Originally posted by cdtm
Castle doctrine. Threat to person is assumed, if someone breaks into your home.
Not all states have a castle doctrine.
23 states have them:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/castle-doctrine-states/
But there are other laws (like "Stand your ground"😉 that also lend themselves to these scenarios.
Edit - 2 states have a "duty to retreat" law:
Vermont
Washington D.C.
So those 2 states, you had better get out of the way and/or run. You aren't defending jack unless you have no cameras and can blindly claim they came after your person.
Originally posted by cdtmFact check: sort of It is important to understand the Castle Doctrine does not give the accused a license to kill or an absolute right to use deadly force. The law simply gives the accused the benefit of the doubt of using self-defense because people should feel safest in their homes and have a right to protect themselves and their families. The benefit of the doubt, however, can be taken away by the government when it can prove it is more likely than not the claimed self-defense was not justified.
Castle doctrine. Threat to person is assumed, if someone breaks into your home.
Originally posted by dadudemonFact check: as previously stated. DDM does not read others posts.
Not all states have a castle doctrine.23 states have them:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/castle-doctrine-states/
But there are other laws (like "Stand your ground"😉 that also lend themselves to these scenarios.
Edit - 2 states have a "duty to retreat" law:
Vermont
Washington D.C.So those 2 states, you had better get out of the way and/or run. You aren't defending jack unless you have no cameras and can blindly claim they came after your person.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fact check: sort of It is important to understand the Castle Doctrine does not give the accused a license to kill or an absolute right to use deadly force. The law simply gives the accused the benefit of the doubt of using self-defense because people should feel safest in their homes and have a right to protect themselves and their families. The benefit of the doubt, however, can be taken away by the government when it can prove it is more likely than not the claimed self-defense was not justified.
The bar is likely pretty high, as people have admitted to mowing down dozens of people trying to break into their apartment in botched gang retaliations (in the sense they hit the wrong address).
I'd guess most cases that do fail the sniff test involve murders under cover of castle doctrine, with provable motives and such.
Really, if you say it was in self defense, who will say different? The other guys dead, your word against a dead mans.
Originally posted by cdtmFact check: unless he is unarmed on the other side of the room and/or clearly running away. Hypothetical are hypothetical, murder is often murder.
The bar is likely pretty high, as people have admitted to mowing down dozens of people trying to break into their apartment in botched gang retaliations (in the sense they hit the wrong address).I'd guess most cases that do fail the sniff test involve murders under cover of castle doctrine, with provable motives and such.
Really, if you say it was in self defense, who will say different? The other guys dead, your word against a dead mans.
Originally posted by BrolyBlackFact check: you shoot them climbing out of your window from behind? Hypothetical are hypothetical, murder is murder
Fact check: you have no idea what someone is going to do when they violently break into your house, but you know they dont have good intentions, its their life or yours.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Fact check: unless he is unarmed on the other side of the room and/or clearly running away. Hypothetical are hypothetical, murder is often murder.
"The lights were off"
"Looked like he had a gun"
Any variations thereof which work all the time.
A guy breaks into your home, is it reasonable to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's armed, when it takes no time at all for him to kill you as you check?
Plus, a guy can kill you without coming in armed. It's not difficult, especially in a home full of dangerous objects. (Or you can do it bare handed.. Easiest thing in the world, as we've all seen.)
Originally posted by cdtmhypotheticals are hypothetical, murder is murder are you saying someone would be right to kill someone for stealing a TV?
"The lights were off""Looked like he had a gun"
Any variations thereof which work all the time.
A guy breaks into your home, is it reasonable to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's armed, when it takes no time at all for him to kill you as you check?
Plus, a guy can kill you without coming in armed. It's not difficult, especially in a home full of dangerous objects. (Or you can do it bare handed.. Easiest thing in the world, as we've all seen.)
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
hypotheticals are hypothetical, murder is murder are you saying someone would be right to kill someone for stealing a TV?
Not at all.
But your case is also a hypothetical. I'm saying murder is pretty hard to prove, and I'm not certain the bar of proof is any higher then "He broke into my home, I feared for my life, I reacted in a panic."
What judge will go over that with a fine tooth comb? If it was me, I'd probably kill someone, not out of a desire to murder, but out of a genuine fear that I don't know what this guy wants with me and assume the worst.