poll
by | Using full, lethal force under all circumstances | |
| Capturing and subduing an intruder with minimal injury | |
| Calling authorities and stalling for time | |
| Using lethal force under limited circumstances | |
| Using crippling force under all circumstances | |
| Only saying "please" | |
| Remaining peaceful and sharing the home | |
| Doing nothing |
Add a Comment (15)
Email This
Message Author
But since we've picked up a few readers from California and Berkeley - what are some of the other perspectives/why?
Yeah Yeah - ignore that goofiness of the self-overlapping Venn nature of my statement. <jedi mind trick>
RSS
Lethal force under all circumstances by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 26 February 2008
All circumstances? All of them? Meaning someone comes to your door to sell you cookies, you invite them in and kill them, and everything fine and dandy?
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 26 February 2008
Castle Doctrine defines the defense of the home. I suppose you could be that crotchety old guy in a rocking chair wielding a shotgun at neighborhood kids if you wanted to. I believed it to be an unwanted intruder where all circumstances are defined as everything from intending to murder you to simply snooping around.
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 26 February 2008
So, what if you invite a friend in and then get in a political argument? Once you decide you want him out of your house, you're free to kill him if he doesn't leave fast enough? What if you invite someone in and then catch them going through your diary? What if the ten year old boy next door sneaks in and you catch him trying to find dirty magazines under your bed?
(I can keep going, if you need more.)
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 26 February 2008
You jest - but it's actually a legit question. Say you do invite someone into your home and things get out of hand. At the point of which you ask them to leave, the question stands correct - what is the limitation upon which you can remove that person?
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 26 February 2008
The question is correct, but the "all circumstances" answer is still ridiculous. It means no actions must be taken to try to remove the person from your home without using lethal force. It means there are no requirements for the existence or extent of a perceived threat or danger. You don't want someone there, you can kill them.
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 26 February 2008
Then it is clear, that you should vote for the fourth option: "Using lethal force under limited circumstances." Perhaps if a certain somebody with two capital letters in his last name had coded it right ... it would have been more obvious!
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 26 February 2008
Yes, I voted for that option. I'm trying to elicit a justification from someone who chose the "all circumstances" option.
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 26 February 2008
Your examples have nothing to do with Castle Doctrine, though. All Circumstances are those where Castle Doctrine applies. Otherwise you could be as absurd as saying I can shoot someone across the street because my astrological symbols were aligned, it was a full moon and he was "coming right at me."
Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle.”
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 26 February 2008
Holy long link, Batman!
Assuming you chose the "all circumstances" option, you must think "all circumstances" as listed means "all circumstances in which someone is attacked in his home." Is that right?
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 26 February 2008
Since it's generally frowned upon to include so much text in the poll, I had to assume the connection would be made that "all circumstances" in which Caste Doctrine may be invoked would be deduced by the reader.
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 26 February 2008
True, but it is rather confusing to have "all circumstances" really mean "all circumstances limited to where the Castle Doctrine applies" - particularly if it's in contrast to "limited circumstances."
I guess the latter, then, should be interpreted to mean "all circumstances limited to where the Castle Doctrine applies as well as some additional criteria?"
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by AnonBCA :: NR6 :: on 26 February 2008
I agree with Brandon..."ALL" implies that you have full autonomy in your own home, that would defeat the purpose of a government in the first place...your home isn't an embassy.
RE: Lethal force under all circumstances by Occams :: NR6 :: on 26 February 2008
I agree generally with Brandon, but I would add the observation that some circumstances might involve a lawful attempt to remove you or a family member or property from your home. There should be no right to kill public servants performing their lawful duties, or even contractors.
Some nerds have told me that they seriously believe that they have the right to bear arms so that they can fight the Government when they think it is justified! Others say that they have to shoot first, using the biggest weapon, in case the door-knocker is about to shoot them. While such an emotive case can be imagined, it would not be typical and should not be the basis for a trigger-happy law.
I can't see any justification for using more force than is necessary to protect your home and its contents. That makes it a question of in whose judgement is the amount of force that is necessary. I say, let each case be judged on its merits by charging them and having a court decide after the event, but don't give a blanket defence that lethal force is always justified under any (or even most) circumstances.