Castle Doctrine Minus The Firearm

This is a discussion on Castle Doctrine Minus The Firearm within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by mlr1m This is a remedy to the problem of excessive force by beating. Had the gentleman fired a gun it would be ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Castle Doctrine Minus The Firearm

  1. #16
    Member Array JJVP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    This is a remedy to the problem of excessive force by beating. Had the gentleman fired a gun it would be hard to argue that he used to much gun. It would not be reasonable to say he could stop the bullet if it was no longer necessary.
    Not so with a total beat down. That is something that could be stopped at the moment it became no longer necessary for self defense.

    I guess what I am asking is......would this person be safer from possible criminal charges had he used a firearm instead of hand to hand?

    Michael
    There is not enough detail in the article to determine if the homeowner used excessive force. For all we know they struggled and the BG fell hitting his head on the ground. A blow to the head like that could kill someone. When I was a kid I had a friend that died from a head injury when he lost his grip after jumping to grab a swing set bar.

    Then again, maybe the homeowner beat the BG with a baseball bat until he got tired of hitting.

    Like I said, we need more info before we get the hanging rope.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    This is a remedy to the problem of excessive force by beating. Had the gentleman fired a gun it would be hard to argue that he used to much gun. It would not be reasonable to say he could stop the bullet if it was no longer necessary.
    Not so with a total beat down. That is something that could be stopped at the moment it became no longer necessary for self defense.

    I guess what I am asking is......would this person be safer from possible criminal charges had he used a firearm instead of hand to hand?

    Michael
    And that is one darn good question. We had another thread recently in which I glibly joked that there is a reason I practice H2H
    3 hours a week, and I would gladly lay on hands and maybe a knife, in lieu of lead. Someone else responded that they would use lead because my way requires exertion and effort and they are lazy. All joking about this aside, you have raised a really good question. If you have an intruder to deal with and the ability to handle him with H2H, are you safer legally to shoot him then to man handle him in a way which might "accidentally" cause lethal injuries which were unintended. (Keeping in mind that
    when you stop a threat with lead lethality is an unintended after effect of the attempt to stop the threat too.)

    Where's Mitchell when we need him?
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    are you safer legally to shoot him then to man handle him in a way which might "accidentally" cause lethal injuries which were unintended. (Keeping in mind that
    when you stop a threat with lead lethality is an unintended after effect of the attempt to stop the threat too.)

    Where's Mitchell when we need him?
    I think in NC we would be safe to do whatever was necessary. Our new CD really is nice.

    14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
    (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
    (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,505
    There is sooo little in the article to determine anything... Guy could have been entering, and the owner slammed his head in the door 1-100 times... we don't know...


    But if it had been a baseball bat, how does one determine which was the lethal blow, the first or the last, or one halfway through?

    On another note... so far, in NC, the CD law has had the desired effect for the homeowners as far as I can see.... I do worry about the use of reasonableness... there's a LOT of wiggle room in that statute... A LOT.
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Beating someone into submission takes lots of effort. Seems to me it might be easy for a D.A. to convince a Jury that your defense could have ceased before that much damage was done.
    Not so with a firearm. You cannot be expected to stop the bullet once it is set in motion.

    Michael

  7. #21
    Member Array DeathRales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    57
    At least they CAN'T take away his WEAPONS of choice.

  8. #22
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    34,564
    There was a recent Castle Doctrine case in PA where the homeowner used a hunting crossbow and shot the threat in the chest. The threat expired. I believe that the threat was wielding a baseball bat & was a "relative?" who had threatened to kill the homeowner.

    In this case the Castle Doctrine law was extended out to the connected porch...or outside patio.

    It was determined that the homeowner was justified in the use of deadly force.

    I'm not really up on the intricate or exact details - I just caught part of it on the car radio.

  9. #23
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,533
    Quote Originally Posted by l1a1 View Post
    Unfortunately, Society has failed these cretins and made that line of work attractive. How many jobs do you think he pulled off without encountering the kind of resistance that ended his career? Reminds me of what the Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney said, ""If you go into a store,with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot".
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m;2136545[B
    ]Remove the part that I highlighted and I would be in full agreement with your post.[/B]Michael
    Quote Originally Posted by l1a1 View Post
    That was a bit sarcastic of me, yes.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Glad I read your next post B4 blasting you!!!!!!!!!!


    From article:

    In 2010, Robinson pleaded guilty to breaking and entering, a felony, according to Franklin County Common Pleas Court records.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BG was a repeat offender^^^^^^^^

    Now hes a D*&d offender.

    The homeowner will/should not be worrying about anything, as long as its all above board/legit.
    l1a1 likes this.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  10. #24
    Senior Member Array boatail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    va.
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by l1a1 View Post
    I agree with ya 100%. I was making the point that if enough people took their duty to defend themselves and their families that home invasions and robberies would be much too risky of an occupation. Not really trying to remove personal responsibility for the criminals actions. Just adding some personal responsiblility for the general populace.
    I know it's a fools errand. I cannot even convince some people close to me that their are wolves in society and one is well served to be able to meet a threat with the appropriate amount of force in return.
    Thats it in a nutshell, what are you willing to put up with? PC be damned, if every law abiding person fought back like a righteous banshee against unlawfull attacks, eventually, everyone would come to accept the fact that, that behaviour will not be tolerated OR protected by lawyers.
    l1a1 likes this.
    Light travels faster than sound...thats why some people appear bright before they speak

  11. #25
    Member Array Ducmonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    199
    We certainly need more information to do any more than speculate as to what really happened.
    The thing I noticed is the article said this:

    "Witnesses told police that a homeowner caught Robinson attempting to break into the back of his home at 1765 Bruck St. and confronted him."

    It's the attempting to break into part of this that makes me wonder how this will play out. What if this is a case of a scrawny drug addict who gets caught
    by the 6' 5" 280 lb owner that has a strong dislike for people messing with his stuff who then goes ape Sh$t on this guy?

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array boatail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    va.
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducmonster View Post
    We certainly need more information to do any more than speculate as to what really happened.
    The thing I noticed is the article said this:

    "Witnesses told police that a homeowner caught Robinson attempting to break into the back of his home at 1765 Bruck St. and confronted him."

    It's the attempting to break into part of this that makes me wonder how this will play out. What if this is a case of a scrawny drug addict who gets caught
    by the 6' 5" 280 lb owner that has a strong dislike for people messing with his stuff who then goes ape Sh$t on this guy?
    What is wrong with that scenario? Does he have to be smaller and scrawnier to be justified?
    Light travels faster than sound...thats why some people appear bright before they speak

  13. #27
    Member Array l1a1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    293
    Maybe his point was whether or not the bad guy had actually made entry. I'm guessing the law varies from state to state.

  14. #28
    Senior Member Array boatail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    va.
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by l1a1 View Post
    Maybe his point was whether or not the bad guy had actually made entry. I'm guessing the law varies from state to state.
    That may be one of those "fine points of law" whether or not they actually stepped foot into the home or just kicked the door in, but to me, they are the same. Anyone who breaks in or attempts to break in my home and threaten me or my family with harm, will be shot. I don't care how scrawny they are.
    Light travels faster than sound...thats why some people appear bright before they speak

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array Cold Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    There is sooo little in the article to determine anything... Guy could have been entering, and the owner slammed his head in the door 1-100 times... we don't know...


    But if it had been a baseball bat, how does one determine which was the lethal blow, the first or the last, or one halfway through?

    On another note... so far, in NC, the CD law has had the desired effect for the homeowners as far as I can see.... I do worry about the use of reasonableness... there's a LOT of wiggle room in that statute... A LOT.
    A clean blow from a bat would kill somebody in one shot.

  16. #30
    Member Array l1a1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by boatail View Post
    That may be one of those "fine points of law" whether or not they actually stepped foot into the home or just kicked the door in, but to me, they are the same. Anyone who breaks in or attempts to break in my home and threaten me or my family with harm, will be shot. I don't care how scrawny they are.
    I am in complete agreement with you on that point, but...

    Unfortunately, the fine points of the law and the difference between right and wrong can be decidedly different things in the eyes of the law.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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

castle doctrine pa 2011

,

castle doctrine pa crossbow

,

iowa castle law

Click on a term to search for related topics.