Summations Only

If someone walks up to your door and you think they are going to commit a felony against you does that give you the right to kill them? Surely not one that is worthy of the death penalty? I don't know the law of your state/land.But on a moral level, if I was on a hypothetical moral jury and you had shot someone dead for attempting to steal your microwave I would vote to put your ass in jail."reasonable force"
"proportionate response"etc.

Are we reading the same thread?Catholic Scientist Writes (and as I understand it the "Castle Doctrine" supports)

quote:

---

The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.

---

So all one has to do is believe that an unspecified felony is to be committed against ones property and "deadly force" is justified.Have I got it wrong?

Can you show me where he isn't advocating theft of a microwave as worthy of "deadly force"? And yet the "castle doctrine" whereby one can kill someone for simply being believed to want to commit a felony against ones property is not a principle that has been adopted by many countries and even many US states. Why is that?If it's benefits are as evident and obvious as you suggesting why is there any controversy at all?I agree with Dr A on this. The whole "castle doctrine" thing seems like a gun owning home owning wannabe psychopaths wet dream."reasonable force"
"proportionate response"etc.

Fuuuuucckkk!!Remind me not to turn up at your house un-announced.

Now you have just got silly. Nobody is suggesting that as a burglar robs you under your own nose that you simply sit there and indeed even hand them your car keys for good measure.The debate here is about necessary force and where "the line" is with regard to that.The "castle doctrine" (as defined) necessitates a "line" that is quite contentious. But don't pretend that opponents to that "line" are suggesting that you simply roll over and hand over your car keys.That is not what is being advocated. And to suggest that it is is nothing more than dishonet debating."Reasonable force"
"Proportionate response"Thesse are essentially the things under debate. Obviously. And nobody here is suggesting that there should be. Stop attacking straw men.

Have you actually read CS's posts in this thread? Indeed. And the same stance is basically held under UK law.But killing someone who is attempting to steal your microwave doesn't constitute "appropriate physical force".Under the "Castle Doctrine" as defined in this thread anyone believed to be attempting to commit any felony on your property is fair game for the application of "deadly force".That is what I, and others, are objecting to.

Shooting dead someone who is stealing your microwave isn't "reasonable force".

Ahem.Have you actually read CS's posts? Message 122 and Message 139How is he NOT advocating that theft of a microwave is a felony worthy of "deadly force"? And a denagerous situation is one where the "castle" owner believes it to be so?Such as when their microwave is being stolen? What - You mean the "strawmen" that are the actual positions of participants in this thread?

I'd be interested to see the stats for violent crimes by state in ralation to gun sales by state.Here in the UK there are more people injured by speeding police vehicles than ther are injured or killed by guns.........

Tadaaaaaa...... Is that a "Yes"?So if I subjectively believe that someone discovered on my property stealing my microwave is "dangerous" do I have the right to shoot them dead as far as you are concerned?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Tadaaa — There is CS advocating his right to kill people for stealing his microwave. My assertion was that CS is claiming his right to kill people if he believes that they are going to steal his microwave. Which he clearly is.I don't think that is "reasonable force" or a "proportionate response" to the potential loss of a microwave. Do you? That’s rich. Did you actually read what CS wrote? Here it is again without those confusing blue boxes:CS Writes: The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.Breaking into a house and taking a microwave is a felony.Did you see the word microwave? And he certainly is advocating the death penalty in the Dirty Harry, killing in the name of the law, sense of the term. Is he advocating that the state apply lethal injection (or whatever) under subsection blah of article blah blah of the penal code for microwave theft? No. Who needs that when you can just kill people yourself anyway? But that isn’t the castle doctrine as being advocated here is it?If you genuinely have cause to believe yourself (or your family) to be in mortal danger then it is conceivable that lethal force could be justified as being reasonable force or a proportionate response. A judge and a jury will need to make that assessment based on the evidence available.But the castle doctrine as being advocated here by CS means that if you find someone climbing out of the window with your microwave you have the right to shoot them dead no questions asked.I have a problem with that. Don’t you?

Deadly force: An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. LinkDeadly force is justified if you believe that someone is going to take your microwave? I can only spin what you write. Message 122 and Message 139But I am delighted to hear that you are not actually the psychopath these posts would suggest.But I still won’t be approaching your house un-announced without removing my Ipod headphones first.Just in case.

First you said it was justified. Message 122CS writes: "The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.

​

Breaking into a house and taking a microwave is a felony."Now you want to qualify that? Good I am glad to hear it. Well you made it sound pretty black and white here: Message 122CS writes: "The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.

​

Breaking into a house and taking a microwave is a felony."Like I say I am delighted to hear that you have changed your mind on this. Yes. Like visiting. I wasn't breaking into your house. I was visiting un-announced. With headphones on. Apparently all it requires is that you believe that I am going to commit a felony against you to justify deadly force. Message 139A felony such as stealing your microwave. Message 122Neither Canada nor anywhere else that I am aware of advocates a position where nobody can defend themselves."Reasonable force"
"Proportionate response"
etc.Which now you have qualified your previous responses it seems that you agree with? I should of course have taken into account your propensity for contradicting yourself.

Have a read of Message 122 and tell me what you think that is saying.Fortunately for us all CS has indeed now changed his position on this. As long as he keeps taking the pills I am sure that the psycho version of CS will remain submerged and we can all sleep safe in our beds at night.But I would still advise caution to anyone visiting CS's house unannounced Message 139Just in case.........