proper storage...all of that needs to be part of it. Reason is obvious: bullets don't care what you hit. That's the job of the person using the gun.

3) Background checks. We don't need any more Adam Lanzas.

Now, I can back it up if these standards are met. The problem is that guns are getting handed out like party favors at a Halloween party, and the lack of training is proving to be a liability.

If I'm home alone and someone breaks in, I'm honestly just going to run out my house through the back. No need to put myself in danger

Yeah I'm a wussy. I'd lock myself in a room, call the cops, and cower.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

There's a difference between some trigger happy psycho shooting at a little kid in his driveway and someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night. The difference is that the trigger happy psychotic redneck is a horrible piece of shit who should be locked up in prison for decades, and the one who found an intruder in their home doesn't want to take a risk of them or their loved ones being murdered, kidnapped, or raped.

Thing is, you are saying "the difference between" a trigger happy psycho.... but to me both situations are an example of just that.

if your gut reaction is "they are going to murder, rape, and/or kidnap me, I better shoot and kill them first" then for me, you are a 'trigger happy psycho' all the same.

What im getting at is the thinking it brings on. You hear someone trying to break into the house, are you not even going to assume that if you turn on a light it will scare them away? If you cant at least start here then for me its just trying to come up with a reason to shoot them first

zado19 posted...

Thing is, you are saying "the difference between" a trigger happy psycho.... but to me both situations are an example of just that.

if your gut reaction is "they are going to murder, rape, and/or kidnap me, I better shoot and kill them first" then for me, you are a 'trigger happy psycho' all the same.

What im getting at is the thinking it brings on. You hear someone trying to break into the house, are you not even going to assume that if you turn on a light it will scare them away? If you cant at least start here then for me its just trying to come up with a reason to shoot them first

That is a sanitized version of a home invasion.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Even if they intend harm? What duty do I have to protect the life of someone who intends to do me harm?

See this is where im lost... How is not killing a person the same as a duty to protect their life?

zado19 posted...

See this is where im lost... How is not killing a person the same as a duty to protect their life?

Because youre placing their life above my safety. If they are coming at me, I dont care if their intent is to harm, I have no indication they arent intending to kill me so thats how I will defend myself

even if they promised they were just gonna break my legs, thats not worth suffering through just so that my attacker doesnt die

TonyKojima posted...

That is a sanitized version of a home invasion.

is it "sanitized" or is it undramatized?

I mean who here discussing this can even say that the so called unsanitized version of home invasion has been their experience?

Is it the thought that it might happen a factor in this? Could that be the point i was making in the first place? Who here has had their home broken into?