dagblog - Comments for "Is the Castle Doctrine for people that can afford castles?"

This isn't so much about gun

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:20:00 +0000

In reply to Is the Castle Doctrine for people that can afford castles?

This isn't so much about gun rights as it is about loosening up the circumstances under which people can use deadly force.

I'm very wary of expanding the definition of "self defense" beyond, you know, defending oneself from an imminent threat.

If anything, these laws make me warier of gun ownership, since gun owners are being indemnified for reckless use of their guns.

If you claim he was breaking

acanuck — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:05:52 +0000

In reply to I suspect you'd need proof he

If you claim he was breaking in, and he's dead, the prosecutor has to disprove your claim, no? And his best witness is dead. I suspect you'd walk.

I suspect you'd need proof he

Donal — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:56:45 +0000

In reply to I've been mulling this over

I suspect you'd need proof he was breaking in, but I also wonder about the middle ground between defending oneself and family and appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner.

I've been mulling this over

Orlando — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:16:44 +0000

In reply to Is the Castle Doctrine for people that can afford castles?

I've been mulling this over since I read several hours ago. There's a lot to digest. The Supreme Court decisions of late have me very nervous about the fate of Constitutional protections I have probably always taken for granted. But what strikes me most is the Pennsylvania bill. How is it okay to shoot somebody, just because they come in your house? That sounds like an idea the unintended consequences of which legislators haven't thought through. Hate your brother-in-law. No problem. Just invite him to your house, shoot him, and claim he was threatening you. Who cares if he didn't pull a gun. In Pennsylvania, you're in the clear.