Friday, February 10, 2012

Applying Castle Doctrine, this Guy Would Have Been Shot

I don't agree with the laxer Castle Doctrine laws; I agree with Laci that they amount to a license to kill.

Given the circumstances shown in this video, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this man who intruded was in fact in some way harmlessly and innocently impaired. While it is possible that impairment was from a controlled substance, it is just as possible that he had an unexpected reaction to a prescription drug. In any case, for unintentionally intruding while in a state of impairment and confusion, he certainly doesn't deserve to be shot, killed or injured. Too many of our gun loons make the unwarranted leap that anyone who is present without an invitation is dangerous, intends harm, and deserves gun violence from them for reasons of self defense.

Clearly, that is NOT true, and this is just one example of that. Good for this woman for responding the way she did, and thank god for this man's sake that she wasn't one of our blood lusting violence prone gun lunatics.

From MSNBC.com:


13 comments:

  1. If all home invaders cooked and cleaned without causing damage and without stealing, you might be right. But do you seriously mean to suggest that this is typical?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not typical at all, but of all the home invaders, the ones who deserve death are few indeed. That's the point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Home invasion is by its nature a violent act. You're far too willing to presume innocence on the part of a violent criminal.

      Delete
  3. "blood lusting violence prone gun lunatics"
    You're just too kind.
    This fella was clearly not a violent home invader, he is just a housekeeping fairy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And applying the criteria that is used here, B3 (glad you liked that!), for simply being in the wrong place, armed or not, under the Castle Doctrine, our commenters claim the right to shoot him for that.

      I'd like to know how he got in. Was the door left unlocked? Did they leave a key somewhere, and he found it? Did he break in, climb through a window left open....what?

      Clearly, not every person on someone's property is a threat. But making our Castle Doctrines to pro-gun would make it far too easy to shoot people like the 'housekeeping fairy'.

      Delete
    2. Dog Gone, you're a fine one for data when it's on your side, but what percentage of home invaders are like this addled man?

      Delete
    3. Greg, I suggest you check out the Justice stats on how few people commit crimes with firearms or with other weapons.

      The numbers are not on your side.

      The ones that posit that all or most home invaders are a significant threat to your life, or justify deadly force --- those numbers aren't supporting your side's arguments.

      Delete
    4. Dog Gone, focus please. However many home invaders there are, what percentage of that number are housecleaning fairies? What percentage break in to steal or injure?

      But if few people commit crimes with firearms, why do you wish to take them away?

      Delete
    5. Greg, I realize that you have clearly evidenced here that you are not good at research and you are not good at reasoning.

      I refer you to the number of people who are threats - as in having lethal weapons that could harm people - which are statistics kept by the Bureau of Justice. Most crimes are NOT committed with weapons, which make them similar to the housekeeping fairy, as he has been dubbed. I would argue that you have an uphill argument on your hand to establish how many, if any, of the unarmed people who break into houses are a threat, given they are unarmed. Unarmed equals a certain prima facie evidence that they do not plan to harm people, since they come unprepared to do so.

      Given the high frequency of certain KINDS of crimes, coupled with the frequency that firarms are used to threaten, as in domestic violence, that are not included in the Bureau of Justice stats, particularly in comparison with the similar statistics in countries with FEWER guns limited to more responsible owners, and more rigorously regulated, we would do well to emulate the laws of those countries.

      It would make ALL of us more free, safer, less intimidated, less threatened, less injured, and a lot fewer people DEAD.

      You are being particularly dishonest here Greg, because you yourself have argued that anyone in your home is automatically a person you would be justified in shooting, based on your assumptions.

      That is simply wrong, and your assumptions are not legitimate.

      Delete
    6. Apparently, Dog Gone, you've never heard of a disparity of force. You don't understand how someone can be physically threatening without having a firearm on his person. You're also delusional in thinking that someone who breaks into another's home has no intent to cause harm. In a home invasion, the presumption is that the invader is there to cause harm, and it's up to him to demonstrate the contrary.

      Delete
  4. "for simply being in the wrong place, armed or not, under the Castle Doctrine, our commenters claim the right to shoot him for that."
    Negative. In order to use deadly force under the Castle Doctrine, the trespasser must have committed or is about to commit an act of violence. The Castle Doctrine defines these acts of violence. Simple trespassing doesn't not fit into these definitions. (with some exceptions)

    One would have to assume that the door was unlocked. since the lawful resident didn't have a key to unlock her own door.

    Too pro-gun or too homeowner friendly? Castle Doctrine doesn't just allow shooting someone but also hitting them with a baseball bat.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bill, You're wrong. many pro-gun guys say the very act of breaking in is proof enough of lethal intent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Breaking into a home is certainly good evidence that the person is there to cause some kind of harm.

      Delete