Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Supporters of Castle Doctrine

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 1:22:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How do you approach a situation like this? Do you believe that the homeowner, who shot a teenager who was simply knocking on his door to ask for his aid, should be free from prosecution?

http://abcnews.go.com...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
InVinoVeritas
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 1:45:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The castle doctrine could not have been invoked by a homeowner just because McBride was "knocking on his door to ask for his aid." Walking up another person's driveway and knocking on the door is not, by most standards, an act of forceful intrusion or trespassing. In every jurisdiction (as far as I am aware), such an action carries implicit consent--unless there is a clear indication that such an action is forbidden (such as a large sign.)

We must remember that law enforcement has held back some details of the case until further investigation is completed. Without understanding what sort of perceived threat McBride was posing, it is impossible to conclude which legal standard is being appealed to by the resident who fired the weapon.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 2:31:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Castle Doctrine shouldn't apply. You can't kill someone because you feel a lil scared they might break in.

They have to be inside your house, be there without your consent, and there needs to be some reason to think the person poses a fatal threat to you (i.e. having a gun, knife, etc).

If someone outside your house is banging on the door screaming, even if they're breaking your windows, you call the police. They have to be inside the house able to cause extreme harm.

The only way the castle doctrine could be invoked is if this woman broke into the house itself, not simply walked onto their yard. They couldn't invite her in then shoot her.

Stand your ground is different. Absolutely no objective law need be broken for someone to simply "feel threatened."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 2:43:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One can never definitely state how threatened one person feels by another, only the person who feels threatened. Castle Doctrine is to illustrate this alienation and the alienation that is private property. Maybe when we've sufficiently advanced lie detecting technology the world will become a little bit more just, but I doubt it. Castle Doctrine refers to the darkness behind conventional politics.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 4:24:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 1:45:47 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
The castle doctrine could not have been invoked by a homeowner just because McBride was "knocking on his door to ask for his aid." Walking up another person's driveway and knocking on the door is not, by most standards, an act of forceful intrusion or trespassing. In every jurisdiction (as far as I am aware), such an action carries implicit consent--unless there is a clear indication that such an action is forbidden (such as a large sign.)

We must remember that law enforcement has held back some details of the case until further investigation is completed. Without understanding what sort of perceived threat McBride was posing, it is impossible to conclude which legal standard is being appealed to by the resident who fired the weapon.

Apparently she had been wandering around the neighborhood looking for help to no avail. She was probably very frustrated by that point (possibly aggressive) and the man might have received that the wrong way. Regardless, the fact that the gun was pointed at her face wasn't an accident. Until you are sure you are facing a criminal who means to harm you, you have no business pointing shotguns in faces.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 4:34:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 2:31:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
Castle Doctrine shouldn't apply. You can't kill someone because you feel a lil scared they might break in.

They have to be inside your house, be there without your consent, and there needs to be some reason to think the person poses a fatal threat to you (i.e. having a gun, knife, etc).

If someone outside your house is banging on the door screaming, even if they're breaking your windows, you call the police. They have to be inside the house able to cause extreme harm.

The only way the castle doctrine could be invoked is if this woman broke into the house itself, not simply walked onto their yard. They couldn't invite her in then shoot her.

Stand your ground is different. Absolutely no objective law need be broken for someone to simply "feel threatened."

He didn't try to kill her because he was 'a lil scared' (that we know of), he grabbed his gun and aimed at her face when it accidentally discharged. That's a big difference. It's also possible that when the door opened, she was so shocked by the sight of the shotgun that she made some sort of movement which the man thought was an act of aggression.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 4:48:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 4:34:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/9/2013 2:31:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
Castle Doctrine shouldn't apply. You can't kill someone because you feel a lil scared they might break in.

They have to be inside your house, be there without your consent, and there needs to be some reason to think the person poses a fatal threat to you (i.e. having a gun, knife, etc).

If someone outside your house is banging on the door screaming, even if they're breaking your windows, you call the police. They have to be inside the house able to cause extreme harm.

The only way the castle doctrine could be invoked is if this woman broke into the house itself, not simply walked onto their yard. They couldn't invite her in then shoot her.

Stand your ground is different. Absolutely no objective law need be broken for someone to simply "feel threatened."

He didn't try to kill her because he was 'a lil scared' (that we know of), he grabbed his gun and aimed at her face when it accidentally discharged. That's a big difference. It's also possible that when the door opened, she was so shocked by the sight of the shotgun that she made some sort of movement which the man thought was an act of aggression.

I would argue that such a careless mistake should receive some level of punishment - maybe not extensive jail time, but perhaps a few months.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:04:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 4:48:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/9/2013 4:34:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/9/2013 2:31:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
Castle Doctrine shouldn't apply. You can't kill someone because you feel a lil scared they might break in.

They have to be inside your house, be there without your consent, and there needs to be some reason to think the person poses a fatal threat to you (i.e. having a gun, knife, etc).

If someone outside your house is banging on the door screaming, even if they're breaking your windows, you call the police. They have to be inside the house able to cause extreme harm.

The only way the castle doctrine could be invoked is if this woman broke into the house itself, not simply walked onto their yard. They couldn't invite her in then shoot her.

Stand your ground is different. Absolutely no objective law need be broken for someone to simply "feel threatened."

He didn't try to kill her because he was 'a lil scared' (that we know of), he grabbed his gun and aimed at her face when it accidentally discharged. That's a big difference. It's also possible that when the door opened, she was so shocked by the sight of the shotgun that she made some sort of movement which the man thought was an act of aggression.

I would argue that such a careless mistake should receive some level of punishment - maybe not extensive jail time, but perhaps a few months.

I agree. He should also never be allowed to own a gun ever again.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:21:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 4:34:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/9/2013 2:31:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
Castle Doctrine shouldn't apply. You can't kill someone because you feel a lil scared they might break in.

They have to be inside your house, be there without your consent, and there needs to be some reason to think the person poses a fatal threat to you (i.e. having a gun, knife, etc).

If someone outside your house is banging on the door screaming, even if they're breaking your windows, you call the police. They have to be inside the house able to cause extreme harm.

The only way the castle doctrine could be invoked is if this woman broke into the house itself, not simply walked onto their yard. They couldn't invite her in then shoot her.

Stand your ground is different. Absolutely no objective law need be broken for someone to simply "feel threatened."

He didn't try to kill her because he was 'a lil scared' (that we know of), he grabbed his gun and aimed at her face when it accidentally discharged. That's a big difference. It's also possible that when the door opened, she was so shocked by the sight of the shotgun that she made some sort of movement which the man thought was an act of aggression.

In both cases castle doctrine won't apply.

You can't open your door, point your gun at someone, and then shoot them if they react to you pointing a gun.

If you point a shotgun at someone and it accidentally discharges, that's manslaughter.

You can't "accidentally discharge" a gun without your finger on a trigger. When your finger goes into that trigger guard, you either are intending to shoot that gun or you are a major hazard to other life.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:23:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.

Go read up on Castle Doctrine, then come back.

You can't shoot someone because they step on your lawn.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:25:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:23:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.

Go read up on Castle Doctrine, then come back.

You can't shoot someone because they step on your lawn.

Although I love imagining the implications of adopting Lordknuckle's view.

Go buy up a bunch of land on the border. Wait for an immigrant to cross and BANG, castle doctrine.

Got a neighbor you don't like? Wait for him to come over and ask for sugar and BANG.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:25:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:21:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/9/2013 4:34:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/9/2013 2:31:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
Castle Doctrine shouldn't apply. You can't kill someone because you feel a lil scared they might break in.

They have to be inside your house, be there without your consent, and there needs to be some reason to think the person poses a fatal threat to you (i.e. having a gun, knife, etc).

If someone outside your house is banging on the door screaming, even if they're breaking your windows, you call the police. They have to be inside the house able to cause extreme harm.

The only way the castle doctrine could be invoked is if this woman broke into the house itself, not simply walked onto their yard. They couldn't invite her in then shoot her.

Stand your ground is different. Absolutely no objective law need be broken for someone to simply "feel threatened."

He didn't try to kill her because he was 'a lil scared' (that we know of), he grabbed his gun and aimed at her face when it accidentally discharged. That's a big difference. It's also possible that when the door opened, she was so shocked by the sight of the shotgun that she made some sort of movement which the man thought was an act of aggression.

In both cases castle doctrine won't apply.

You can't open your door, point your gun at someone, and then shoot them if they react to you pointing a gun.


If you point a shotgun at someone and it accidentally discharges, that's manslaughter.

You can't "accidentally discharge" a gun without your finger on a trigger. When your finger goes into that trigger guard, you either are intending to shoot that gun or you are a major hazard to other life.

I agree with everything said here, but his actions weren't as severe as "killing someone because you feel a lil scared they might break in."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:27:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:25:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:23:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.

Go read up on Castle Doctrine, then come back.

You can't shoot someone because they step on your lawn.

Although I love imagining the implications of adopting Lordknuckle's view.

Go buy up a bunch of land on the border. Wait for an immigrant to cross and BANG, castle doctrine.

Got a neighbor you don't like? Wait for him to come over and ask for sugar and BANG.

Why wait? LK also doesn't "believe" in cops or a judicial system of any kind.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:28:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.

Shut up. Sociopaths (by your own self-description) aren't invited to offer opinions on law or public policy.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:40:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:25:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:23:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.

Go read up on Castle Doctrine, then come back.

You can't shoot someone because they step on your lawn.

Although I love imagining the implications of adopting Lordknuckle's view.

Go buy up a bunch of land on the border. Wait for an immigrant to cross and BANG, castle doctrine.

Got a neighbor you don't like? Wait for him to come over and ask for sugar and BANG.

If a man is in your house and you kill him because you say you felt terribly threatened by his manner, who is to say otherwise and is there not possible protection here by castle doctrine?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:48:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If someone thought that consent was "implied" and was mistaken, they are at fault.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's a license to kill. Granted the alternative is to have a homeowner flee their home in the event of an invasion in the interest of liberty, but it's mental - simple as.

This is private property, individualism, etc. Might as well realise it and adhere to Lordknukle's view for your own safety.
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:53:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There has to be a situation where a reasonable person would fear death or bodily injury..someone knocking on your door doesn't warrant that although I haven't actually read the article. Just going off what your OP said
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:56:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:23:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.

Go read up on Castle Doctrine, then come back.

You can't shoot someone because they step on your lawn.

When did I ever say I want to adopt the "Caste Doctrine?" It is far too lax in its protection of property rights.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:56:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:53:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
There has to be a situation where a reasonable person would fear death or bodily injury..someone knocking on your door doesn't warrant that although I haven't actually read the article. Just going off what your OP said

Yeah, so you're only really safe entering people's houses while you're a little girl or boy.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:57:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:28:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.

Shut up. Sociopaths (by your own self-description) aren't invited to offer opinions on law or public policy.

Then where would all the lawyers and politicians go?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:25:05 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:23:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.

Go read up on Castle Doctrine, then come back.

You can't shoot someone because they step on your lawn.

Although I love imagining the implications of adopting Lordknuckle's view.

Go buy up a bunch of land on the border. Wait for an immigrant to cross and BANG, castle doctrine.

Heh.

Got a neighbor you don't like? Wait for him to come over and ask for sugar and BANG.

It wouldn't really apply if you asked them to come over.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:57:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:57:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:28:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.

Shut up. Sociopaths (by your own self-description) aren't invited to offer opinions on law or public policy.

Then where would all the lawyers and politicians go?

Even lawyers and politicians aren't as depraved as you are.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:58:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:57:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:57:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:28:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Property is not only limited to the house itself- it includes the back and front yards. Going to the doorway- without permission- is a violation of property rights. Should other force have been used? Irrelevant. If somebody infringes on property, any and all force is applicable.

Shut up. Sociopaths (by your own self-description) aren't invited to offer opinions on law or public policy.

Then where would all the lawyers and politicians go?

Even lawyers and politicians aren't as depraved as you are.

10 thousandth post well spent.

Although, I would hardly call myself depraved. I'm just ahead of the curve.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 6:03:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 6:02:20 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Everyone's just afraid, Lordknukle.

Will you please, for the love of god, just shut the hell up?

Please and thank you.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."