SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine...

SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine...

This is a discussion on SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine... within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; First the furor over Stand Your Ground in Florida... now The NY Times is trying to stir the pot on Castle Doctrine... (and BTW, NYT ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49
Like Tree30Likes

Thread: SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine...

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414

    SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine...

    First the furor over Stand Your Ground in Florida... now The NY Times is trying to stir the pot on Castle Doctrine... (and BTW, NYT is resurrecting TM/GZ in this article to try to link the laws together in their "injustice").

    I would like real journalism to return someday... without the opinion/slant/innuendo... Just the facts, folks; just the facts.

    Here's the story, sigh
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose


  2. #2
    Member Array lyz_grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    251
    I couldn't finish the article. What journalism.

    Judging by what I was able to get through, though, sounds like the dude needed to take matters up with his tramp.

  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array RoadRunner71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,375
    Gee, does anyone think he was there to borrow a cup of sugar?

    It does seem suspicious, though. Could the whole thing have been a setup to clear the way?
    Spade115 likes this.
    "Mind own business"
    "Always cut cards"

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,437
    I guess one could say it's a license to kill--inside your home when being threatened. The Mont. DA called it a good shoot--case over. The NY Times needs to pay more attention to problems inside its territory, like those violent 32 oz sodas.
    mano3 and GeorgiaDawg like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array goldshellback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    OKC; by way of St. Mayberry, GA
    Posts
    4,750
    Could you imagine the uproar if I brought some illegal trans-fat into NYC after I straw-purchased it in, say, Hartford?
    "Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008

    (Sometimes) "a fight avioded is a fight won." ... claude clay

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array BigJon10125's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,113
    Return would imply that it was that way once...
    BigJon


    "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" ~ Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    "Proponents say the laws strengthen people’s right to defend their homes. To others, they are a license to kill. "

    "Had Mr. Fredenberg been shot on the street or sidewalk, the legal outcome might have been different. But on Oct. 9, the Flathead County attorney decided not to prosecute, saying that Montana’s “castle doctrine” law, which maintains that a man’s home is his castle, protected Mr. Harper’s rights to vigorously defend himself there."

    and then how is this for spin?
    "In Montana, it has focused new scrutiny on whether the castle doctrine measure, implemented in 2009, has given homeowners the authority to defend themselves against real threats or has provided a way to kill without consequences. "
    ----------------
    Wow, really? A license to kill without consequences. That's quite an embelishment if I've ever heard one. He says the community has not been served well, but does not mention the individuals who have been able to protect themselves from an attack, and then another attack from the legal system. I bet they feel well served.

    Then he quotes a lawyer: “For any sort of personal affront, you’re permitted to threaten the person with a gun.” I think that guy needs to go back and read the law again. You really couldn't make up more rediculous statements than are in this article. It's amazing.

    All of that spin and hype, and THEN they tell you at the end of the article... oh yeah, and the guy that was storming into the garage was drunk, distraught, his wife was in the guys house and had just got off the phone telling him she was there before he stormed over. And, this was not their first altercation. I think the guy had a few reasons to fear for his life.
    Walk softly ...

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,003
    and then how is this for spin?

    "In Montana, it has focused new scrutiny on whether the castle doctrine measure, implemented in 2009, has given homeowners the authority to defend themselves against real threats or has provided a way to kill without consequences."
    Yeah, that is pretty bad.

    It's a recognition that in one's own home there is, by definition, no further retreat possible. A simple presumption of threat to life and limb seems a reasonable interpretation. Kudos to states that have put it so clearly as that. Double kudos to states that have extended the basic protection (when faced with threat to life/limb) to anywhere a person has every right to be.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,885

    SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine...

    There was also the spin about the law being changed so that if someone breaks in you don't need to be in fear of your life, just reasonably believe you will be assaulted. It then goes on to say that they could just bust your nose or it could be "just a fist fight". In response to this, I've go two words for the author, only one of which I can say here: you. If someone breaks in to someone's home they have NO, NADA, zero grounds to 'just assault' them. To expect that the victim should try to flee or wait for the govt to come to their rescue. The castle doctrine law fixes a major problem, or loop hole, in the concept of rightful expectation of safety, sanctity, and justice.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJon10125 View Post
    Return would imply that it was that way once...
    Well, it was certainly more so than it is today...

    Who
    What
    When
    Where
    How


    Its when you add that other W, "Why" that you start getting innuendo, opinion, and other non sequiturs.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    We the people here in MT are happy with that law. I think the NYTimes needs to focus on the BS going on in their own locale, rather than reporting on something at the other end of the country.
    goldmaster and GunGeezer like this.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array ep1953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kodak TN
    Posts
    1,155
    The husband was in the other guy's house and legally drunk. I would tend to give the benefit of a doubt to the home owner if this went to trial even WITHOUT the castle doctrine law.

    And reading the comments in the original article, some yahoo opined as to how the state department might need to add Montana to the list of places that it's dangerous for US citizens to travel to........


    In my opinion, New York City should be on that list instead.

  13. #13
    Member Array DroidGeorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Smith, Arkansas
    Posts
    151

    Re: SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine...

    Arkansas doesn't use 'Castle' or 'Stand your ground'. However our law is written (and I am paraphrasing) :

    1.You have the Constitutional right to defend yourself.
    2. However if you can back out of a situation you MUST do that.
    3. However if YOU think that it will jeopardize your safety in the process of backing out of the situation.
    4. Have at it.



    George
    CaveJohnson likes this.
    Smile. It makes people wonder what you are up to

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array Chevy-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    926
    The husband was obviously irate (maybe drunk too), and the confrontation that would have followed could easily have been fatal to the younger man. A sad outcome all around.
    'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1953 View Post
    The husband was in the other guy's house and legally drunk. I would tend to give the benefit of a doubt to the home owner if this went to trial even WITHOUT the castle doctrine law.

    And reading the comments in the original article, some yahoo opined as to how the state department might need to add Montana to the list of places that it's dangerous for US citizens to travel to........


    In my opinion, New York City should be on that list instead.
    I'd walk unarmed in the worst neighborhood in MT before I walked through the best neighborhood in NYC.

    I get a laugh out of all the comments on that page. 99% of the ones opposing it are listed in either NY or CA. I also saw a few Chicagos in there, too.
    GunGeezer, bspoon and MrsHB like this.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

arkansas castle doctrine

,

arkansas castle doctrine law

,

castle doctrine arkansas

,
castle doctrine good bad
,
castle doctrine good or bad
,
castle doctrine in ny
,
castle doctrine law ny
,
castle law arkansas
,

georgia castle doctrine

,
georgia castle doctrine fleeing
,
georgia castle law
,
ny castle doctrine
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors