Summations Only

But doesn't it make you uncomfortable having the idiots on your side? To be explicit, people need protection from gun-toting homeowners too. The principle of "if you think your life is in danger" is far too loose. Why not just let the courts decide if the homeowner reacted appropriately, like we do in civilized countries?The Castle Doctrine tends to encourage the idiots who think they're Dirty Harry. Legislation that encourages idiots is generally a bad idea. To quote the redoubtable Admin, "Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots."

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

You think there aren't gun control idiots, too? They can protect themselves by not breaking into the homes of those people to commit felonies. What other principle is there? Who else's mind are you supposed to think with, if not your own? Straggler couldn't say. Can you? If you think one untrained individual can't be trusted to discern when someone's life is really at risk, why do you think twelve of them will be able to? Maybe it does. Since the Castle Doctrine applies only to homes, people who don't want to get shot by Dirty Harry wannabes can protect themselves by not breaking into their homes and committing crimes.

You can stop kicking that poor strawman any time. Nobody's talking about gun control. Of course I can and I think I have. We live in a society and to a certain extent, we think with a social mind. Society decides what force is appropriate to use in a given situation and society enforces that decision through the courts. What the Castle Doctrine does is take that decision away from society. They're twelve times more likely to, right off the bat, and they're not making the decision half-asleep and in the dark and the decision isn't a matter of life and death for them personally. So yes, I think they're more likely to make an objective decision, better for society as a whole.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

The Castle Doctrine is society's decision on the use of force. Individuals don't enact the Castle Doctrine, societies do. It's not like you can just assert "Castle Doctrine" after shooting someone and get off scot-free; the Castle Doctrine merely clarifies what circumstances are appropriate for justified force, which is rarely a matter for courts in the first place.If you have a problem with justice decisions being made outside the courtroom, then the problem you have is with prosecutorial discretion, not the Castle Doctrine. But be advised, we give prosecutors discretion over which cases to bring before the court because the court can only hear so many cases. Or twelve times less likely to. I can make up math, too!

It's a decision not to make a decision. It's the equivalent of letting people drive where they decide when they decide instead of having society make decisions about rules of the road.The main objection I have to the Castle Doctrine is that it's an exception to the way society usually handles itself.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

I don't think it is at all. Society has never, under any circumstances, said "you need to check with the rest of us before you can make decisions in an extreme situation." The Castle Doctrine is simply the recognition not that people don't have to defer to society's judgment about their self-defense issues, but that they simply can't defer to them, because they're not available at the time.When someone's coming at you with a weapon, there's simply no time to empanel a grand jury and have them arrive at a decision about whether force is justified. Preventing someone from using force to repel an attacker means that person suffers injury or death, and that's not fair at all - the person who was following the law shouldn't be the one who bears the physical burden of another's choice to engage in criminality.And, sure, I know you say that you're not talking about opposing self-defense. But the standard you espouse indisputably is an obstacle to people defending themselves from attackers.

We're not talking about what happens before the fact. We're talking about what society does after a dead body is found in your living room with your bullets in it. I'm just saying that we should investigate it like any other homicide and decide whether you were justified in shooting. The Castle Doctrine limits or eliminates that investigation in favour of the shooter's claim.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

No, it doesn't. It clarifies the circumstances under which force is justified, and that's all it does.If you murder someone in your house you don't get to simply claim "Castle Doctrine!" and walk away from it. What happened in the Peairs' trial for the murder of Yoshihiro Hattori wasn't the fair application of the Castle Doctrine, it was anti-Asian racism by a jury from Louisiana. The subsequent trial (and conviction) of Todd Vriesenga for almost the exact same circumstances makes that pretty clear.You can still go to trial for homicide in states that have the Castle Doctrine; otherwise why would the Peairs' even have been on trial?

How familiar is the average homeowner likely to be with that "clarification"? How does he know before the fact whether he's justified in shooting in his particular jurisdiction in a particular set of circumstances? Isn't he more likely to just have an "I have the right to defend myself" mindset with no legal niceties at all?

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Cath and Frog
Sittin in a tree
Planning their next shooting spree
Both of them are locked and loaded
Crash never been quite the same since his tampon exploded (Message 383)
Now someones at the door. Things get tense
Crash says "I believe that fucker will commit an offence"
Down from the tree
Pants around their knees
"Let's both shoot on the count of three"
Crash has an Uzi. Cath has a gat.
The fucker at the door finds the key under the mat.
Lets himself in
Moments later there is a "Ping!!"
"My microwave!" growls Cath - His head in a raging spin.
Slowly they approach
Quiet as a roach
Then Straggler appears
With headphones on his ears
Munching warm popcorn without any fears
He just popped round to say hi to the guys
Return a book and leave them one of his pies
But his back is to the door. Recognition is poor.
"Hands up and on the floor"
Cath shouts his warning
Strags just keeps yawning
"Hands up and on your knees"
But Strags can hear only Public Enemy
A one. A two. A one two three.
That precious microwave will be the last thing he ever sees BANG BANGCath and Frog
Back in their tree
Killed poor Strags and got off Scott free
Oni at the funeral lays a wreath
Curse that law and adios to meEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Nobody knows before the fact, which is why I'm an opponent to efforts (like yours) to put restrictions on people before the fact.People in life-threatening situations deserve a wide latitude, particularly when they didn't choose to be there. People who choose to put themselves in those situations, like police, deserve a much smaller latitude.

I don't own any firearms at all.

I know.Have you ever heard of artistic license?C'mon - Don't be such humourless gimp.If you don't like my little ditty you don't have to read it.(**Strags huffs off testily**)ABE - I notice that whilst you were keen to point out your lack of a gun you didn't make any effort to deny a budding tree based romance with CS. Hmmm.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Crashfrog says: Statistically, a sample size of 12 is sqrt(12) better than a sample size of 1. Or, if you wish to be even more pedantic, sqrt(n-1) for some of these sorts of samples. What we are talking about here is Error and the standard deviation of a sample mean.The Standard Error for 12 is equal to ~0.2887 the size of a sample of 1.I'd be voting for the smaller error, myself. Ringo is far closer to the point.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

That's still a strawman. I haven't said a word about putting restrictions on anybody. I want everybody who shoots somebody to be treated equally.I'm saying that a Castle Doctrine can give the homeowner a false impression. He may think he has a wide latitude that he doesn't really have, which may lead to bad shooting decisions. He'd be better off without a Castle Doctrine, believing that he will be charged if he shoots.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.