castle doctrine

[DOGS THAT BARK]

If I'm not mistaken believe this is about to become law of the land.

From Wikipedia
Castle Doctrine refers to a legal concept derived from English Common Law as it is presently applied in sections of the United States of America. It designates one's home (or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protections from both prying and violent attack. In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.

The opposite of a "castle" principle is the "Duty to Retreat", which is the case in most U.S. Northeastern states, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts[1] (where Castle Doctrine takes effect only within the confines of the 'dwelling'). Castle Doctrine laws in the U.S. are sometimes referred to as the "use of deadly force" [2] or "no retreat" laws, and originate in the home, but are sometimes (depending on the state) extended to the automobile or the business or any place where one has a legal right to be (a campground or park, for example).

 

[smurphy]

Wat the hell are you talking about? Did you just kill a black solicitor on your lawn or something?

 

[Chadman]

Then, if I'm not mistaken, Bush and Cheney won't have to abide by it - whatever it states.

 

[bej0101]

fl has it and i love it...

 

[kosar]

Wat the hell are you talking about? Did you just kill a black solicitor on your lawn or something?

:mj07:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Nope Smurph--I just happen to like the bill--most important aspect of it I like is--it now forbids anyone from breaking in your home and sueing you if they get hurt. Edward-ACLU and other criminal rights groups got huge blow on this one and victims got some justice.

 

[smurphy]

Dogs - I absolutely guarantee you that from now until the day you die, that scenario will not happen to you.

 

[Nosigar]

DTB, How dare you post this? You are part of the vast right wing conspiracy out to hurt everybody else's feelings.
Don't you know that Bush and the neocons lied for the sole purpose of achieving world domination?

:142smilie


This is actually law in Florida. Solicitors beware.
Though i think, not sure, that you can't leave the solicitor out on the lawn. You gotta bring 'em inside the house or something.

 

[Chadman]

I'm sure this won't sit well with iehula-hoopa-hula's Jehova's Witness crew. I wonder just how badly they will still want to spread the word to private homeowners?

 

[gardenweasel]

dtb...they may mock you....but,heres what they really mean:

"when the shit hits the fan, i want to be standing next to someone who can defend us both."

 

[smurphy]

Hey don't get me wrong - I support DTB's effort to shoot people in his house. I'm just very concerned that the same day this law becomes official I am invited to attend a mini-putt tourney in his living room. Probably just a coincidence.

...And weasel, when the "shit hits the fan", laws and doctrines won't mean anything anyway. ....But I think think once again the REAL threat is not being addressed. What does this doctrine do to deter terrorist school bus drivers?:shrug:

 

[Terryray]

Lotta states are passing these laws of late. Even some that don't need them, like Texas. When I lived in Austin a while back, some kid shot another on the common walkway outside his apartment, second floor. Scared it was an intruder persistently peering in his window. He yelled at the guy to get away. Turned out it was some Japanese student who didn't understand english very well and thought it was his buddy's apt. They tried to prosecute the shooter, but got nowhere.

all I ever see is states passing these laws. I imagine to do it federally would take way too much effort.

Just noticed piece below at freakonomics.com (smurphy thinking along the same lines!):

Forget About Having Your Friends Over for Dinner; in Missouri It?s Your Enemies You Want to Invite

For years, I?ve begged my wife to let me buy a gun. The only reason I want one is that, if an intruder enters my house and tries to terrorize my family, I would like to be able to defend us. The baseball bat under the bed just doesn?t seem sufficient to do the trick. Never mind that I am a total coward and would no doubt hand the gun to my wife and tell her to go fight the bad guy ? at least I?d be able to imagine the scenario would play out differently. Smartly, my wife has told me we need a better reason than that to justify owning a gun.

Given my own heroic fantasies, I heartily endorse a new law passed in Missouri which, according to STLtoday.com, stipulates that ?people are not required to retreat from an intruder and can use deadly force once the person illegally enters their home, vehicle or other dwelling, including a tent. The bill provides an absolute defense against being charged or sued for using such force.? In most places, you need to prove you were in real danger of being hurt or killed in order to justify the use of deadly force.

From a crime deterrence theoretical perspective, this law makes sense to me. A burglar has no legitimate reason to be in your house. Burglary is a crime with high social costs (victims feel an awful sense of violation when their home is ransacked, even if the burglar doesn?t get much), but relatively low expected punishments for the criminal because arrest rates are low. Most victims never see the burglars, so they?re difficult to catch, as opposed to street robberies. I did a rough calculation many years ago in an academic paper, and if I remember correctly, the risk of lost years of life for burglars who were shot and killed by their victim amounted to about 15% of the total prison time they could expect to serve for their crimes. In other words, if you are a burglar, being killed by the resident should be a serious concern. If this law encouraged more residents to kill intruders, there would likely be fewer burglaries.

On the other hand, this law probably won?t have much real impact on crime. The kind of people that shoot burglars when they catch them in their homes are likely to shoot the burglar whether such a protective law is in place or not. (That is, more or less, my reading of the evidence on concealed weapons laws.) I think that, in practice, they mostly let you off the hook legally if you shoot an intruder. If victim behavior doesn?t actually change, there is little reason for burglar behavior to shift. Even worse, you get a bunch of bumblers like me trying to fight burglars under the new law, and we end up getting shot.

The law does bring to mind some interesting possibilities, however. If there is someone you dislike so much that you want him dead, all you need to do is figure out how to get him to come inside your house, and make it look plausible that he was an intruder. Maybe you could tell him that you are having a late-night poker party and to just let himself in and come upstairs to join the game. Or maybe say there?s a surprise party for a mutual acquaintance, so all the lights will be out, and to come to your bedroom at 2 a.m.

Never underestimate the creativity and deviousness of humans ? or the speed with which Law and Order will take the first example of this and turn it into an episode.

--- posted by Steven D. Levitt on 05 Jul 2007 09:47 am

 

[smurphy]

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Dogs - I absolutely guarantee you that from now until the day you die, that scenario will not happen to you.

Your right in one respect Smurph--if someone breaks into my house--or trys to hijack my car and I feel my or others life is threatened and am forced to pull the gun out--it won't be them sueing me--maybe their family.

--however also agree where I live any chance of that happening would be remote--now if I lived in Dem strongholds DC-N.O. Detroit ect--the chances would be MUCH greater--if you know what I mean.

 

[smurphy]

I live in a "Dem stronghold" and it won't happen to me either. ...if you know what I mean.

 

[JCDunkDogs]

LOOKOUT! Its Lee Harvey Kittykat wielding his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the sixth floor window of the Texas Catbox Depository. Run for your lives!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I live in a "Dem stronghold" and it won't happen to me either. ...if you know what I mean.

In the absence of your father I will do my best to educate you till he returns--
Lesson for today
Let facts dictate opinion not vica versa

Fact 1 You have south Cal/Vegas listed as residence

Fact 2
Southcal/las vegas voting demographics
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/preside

Click on pick a state under map--it shows the counties

Now just where is all that blue--

Without going further I think we both know what areas vote overwhelmingly Dem.

 

[smurphy]

I'm specifically talking about Santa Barbara, which is a Dem stronghold.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Kerry getting 53% of vote --a stonghold--surely you jest?

Try again--I told you criteria needed--heres a hint

'The District of Columbia

U.S. President -- District of Columbia
Updated 11/24/04 1:59 AM ET
Precincts:100% Incumbent* declared winner

John F. Kerry (D) 183,876 90
George W. Bush * (R) 19,007 9
Other 2,517 1

 

[smurphy]

I don't know what your point is, other than your continued obsession with DC and inner city Blacks and repetition of tired old stats.