No but state and federal prosecuters do. If you shoot someone and/or kill them, it better have been because you had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or loss of life (or the defense of another from the same).
You'll be in deep water if you shoot someone running out of your house with a TV, even with a castle doctrine, but the law says you can stop them from leaving with your property with reasonable physical force, then escalate to deadly force when they confront you and become a threat.
Almost every castle doctrine law stil requires that the person was a threat and that the action was justfied under the normal use for force laws. Castle doctrine does not give a licence to unconditionally shoot or kill someone for being in your house. It only gives you legal immunity if you do end up shooting or killing someone in your house for a valid reason as defined by the regular laws regarding use of force.
Oh man.. that is so totally insane.
You can be in the nicest, most peaceful suburb in the USA and this type of crime can find you. Feeling "safe" in your neighborhood is being naive
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2132349.ece
Awful.
Defending your family and property under threat of bodily harm is hardly insane.
lol, I'm not talking about suing, no court would hear a suit.. But in Canada you'd be up on second degree murder charges and face life in prison for that...
Thanks for pointing out the castle law and whatnot nkgreen. That is crazy.. lol. I really thought the Simpsons where Wiggum told Homer that "once they are in your house whatever you do is nice and legal.. it doesn't work if you invite them" was just the Simpson's being a cartoon..
Oh man.. that is so totally insane.
I'm not sure why one would 'want' to kill someone for taking their TV... but whatever. I've yet to meet a criminal that was able to put up more resistance than a squirrel and not run off at a relatively loud noise.
No but state and federal prosecuters do. If you shoot someone and/or kill them, it better have been because you had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or loss of life (or the defense of another from the same).
You'll be in deep water if you shoot someone running out of your house with a TV, even with a castle doctrine, but the law says you can stop them from leaving with your property with reasonable physical force, then escalate to deadly force when they confront you and become a threat.
Almost every castle doctrine law stil requires that the person was a threat and that the action was justfied under the normal use for force laws. Castle doctrine does not give a licence to unconditionally shoot or kill someone for being in your house. It only gives you legal immunity if you do end up shooting or killing someone in your house for a valid reason as defined by the regular laws regarding use of force.
What is more insane is completely denying your survival instinct and letting them do whatever they want and submitting...
The defence is not insane, the fact that you can respond to a drunk trying to find beer in your kitchen with murder and not have to face charges is the insane part. I fully expect folks to respond in kind to a threat, and not have to face charges if the response is rational.
I have no doubt that it 'can' happen.. but seems like a depressing life to live in fear of something less likely than your entire family being killed by a drunk driver that crashes into your living room. Hell, your more likely to be hit by a drunk driver than to ever even see a burglar.. (unless he was drunk and wandering around your lawn.)
No but state and federal prosecuters do. If you shoot someone and/or kill them, it better have been because you had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or loss of life (or the defense of another from the same).
You'll be in deep water if you shoot someone running out of your house with a TV, even with a castle doctrine, but the law says you can stop them from leaving with your property with reasonable physical force, then escalate to deadly force when they confront you and become a threat.
Almost every castle doctrine law stil requires that the person was a threat and that the action was justfied under the normal use for force laws. Castle doctrine does not give a licence to unconditionally shoot or kill someone for being in your house. It only gives you legal immunity if you do end up shooting or killing someone in your house for a valid reason as defined by the regular laws regarding use of force.
From what I can tell, in Alabama you can use deadly force if they break in (with a few clauses).
Section a, subsection 4.
You see some bum sitting in your kitchen uninvited. You don't know if he has a gun or what he plans on doing. He might want to rape your daughter and cut off your weener. Only rational response is to make sure he doesn't have a chance to act.
Why do we have sympathy for crooks?
That is the LEAST rational response... The most is to say for him to get the hell out of there.
The defence is not insane, the fact that you can respond to a drunk trying to find beer in your kitchen with murder and not have to face charges is the insane part. I fully expect folks to respond in kind to a threat, and not have to face charges if the response is rational.
You should read more than the first paragraph. Castle doctrine is merely unconditional legal immunity from what must already be a lawful use of deadly force in self defense, which means that the defense must still fall under justified use of deadly force laws requiring an imminent threat of injury or bodily harm. You cannot be defended by castle doctrine if you just shoot someone without a threat.
I'm a firearm owner and I do not live my life in fear. I am simply capable of defending myself should such a situation arise. Understand?
Since I am more likely to be killed by a drunk driver, does that mean I should not own a firearm to defend my home? I dont follow your argument.
He only reads what he wants to.
You should read more than the first paragraph. Castle doctrine is merely unconditional legal immunity from what must already be a lawful use of deadly force in self defense, which means that the defense must still fall under justified use of deadly force laws requiring an imminent threat of injury or bodily harm. You cannot be defended by castle doctrine if you just shoot someone without a threat.
Of course if they are not initially a threat, and in the course of making them identify themselves, leave, or put your property down, they decide to become a threat, at that point it escalates to reasonable use of deadly force.
I suppose I understand.. just seems like you were advocating that folks should own a gun or they WILL live in fear... my point was that if I don't live in fear of any number of other things that are more likely why would I need to worry about protecting myself from things that are even less likely. Not that I could own a hand gun if I wanted to.
Doesn't that make it a profoundly redundant law if you are already protected by self defence laws? I'm sorry I'm not an expert on foreign laws...
You misunderstand my views. I am not advocating someone live their life in fear. I am advocating that people have the right to defend themselves and their families should they need or want to. Yes, its unlikely but it happens. Stories of rape and murder in peaceful suburbs are all over the news. Just because its rare doesnt mean you should never think about it possibly happening. Assuming it wont happen to you is silly.
You brought up drunk drivers. I focus on things in my life that I can control. Can I control a drunk driver? No. I cannot. Can I control someone breaking into my home, shooting me then raping my girlfriend? Yes, that is something that I can control. That is why I choose to exercise my 2nd amendment rights to own a firearm should such a situation occur.
But of course, if you hate yourself and feel you have nothing, like normal people do, you are going to want to have nuclear weapons to protect your crumbs.
I have no doubt that it 'can' happen.. but seems like a depressing life to live in fear of something less likely than your entire family being killed by a drunk driver that crashes into your living room. Hell, your more likely to be hit by a drunk driver than to ever even see a burglar.. (unless he was drunk and wandering around your lawn.)
lol, I'm not talking about suing, no court would hear a suit.. But in Canada you'd be up on second degree murder charges and face life in prison for that...
Thanks for pointing out the castle law and whatnot nkgreen. That is crazy.. lol. I really thought the Simpsons where Wiggum told Homer that "once they are in your house whatever you do is nice and legal.. it doesn't work if you invite them" was just the Simpson's being a cartoon..
Oh man.. that is so totally insane.
I'm not sure why one would 'want' to kill someone for taking their TV... but whatever. I've yet to meet a criminal that was able to put up more resistance than a squirrel and not run off at a relatively loud noise.