What's new

castle doctrine

hdroadglide

BoM x 2, BoY 2011
Rating - 100%
514   0   0
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
10,486
Location
south of KCMO
did anyone watch dan rather (ugh) special on the castle doctrine last night? very interesting on the use of deadly force to protect your home. there were some incidents in the south where people were shot in the back trying to get away, and the shooters were not indicted. from what i've read, different states interpret the law differently. are you familiar with what your state allows?
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
764
Location
Concord, NH
in new hampshire the castle doctrine was passed by the house and senate last year but was vetoed by the governor. i believe our state government is now trying to pass a "stand your ground" clause which applied only to your home and you must make it known vocally that you intend to use physical force against your assailant. i certainly approve the use of physical force (be it deadly or not) if someone was breaking into my home and i thought, even for a second, that they intended to hurt me or my family, regardless of the laws.

you know the old saying, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
 

rick12string

Caught in the Crossfire
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
South Carolina
did anyone watch dan rather (ugh) special on the castle doctrine last night? very interesting on the use of deadly force to protect your home. there were some incidents in the south where people were shot in the back trying to get away, and the shooters were not indicted. from what i've read, different states interpret the law differently. are you familiar with what your state allows?
In 2001 SC attorney general Charlie Condon put a policy in effect that a home owner could not be prosecuted for shooting a home invader. Basically sending out a message to criminals “Invade a home and invite a bullet”. Here’s 2 links about the home invasion policy in SC and the views on it.


http://media.www.dailygamecock.com/media/storage/paper247/news/2001/04/02/News/Condon.Rethinks.open.Season.Call-61687.shtml

http://media.www.dailygamecock.com/media/storage/paper247/news/2001/04/02/News/Condon.Rethinks.open.Season.Call-61687.shtml
 
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
799
Location
Edmond,OK
Our state has a "No duty to retreat anywhere".


"In Oklahoma (according to the Oklahoma State Courts Network), the amendment changes a number of other aspects of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, the statutes concerning justifiable homicide. As 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1289.25 now lists circumstances in which it is presumed that a person who uses deadly force "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." In addition, it helps to protect law-abiding citizens from arrest when using deadly force. Law enforcement agencies must now have probable cause to believe that the use of deadly force was unlawful before an arrest can be made."
 

rick12string

Caught in the Crossfire
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
South Carolina
No matter what. If you find yourself in a situation like this you tell the police when they arrive "I WAS IN FEAR FOR MY LIFE" or the life of a loved one as the situation would dictate.
 

oneaday

2007 BoY
Rating - 100%
112   0   0
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
2,944
Location
Sonoran Desert
in new hampshire the castle doctrine was passed by the house and senate last year but was vetoed by the governor. i believe our state government is now trying to pass a "stand your ground" clause which applied only to your home and you must make it known vocally that you intend to use physical force against your assailant. i certainly approve the use of physical force (be it deadly or not) if someone was breaking into my home and i thought, even for a second, that they intended to hurt me or my family, regardless of the laws.

you know the old saying, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

I can envision it now, you determine an intruder is in your house....Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang and Bang. Clatter (empty mag hitting floor) Click (Loading full mag)......"I HAVE A WEAPON, I WILL SHOOT YOU"
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
764
Location
Concord, NH
I can envision it now, you determine an intruder is in your house....Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang and Bang. Clatter (empty mag hitting floor) Click (Loading full mag)......"I HAVE A WEAPON, I WILL SHOOT YOU"
oh come on now. that's just not fair! i think i would say i have a weapon WHILE im firing (not after). at least that gives him some kind of a chance, haha
 
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
126
Location
Southern Illinois
Illinois has not passed legislation specifically identified as a Castle Doctrine, not at least in the sense that many states have done. But, under the IL Criminal Code (ICC), Article 7) you can find what you're looking for WRT to protecting your home, your family and your possessions. You can read it at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4...Code+of+1961.

But, here's the "short story" (pun intended) for illinois residents;
1) Are justified to use force to protect themselves, others, the defender's dwelling, and other property of the defender.
2) Are justified in using "deadly force" ONLY, when GIVEN a reasonable belief that such force will prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, or will prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
3) Using force justified by the ICC, have an affirmative defense to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of the "aggressor."
4) Have no explicit duty to retreat from a defensive role.

So Illinois has what could be called a castle doctrine, but we don't.

later,
 

Electric Sheep

Dsicle - BoM Dec 06
Rating - 100%
58   0   0
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
5,147
Location
Dallas, TX
there were some incidents in the south where people were shot in the back trying to get away, and the shooters were not indicted.
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't understand what the problem is with shooting someone in the back when they're trying to run away.

I don't care WHAT direction they're moving (towards me, away from me, sideways, or whatever)....if they're breaking into my home, I'm gonna shoot them till they're dead.
 

hdroadglide

BoM x 2, BoY 2011
Rating - 100%
514   0   0
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
10,486
Location
south of KCMO
i see NO problems with anything that happens in the home. that seems to be a no brainer.
the problem they brought up down south was that they were extending it to include property and business. case in point was a guy ran into a gas station/convenience store and grab a bunch of beer and ran out. the clerk ran after him and shot and killed him. the store had been robbed over 30 times in the last couple of years. they have appearantly charged the clerk with murder.
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
764
Location
Concord, NH
i am pro-gun all the way, and believe in protecting yourself. but that does seem to be a little extreme. if the clerk was never in harms way (you said the guy ran in, stole beer, and left) then running after and shooting him to death is kinda wrong. maybe running after him and holding him until the police show is a better idea. although that might be tough....
 

Electric Sheep

Dsicle - BoM Dec 06
Rating - 100%
58   0   0
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
5,147
Location
Dallas, TX
i see NO problems with anything that happens in the home. that seems to be a no brainer.
the problem they brought up down south was that they were extending it to include property and business. case in point was a guy ran into a gas station/convenience store and grab a bunch of beer and ran out. the clerk ran after him and shot and killed him. the store had been robbed over 30 times in the last couple of years. they have appearantly charged the clerk with murder.
Well that's just a stupid clerk....obviously, he shoulda shot the criminal while he was still in the store!

:headroll:
 

Soundwave13

BoM Feb 2010
Rating - 100%
143   0   0
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
4,847
Location
Nazareth, PA
i am pro-gun all the way, and believe in protecting yourself. but that does seem to be a little extreme. if the clerk was never in harms way (you said the guy ran in, stole beer, and left) then running after and shooting him to death is kinda wrong. maybe running after him and holding him until the police show is a better idea. although that might be tough....
I agree.

Snatching beer & running is basically a juvenile prank. Shit I did that once as a teenager.

Now, if he held the store up with a weapon & then ran out, that's different.

Someone simply looking for an excuse to kill another person is a psychopath.

If it's not an accident or defense, it's execution.
 

njstone

BoM January 2010
Rating - 100%
167   0   0
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
8,108
Location
St. Paul, MN
in new hampshire the castle doctrine was passed by the house and senate last year but was vetoed by the governor. i believe our state government is now trying to pass a "stand your ground" clause which applied only to your home and you must make it known vocally that you intend to use physical force against your assailant. i certainly approve the use of physical force (be it deadly or not) if someone was breaking into my home and i thought, even for a second, that they intended to hurt me or my family, regardless of the laws.

you know the old saying, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

I'm with you. I don't own a gun, but if someone broke in while my wife or son were home I'd grab the sharp Claymore on my wall and run them through. I'd aim for a gut-wound and call an ambulance immediately, but I wouldn't take chances either.
 

Wagz

Großartig Hurensohn
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
301
Location
San Diego, CA
Despite our absurdly stringent gun laws, California has a limited version... equally absurd in its ambiguous verbosity:

“A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent manner intending violence to any person in the home. The amount of force that may be used in resisting such entry is limited to that which would appear necessary to a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances to resist the violent entry. One is not bound to retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made. One may resist force with force, increasing it in proportion to the intruder’s persistence and violence, if the circumstances apparent to the occupant would cause a reasonable person in the same or similar situation to fear for his or her safety

So... I can shoot the bad guy? Or... ?
 

Electric Sheep

Dsicle - BoM Dec 06
Rating - 100%
58   0   0
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
5,147
Location
Dallas, TX
I'd aim for a gut-wound and call an ambulance immediately....
And then you'd likely face a CIVIL SUIT for something absurd like "torture" or some shit, and the guy who tried to rob you will be awarded everything you own, and you'll be destitute and living in a cardboard box.

Of course, if you just kill his thevin' ass in the first place, you don't have to worry about a B.S. civil suit.
 

Klusterbuck

Corrupted At An Early Age
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
448
Location
Southern Indiana
Shooting a beer grabber...... bad call. Not that I won't joke about it.

My House, My Rules.

I don't "own" anything worth shootin a man over.

Mess with the family, that's another story altogether.
 
Top