Castle Doctrine

[rahmota]

Well Ohio is finally probably going to join the rest of the enlightened and intelligent states who have the castle doctrine for their citizens to help defend themselves.

For those who are not aware of what this is let me explain, no that would take to long, let me sum up: The castle doctrine is that your home and car are your territory and if someone breaks into that you may use leathal force to defend youself just because they broke in. Before this you had to proove that your life was in immediate and leathal threat and danger or you would be criminally charged for defending yourself.

Even though the police and prosecutors are against this I am all for it. Any tool we can give to the citizens to defend themselves is a wonderful step towards an enlightened and decent society. If criminals get the clue that breaking into a home may get them shot dead then maybe they will think again about doing that B&E job.

[Greenday]

That's pretty bad-ass. Please tell me NJ has the same thing. Some moron breaks into my property, he best be expecting at least an ass-kicking. And if he's armed, he won't be the only one.

[rahmota]

Sorry my quick check of NRAILA shows that NJ is not one of the castle states. Write your local legislator and ask them about it. Tell them you would like to be able to defend yourself in your own home.

[Amethyst Hunter]

That's one thing I dislike about my state (Illinois) - we're limpdicks on gun issues. We are the ONLY state in the nation that require a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card (to the best of my knowledge).

Florida, on the other hand, is likely one of these 'castle' states as I remember from my time there that it was considered legal to shoot trespassers on your property; my dad even applied for and got a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Still, castle ruling or no, you (generic you) mess with me and mine, I'm shooting your ass on the spot, jail be damned. Prison time is easy compared with spending the rest of your life maimed or killed because of some shithead.

[Shangri-laschild]

That's one thing I dislike about my state (Illinois) - we're limpdicks on gun issues. We are the ONLY state in the nation that require a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card (to the best of my knowledge).

Agreed. I like living in Illinois except for it's gun control. We also can't conceal carry.

[Slytovhand]

<sigh>


I'll just point you all off to the gun control debate.....

I fear for the drunken teenagers coming home late at night, trying to keep quiet and not awaken their family... copping a shot in the head cos no-one asks questions first, and dad is paranoid about having his TV stolen......


Slyt

[rahmota]

That's one thing I dislike about my state (Illinois) - we're limpdicks on gun issues. We are the ONLY state in the nation that require a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card (to the best of my knowledge).

Yeah that is one of those scary fascist dictatorship moves that I find very very bad and wrong with this country. The swastika wearing jack booted thugs who passed that law need to have some reality checks.

I fear for the drunken teenagers coming home late at night, trying to keep quiet and not awaken their family... copping a shot in the head cos no-one asks questions first, and dad is paranoid about having his TV stolen......

Always there for the cheery paranoia eh? 1: A responsible teenager who has been properly parented would not be trying to sneak into their own home.
2: No one who has anyn real firearms training tries for a headshot as those are incredibly difficult. Most firearms training calls for main mass shots. Survivable.
3: Having the ability to defend oneself does not absolve one of making proper targeting solutions including such thigns as shingin a light or listening to determine target type and location.
4: firearms owners are not as loose cannon irresponsible as you like to make us out to be.

[the_std]

4: firearms owners are not as loose cannon irresponsible as you like to make us out to be.

No, firearm owners are normal, every day people. Normal, everyday people can lose their temper/become distracted/make hasty decisions all the time.

You can say all you like that responsible gun owners are honour-bound to assess the threat, take perfect aim, etcetera. But not all gun owners are responsible. And everyone, even if he is the perfect gun owner, makes mistakes.

So, say little Timmy is in a bad group. Hanging out with some real shady characters. One day he gets into a fight with his parents, tells them he's leaving and he'll get some friends after them. His parents assume that he's bluffing out of anger, but father has a gun in the house anyways and now they're paranoid, as some of Timmy's friends have been in jail for violent charges. Timmy is gone for three days, and the parents get more and more paranoid. Finally, one night, Timmy and two friends come barging into the house at 2am, drunk off their asses, screaming and hollering. Dad, on edge and panicking, shoots Timmy in the gut.

I wouldn't blame Dad, nor would I blame Timmy. And saying, "well, they should have raised him better" doesn't work, because not everyone will turn out to be a good person. It just doesn't work like that. You could be the best parent in the world, and your kid could still turn to the dark side for any number of reasons.

Mistakes happen all the time. I see this law as giving them more opportunities to happen in. But then again, I'm from Canada. A very high-crime and -murder city, per capita, sure, but a city in Canada none the less. I simply don't see the need.

[daleduke17]

That's one thing I dislike about my state (Illinois) - we're limpdicks on gun issues. We are the ONLY state in the nation that require a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card (to the best of my knowledge).

"Limpdick" is putting it mildly. The main reasons Illinois is so screwy on gun laws is that city abutting Lake Michigan.

Aaron Schock (who is trying for Ray LaHood's seat in the US Congress) was/is trying to get a CCW law passed while he is still in Springfield. I don't know how many votes he's gotten though.

[protege]

No, firearm owners are normal, every day people. Normal, everyday people can lose their temper/become distracted/make hasty decisions all the time.

If they were, you wouldn't have to be covered in "safety orange" during hunting season. Too many idiots in the woods shoot first, and ask questions later--every year, (locally) a few people get shot.

Hell, my dad was nearly one of them! He was somewhere in the hills above my grandmother's farm...when a shot landed a few inches from him Keep in mind that he was always covered in orange. Needless to say, he didn't hesitate to return fire!

Instances like that are rare, though. Most firearm owners are responsible people who know what they're doing. However, just like some drivers, you get some idiots who either don't care, or don't realize the consequences about what they're doing. Unfortunate, but true.

[Dreamstalker]

MA has a "stand-your-ground" clause, which according to the ex is not a castle doctrine (he claimed that MA has no legal justification whatsoever for the use of lethal force in self-defense...he has an irrational hatred for Britain and us colonies anyway). I've looked at the law and he may have been talking about duty-to-retreat (which would still make him wrong as MA does not have that clause).

Castle Doctrine in the US

[Slytovhand]

Always there for the cheery paranoia eh? 1: A responsible teenager who has been properly parented would not be trying to sneak into their own home.
2: No one who has anyn real firearms training tries for a headshot as those are incredibly difficult. Most firearms training calls for main mass shots. Survivable.
3: Having the ability to defend oneself does not absolve one of making proper targeting solutions including such thigns as shingin a light or listening to determine target type and location.
4: firearms owners are not as loose cannon irresponsible as you like to make us out to be.

I'm just a happy-go-lucky sort of person

(as for 'paranoia'...I'd say it's more paranoid to needing to be armed in case their government decides to become too dictatorial??)

But...

1. the setting was that the teenager is drunk... thus not as responsible as you'd like.

2. No argument...

3. As per Gun Control Thread, I did mention various options, including calling out that you are armed. You said that that tells the invader where you are, and thus shouldn't be done... Listening would be good...but you do seem to indicate not waiting around to get attacked...

4. I'll let it rest with Protege & STD's posts.

Duty to Retreat sounds...sane!

Yeah that is one of those scary fascist dictatorship moves that I find very very bad and wrong with this country. The swastika wearing jack booted thugs who passed that law need to have some reality checks.

I do want to address this issue though, in general (as in.. not specifically this post, and not specifically yourself...)

False Arguments... quite often you will use particular terms to exaggerate your position.. Look up the Emotive Language and Straw Man arguments listed there. I know you are quite intelligent, and express some good ideas (such as the biodiesel post), but throwing in 'swastika wearing jack booted thugs' really destroys your credibility when arguing. Iknow you are passionate about a few things that have shown up on these forums, but using emotive terms means just that.. they come from emotion.. and by definition, are un-reasonable and irrational... and thus aren't debatable. Much better to make a compelling point, than leave a taste in the mouth.

I presume, in this instance, you have an issue with a gun-owner requiring a license to have said weapon, for some reason??


Slyt

[the_std]

I didn't mean to sound like we don't have a right to defend what's ours. I just meant to say that legalized lethal force such as the castle doctrine is excessive and gives license to paranoid, jumpy people to justify their itchy "trigger fingers". And it's not just gun owners, although a gun is the easiest way to kill someone without putting yourself in close personal danger. This could easily apply to someone going nuts with a hockey stick or a chair, well after the intruder has been disarmed/knocked out as well. But, let's face it, shooting someone is a hell of a lot easier than bludgeoning them.

[crazylegs]

I just meant to say that legalized lethal force such as the castle doctrine is excessive

Absoutely agree with you there.

UK law states you may use "reasonable force in the circumstances", if someone breaks into your house you may use force to defend yourself/property/others, smashig them over the head with a skillet until you see grey matter is excessive. If Johnny Burglar only has a cosh then shooting him is again excessive, (there are plenty of other options available in the US at least). If he has a bladed article then I'm all for shooting him if, and only if, he is presenting a direct threat to you, if he's climbing OUT of the window there is no threat to you, however (if I'm reading this right) with castle docterine you could shoot him with no repurcussions.

[Slytovhand]

Not surprisingly enough... I'm with the previous 2 posts...