Yet more castle doctrine laws!

[Bugfatty300]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214830/Homeowners-win-right-use-lethal-force-burglars-Disproportionate-levels-violence-backed.html

The long campaign to give householders the right to use maximum force against burglars will end in victory today.

Chris Grayling will announce he is changing the law to allow people to use ‘disproportionate’ levels of violence to protect themselves and their families.

Mr Grayling’s move follows changes made by his predecessor Ken Clarke, which removed a legal requirement for householders to retreat.

Guidance for police has also been changed to encourage fewer arrests of those defending their home.

So will castle doctrine finally apply to people who actually live in castles?

 

[Phrossack]

People may say that their home is their castle, but most such "castles" are pitifully small, pathetically garrisoned, and woefully vulnerable to breaching and fire. They wouldn't last a day under trebuchet barrage, or infantry storming through the windows.

 

[FriendlyFire]

So will castle doctrine finally apply to people who actually live in castles?

Only if the open fire on people sitting in cars.

 

[schlaufuchs]

People may say that their home is their castle, but most such "castles" are pitifully small, pathetically garrisoned, and woefully vulnerable to breaching and fire. They wouldn't last a day under trebuchet barrage, or infantry storming through the windows.

Don't forget tunneling. Never forget tunneling.

CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

 

[Phrossack]

Don't forget tunneling. Never forget tunneling.

CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

My basement has/had concrete walls which, while breachable, are harder to breach than glass windows. Of course, you could always just use a certain giant frikkin' proto-steampunk tank drill to bore through the walls...

In all seriousness, I'm ambivalent about this. Part of me dislikes the idea of killing a person on the spot for minor burglary and fears this will get abused by paranoid gun-grabbers, who claim that their arsenal big enough to outfit a small army is for "home defense" (presumably against the Commies/black helicopters/crab people/etc). The other part thinks this is justified, especially since you can't know for certain the intruder's intentions until it's too late.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

My basement has/had concrete walls which, while breachable, are harder to breach than glass windows. Of course, you could always just use a certain giant frikkin' proto-steampunk tank drill to bore through the walls...

In all seriousness, I'm ambivalent about this. Part of me dislikes the idea of killing a person on the spot for minor burglary and fears this will get abused by paranoid gun-grabbers, who claim that their arsenal big enough to outfit a small army is for "home defense" (presumably against the Commies/black helicopters/crab people/etc). The other part thinks this is justified, especially since you can't know for certain the intruder's intentions until it's too late.

True. I would hate to kill someone over something minor as well. But then again, if someone breaks in my house, all bets are off.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It doesn't matter if you "Like it" or not, the rights of the innocent should ALWAYS trump the rights of guilty people. Always, every time, without exception.

 

[Phrossack]

It doesn't matter if you "Like it" or not, the rights of the innocent should ALWAYS trump the rights of guilty people. Always, every time, without exception.

No. If I have a lollipop, and somebody snatches it from me, would I be justified in shooting him dead on the spot?

 

[JollyRoger]

It doesn't matter if you "Like it" or not, the rights of the innocent should ALWAYS trump the rights of guilty people. Always, every time, without exception.

If a castle dweller shoots an innocent person, should they be able to hide behind the castle doctrine or lose that right?

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

No. If I have a lollipop, and somebody snatches it from me, would I be justified in shooting him dead on the spot?

Well, tell me this. Should I be arrested if someone breaks in my house to steal my flat screen TV and he tries hitting me and I blast his chest off and he narrowly survives and he wants to sue me and have me arrested? This isn't "civil" old England here buddy.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, tell me this. Should I be arrested if someone breaks in my house to steal my flat screen TV and he tries hitting me and I blast his chest off and he narrowly survives and he wants to sue me and have me arrested? This isn't "civil" old England here buddy.

It depends on how threatening the hitter is. If it is a 10 year old kid, you should probably be put away for a while. What the Castle Doctrine allows though is for you to shoot an unarmed trespasser in the back.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

It depends on how threatening the hitter is. If it is a 10 year old kid, you should probably be put away for a while. What the Castle Doctrine allows though is for you to shoot an unarmed trespasser in the back.

So? So if I got a handgun on me and he briefly overpowers me and starts running, I'm going to kill him anyhow. Why should I not? Oh? He has rights now since he is running? No thanks.

 

[Borachio]

There was a man in the UK surprised a burglar in his house, chased the burglar down the road, caught him and beat him very severely.

The man was jailed for using disproportionate force. There must be a limit somewhere.


edit: Mr E is showing his less friendly side, here.

 

[Phrossack]

Well, tell me this. Should I be arrested if someone breaks in my house to steal my flat screen TV and he tries hitting me and I blast his chest off and he narrowly survives and he wants to sue me and have me arrested? This isn't "civil" old England here buddy.

You carefully avoided answering my question and instead offered your own. And this isn't the Wild West, "buddy".

 

[JollyRoger]

So? So if I got a handgun on me and he briefly overpowers me and starts running, I'm going to kill him anyhow. Why should I not? Oh? He has rights now since he is running? No thanks.

The 10 year kid or the mere trespasser (who I did not indicate was overpowering you)?

 

[Bugfatty300]

So? So if I got a handgun on me and he briefly overpowers me and starts running, I'm going to kill him anyhow. Why should I not? Oh? He has rights now since he is running? No thanks.

You'd have no legal right to shoot because he no longer poses an immediate threat to you.

 

[Crezth]

It doesn't matter if you "Like it" or not, the rights of the innocent should ALWAYS trump the rights of guilty people. Always, every time, without exception.

And you wonder why people like Traitorfish conflate property with violence.

"Property isn't violence! It's liberty! Hey- get off of my grass, you palooka! *rat-a-tat-tat*"

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

There was a man in the UK surprised a burglar in his house, chased the burglar down the road, caught him and beat him very severely.

The man was jailed for using disproportionate force. There must be a limit somewhere.


edit: Mr E is showing his less friendly side, here.

You carefully avoided answering my question and instead offered your own. And this isn't the Wild West, "buddy".

I did answer your question. And if it's my house, I can do whatever I want "buddy".

The 10 year kid or the mere trespasser (who I did not indicate was overpowering you)?

I was talking about a mere trespasser. I won't shoot a 10 year old who snuck in my house. I might crack him in the head and kick him out for being stupid but I won't kill or seriously injure the kid.

You'd have no legal right to shoot because he no longer poses an immediate threat to you.

Well I will anyhow. It is what it is.

 

[JollyRoger]

I was talking about a mere trespasser.

Except you added facts. I was talking about a mere trespasser that did nothing more than trespass and get the attention of your itchy trigger finger.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

Except you added facts. I was talking about a mere trespasser that did nothing more than trespass and get the attention of your itchy trigger finger.

Well define that? If he is entering my house to walk out the back door then uhm... that makes no sense what so ever. Now, if you mean someone going though my back yard which has happen before, well no chief I won't pop the guy, why?