Outstanding article!

Miggy · February 6th, 2006, 09:56 PM

Dimitri Vassilaros, Tribune Review.

The law says you must act like a coward. In your own home. Even when your life is threatened.
Many states have criminal-friendly "duty to retreat" laws. A victim in his house is mandated to retreat from an attacker until he is cornered. Only then is the prey allowed to use lethal force on the predator. Prosecutors in those states have been known to victimize the victim (such as charging him with manslaughter) who prefers to fire back rather than to back off.

The National Rifle Association has been trying to end the insanity state by state.

Florida came to its senses last year. It enacted a law based on the "Castle Doctrine" -- that one's home is one's castle. A person now is not legally required to be hunted down room by room by an intruder before the victim pulls the trigger. The law allows the victim to shoot back without fear of being prosecuted for being overzealous about protecting his life. And it prohibits criminals from suing their more aggressive victims. All their victims, actually.

"Somebody should not be twice victimized, first by the assailant and then by the legal system trying to destroy his life," says Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, the largest organization representing gun owners after the NRA.

But the Florida law does more.

Car-jackers beware; now one's car is his mobile castle. And better still, if a victim is not in a home or car, now he legally can use deadly force. Sunshine State criminals without a death wish might want to consider career counseling. Or take Horace Greeley's advice to go west. But if they do, they had better hurry.

Wyoming is the latest battleground. The NRA is lobbying there and in 11 other states to repeal duty-to-retreat laws.

Pennsylvanians have that so-called duty if they are attacked outside the home, according to Kim Stolfer, legislative committee chairman of the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League. House Bill 2213 takes aim at the "duty" and prohibits prosecution for defending yourself. It also prohibits lawsuits by a criminal who was injured while attacking the victim. And it prohibits lawsuits by the criminal's survivors if the victim gunned him down.

Arthur C. Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, essentially spoke for liberalism when he said in published reports that "What they've done is legalize manslaughter here in Florida. It (the new law) promotes irresponsible, aggressive and even illegal use of firearms."

Why are we even having this debate?

How could anyone actually believe that you should not defend yourself until you've run out of room to flee? When did it become a person's duty to scurry into the basement like a cockroach fleeing the exterminator?

A duty-to-retreat law is the ultimate debasement of man.

It means that your life is not worth protecting except as a last resort. It also means that your intruder's life is worth protecting except as a last resort. You are little better than your tormentor.

The Castle Doctrine rightly says that your bricks and mortar are sacrosanct. But is there an equivalent doctrine for your flesh and blood?

You have no "duty" to retreat when threatened in your house, car or anywhere else. Your life is no less precious when you are outdoors. A man's home is his castle. A man's duty is to himself.

Dimitri Vassilaros is a Trib editorial page columnist. His column appears Sundays, Mondays and Fridays. Call him at 412-380-5637. E-mail him at dvassilaros@tribweb.com.

rocky · February 6th, 2006, 10:01 PM

makes sense, but not to the liberal folks. Criminals are just misunderstood rapists and robbers.

P95Carry · February 6th, 2006, 10:08 PM

WE know it is sense but try telling that to those who seek control - and who would have us hogtied as willing victims!! That guy Dimitri sees things with utmost clarity - unarguable we might think but still - we'll see those who'll disregard it or even trash it.

Quote:

It also prohibits lawsuits by a criminal who was injured while attacking the victim. And it prohibits lawsuits by the criminal's survivors if the victim gunned him down.

Apart from no burden of retreat (which frankly I am sure most of us would still consider attempting at times) - these elements too I regard as essential. I have said many times - if a crook is proven after the fact to be a felon thru his/her actions then ANY rights of civil action have been totally forfeited - peroid!

craig45 · February 6th, 2006, 10:08 PM

i like that.

artz · February 7th, 2006, 12:03 AM

I enjoyed reading this thread sooooo much....I just had to read it again !

glock21guy · February 7th, 2006, 12:38 AM

Makes me glad I live in CO. With the "Make My Day" law, any BG in your home can be shot.

We did have a case where a person was assault in his home, and as the attackers where driving a way the victim shot the attacker. The guy was a quited. I think he steeped over the line, all though I sympathize with his actions.

Maybe some day all the courts in the land will drop kick the cases of, the BG injuring him or her self while breaking into some one else's home. We can at least hope.

TonyW · February 7th, 2006, 08:46 AM

I definitely agree with the castle doctrine, if you're in my home and I didn't let you in there stand by. How do I retreat and still protect my family? However, I think as a practical matter seeking to retreat on the street may be best tactics in some (a majority) of the situations we may face.

Chris hits that stupid "civil lawsuit" issue dead on. You commit a crime against someone in what weird twisted reality do we live in where you then have some "right" to sue them for protecting themselves?

Tangle · February 7th, 2006, 11:26 AM

Good article! Thanks Miggy!

TN has had a no sue law in effect for sometime. I.e. if you shoot someone in SD, they can't sue you. But you know, I don't know if TN has a castle law, per se, but by accounts of SD shootings, it is uncommon for a homeowner to be charged for shooting someone breaking into their home.

IndianaDean · February 8th, 2006, 03:52 AM

In Indiana we do not have to retreat in our home. I like the 'car jacker' addition however, because we shouldn't have to retreat in our cars either. For that matter, law abiding citizens should never have to retreat, period.

QKShooter · February 8th, 2006, 10:33 AM

Amen to THAT ARTICLE Brother!

And Ditto:
"Somebody should not be twice victimized, first by the assailant and then by the legal system trying to destroy his life," says Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, the largest organization representing gun owners after the NRA.

February 6th, 2006, 09:56 PM	#1
Miggy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Miami-Dade, FL Posts: 4,380	Outstanding article! Dimitri Vassilaros, Tribune Review. The law says you must act like a coward. In your own home. Even when your life is threatened. Many states have criminal-friendly "duty to retreat" laws. A victim in his house is mandated to retreat from an attacker until he is cornered. Only then is the prey allowed to use lethal force on the predator. Prosecutors in those states have been known to victimize the victim (such as charging him with manslaughter) who prefers to fire back rather than to back off. The National Rifle Association has been trying to end the insanity state by state. Florida came to its senses last year. It enacted a law based on the "Castle Doctrine" -- that one's home is one's castle. A person now is not legally required to be hunted down room by room by an intruder before the victim pulls the trigger. The law allows the victim to shoot back without fear of being prosecuted for being overzealous about protecting his life. And it prohibits criminals from suing their more aggressive victims. All their victims, actually. "Somebody should not be twice victimized, first by the assailant and then by the legal system trying to destroy his life," says Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, the largest organization representing gun owners after the NRA. But the Florida law does more. Car-jackers beware; now one's car is his mobile castle. And better still, if a victim is not in a home or car, now he legally can use deadly force. Sunshine State criminals without a death wish might want to consider career counseling. Or take Horace Greeley's advice to go west. But if they do, they had better hurry. Wyoming is the latest battleground. The NRA is lobbying there and in 11 other states to repeal duty-to-retreat laws. Pennsylvanians have that so-called duty if they are attacked outside the home, according to Kim Stolfer, legislative committee chairman of the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League. House Bill 2213 takes aim at the "duty" and prohibits prosecution for defending yourself. It also prohibits lawsuits by a criminal who was injured while attacking the victim. And it prohibits lawsuits by the criminal's survivors if the victim gunned him down. Arthur C. Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, essentially spoke for liberalism when he said in published reports that "What they've done is legalize manslaughter here in Florida. It (the new law) promotes irresponsible, aggressive and even illegal use of firearms." Why are we even having this debate? How could anyone actually believe that you should not defend yourself until you've run out of room to flee? When did it become a person's duty to scurry into the basement like a cockroach fleeing the exterminator? A duty-to-retreat law is the ultimate debasement of man. It means that your life is not worth protecting except as a last resort. It also means that your intruder's life is worth protecting except as a last resort. You are little better than your tormentor. The Castle Doctrine rightly says that your bricks and mortar are sacrosanct. But is there an equivalent doctrine for your flesh and blood? You have no "duty" to retreat when threatened in your house, car or anywhere else. Your life is no less precious when you are outdoors. A man's home is his castle. A man's duty is to himself. Dimitri Vassilaros is a Trib editorial page columnist. His column appears Sundays, Mondays and Fridays. Call him at 412-380-5637. E-mail him at dvassilaros@tribweb.com. __________________ You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming. Randy Cain. GunFreeZone.net

February 7th, 2006, 12:38 AM	#6
glock21guy Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 523	Makes me glad I live in CO. With the "Make My Day" law, any BG in your home can be shot. We did have a case where a person was assault in his home, and as the attackers where driving a way the victim shot the attacker. The guy was a quited. I think he steeped over the line, all though I sympathize with his actions. Maybe some day all the courts in the land will drop kick the cases of, the BG injuring him or her self while breaking into some one else's home. We can at least hope. __________________ Aaron If you don't protect your self, who will?

February 7th, 2006, 08:46 AM	#7
TonyW Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 680	I definitely agree with the castle doctrine, if you're in my home and I didn't let you in there stand by. How do I retreat and still protect my family? However, I think as a practical matter seeking to retreat on the street may be best tactics in some (a majority) of the situations we may face. Chris hits that stupid "civil lawsuit" issue dead on. You commit a crime against someone in what weird twisted reality do we live in where you then have some "right" to sue them for protecting themselves? __________________ There can be no proper relationship between one who is armed and one who is not; nor is it reasonable to expect that one who is armed will voluntarily obey one who is not, or that the latter will feel secure among servants who are armed. The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

February 6th, 2006, 10:01 PM	#2
rocky Senior Moderator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: MI Posts: 11,624	makes sense, but not to the liberal folks. Criminals are just misunderstood rapists and robbers.

February 6th, 2006, 10:08 PM	#4
craig45 Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: crestview fl Posts: 472	i like that.

February 7th, 2006, 12:03 AM	#5
artz VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Georgia Posts: 2,110	I enjoyed reading this thread sooooo much....I just had to read it again !

February 7th, 2006, 11:26 AM	#8
Tangle Senior Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Chattanooga Posts: 5,688	Good article! Thanks Miggy! TN has had a no sue law in effect for sometime. I.e. if you shoot someone in SD, they can't sue you. But you know, I don't know if TN has a castle law, per se, but by accounts of SD shootings, it is uncommon for a homeowner to be charged for shooting someone breaking into their home.

February 8th, 2006, 03:52 AM	#9
IndianaDean Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 66	In Indiana we do not have to retreat in our home. I like the 'car jacker' addition however, because we shouldn't have to retreat in our cars either. For that matter, law abiding citizens should never have to retreat, period.

February 8th, 2006, 10:33 AM	#10
QKShooter Assistant Administrator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Off Of The X Posts: 19,788	Amen to THAT ARTICLE Brother! And Ditto: "Somebody should not be twice victimized, first by the assailant and then by the legal system trying to destroy his life," says Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, the largest organization representing gun owners after the NRA.