Originally posted by dadudemon
What should have happened is the couple should have started shooting every single one of them in the brain. Every single one. Only those that were on their property.Get this: they'd be legally justified in doing so and they would get off 100% free from charges.
If that was the case, I would say the law is clearly unjust.
Originally posted by Robtard
You responded to a request concerning video/picture proof with a murder revenge fantasy. Just weird, dude.
The question you posed is flawed to begin with because your request for such a photo is not required for their use of the castle doctrine in this specific scenario. And you pretending that my statement that they were legally justified in killing every person on their property is somehow a "murder revenge fantasy" is a bit weird. You went from "This is the codification of this law as it applies in this specific scenario" to "I want this to be murder revenge fantasy." Kind creepy, dude.
Originally posted by Artol
If that was the case, I would say the law is clearly unjust.
It's actually very just and it should be the law, nationally. I don't agree with generous interpretations of "stand your grand" but I do with the castle doctrines.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Just so we're clear, DDM's scenario of an angry mob illegally being on my property even after I've given them one or two warnings?
I interpreted the scenario slightly differently, but we can go with that. You don't think that a reasonable inquiry into whether there was a threat should take place, and only if there was a credible threat that violent or even lethal force is acceptable?
Originally posted by Artol
Why do you think that is good?
Ask this question differently but with the honest content in it:
Why do I think it is good to defend my person and the people living on my property from violent trespassers when I fear for my life or the lives of the people who live on that property that I am responsible for protecting?
That's your actual question to me. That's the honest question when worded properly and with full intent behind the laws and actual wording in the laws.
Do you understand why people like Silent Master are flabbergasted by your position on castle doctrines?
Castle Doctrines are not "shoot everyone who trespasses onto my property" laws. It requires you to be in a dwelling where you sleep overnight and the trespassers are violent or a reasonable person would suspect they are their loved ones were in danger of experiencing violence from that trespasser.
Capisci?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ask this question differently but with the honest content in it:Why do I think it is good to defend my person and the people living on my property from violent trespassers when I fear for my life or the lives of the people who live on that property that I am responsible for protecting?
That's your actual question to me. That's the honest question when worded properly and with full intent behind the laws and actual wording in the laws.
Do you understand why people like Silent Master are flabbergasted by your position on castle doctrines?
Castle Doctrines are not "shoot everyone who trespasses onto my property" laws. It requires you to be in a dwelling where you sleep overnight and the trespassers are violent or a reasonable person would suspect they are their loved ones were in danger of experiencing violence from that trespasser.
Capisci?
I do understand why people are flabbergasted by this framing. I don't think it is an accurate framing of the situation we were referring to. You suggested that you think it would be ok for the St. Louis couple to have killed every single one of the people near and on their property according to the castle doctrine. I do not think that is actually the case, and I do not think it should be the case. As we can see by what actually happened to the St. Louis couple, lethal force was not at all necessary, therefore I would say that had they used it that would have been too far. Like I suggested in my last post, I do think that lethal force can be justified when protecting yourself or others, but it must be investigated.
I hope you can see my confusion as to this conversation as well.
Originally posted by Artol
I interpreted the scenario slightly differently, but we can go with that. You don't think that a reasonable inquiry into whether there was a threat should take place, and only if there was a credible threat that violent or even lethal force is acceptable?
Ignoring the castle doctrine for a minute. The usual standard for self-defense is if a reasonable person would have felt threatened in the scenario.
Now ask yourself, would a reasonable person in a area that had weeks of protests several of which escalated to violent riots feel threatened if an angry mob illegally entered their property and then refused to leave?
Edit: in my opinion, a reasonable person would feel threatened in those circumstances.
That said. I personally would wait until they made the first violent move before shooting. But then, I've received far more training than the average person
Originally posted by Silent Master
Ignoring the castle doctrine for a minute. The usual standard for self-defense is if a reasonable person would have felt threatened in the scenario.Now ask yourself, would a reasonable person in a area that had weeks of protests several of which escalated to violent riots feel threatened if an angry mob illegally entered their property and then refused to leave?
Edit: in my opinion, a reasonable person would feel threatened in those circumstances.
That said. I personally would wait until they made the first violent move before shooting. But then, I've received far more training than the average person
I think that feeling threatened has to be qualified. In my opinion a reasonable person must have felt that they were in danger of grave injury of death before they can take someone else's live. So for example if there is a drunken bar room fight where people push each other around, if someone pulls a gun and shoots the other person, that is an escalation of violence that, may be justified, but very likely isn't, and certainly has to be investigated.
Originally posted by Artol
I do understand why people are flabbergasted by this framing. I don't think it is an accurate framing of the situation we were referring to.
We fundamentally disagree and there's literally nothing you can say other than changing your position and agreeing that the couple was legitimately in physical danger from the angry mob.
In this particular situation, there's no compromise. There's no new position that I can take that is closer to your position while you also taking a new position that is closer to my original position. My position will not change at all because the couple was fundamentally in danger of experience violence from the angry mob who had trespassed onto their property, screaming, yelling, etc. So much so that the couple armed themselves and successfully got the couple of leave their property.
Originally posted by Artol
You suggested that you think it would be ok for the St. Louis couple to have killed every single one of the people near and on their property according to the castle doctrine.
I don't think this. This is the law - what I think doesn't matter. They would be legally justified in doing so.
Point of clarification: people shot in the back clearly running for the gate exit, however, would not be legally justified.
Originally posted by Artol
As we can see by what actually happened to the St. Louis couple, lethal force was not at all necessary, therefore I would say that had they used it that would have been too far.
That's because their use of screaming while holding guns was successful in driving off the angry and violent mob.
However, you're getting to use hindsight to make your assessment and, thankfully, the law doesn't require hindsight like this. The moment the angry mob trespassed and the couple warned them once or twice, they are legally justified to open fire on any accosting them. All the dead bodies. All of them.
Originally posted by Artol
I hope you can see my confusion as to this conversation as well.
Nope. I do not. We fundamentally disagree and it is not a position I will compromise on. So there's no middle ground for us to reach. This is not a middle ground that should be reached. However, you can compromise your personal safety or the safety of your loved ones by not exercising your rights to the castle doctrine so your personal morals are not compromised on this. We both win.
That's our middle ground: the law is there for those who choose to protect themselves and their loved ones. Those who do not wish to do so, do not have to do so. And they can exercise a "personal duty to retreat" in that scenario if they wish.
We at least agree, there, right?
Originally posted by Artol
I think that feeling threatened has to be qualified. In my opinion a reasonable person must have felt that they were in danger of grave injury of death before they can take someone else's live. So for example if there is a drunken bar room fight where people push each other around, if someone pulls a gun and shoots the other person, that is an escalation of violence that, may be justified, but very likely isn't, and certainly has to be investigated.
Are you disagreeing with my opinion that a reasonable person would feel threatened under DDM's stated scenario?
Originally posted by Artol
I do understand why people are flabbergasted by this framing. I don't think it is an accurate framing of the situation we were referring to. You suggested that you think it would be ok for the St. Louis couple to have killed every single one of the people near and on their property according to the castle doctrine. I do not think that is actually the case, and I do not think it should be the case. As we can see by what actually happened to the St. Louis couple, lethal force was not at all necessary, therefore I would say that had they used it that would have been too far. Like I suggested in my last post, I do think that lethal force can be justified when protecting yourself or others, but it must be investigated.I hope you can see my confusion as to this conversation as well.
If the couple warns them several times to stay off their property and yet the thugs still come on it anyway then yep, they have every right to gun their asses down. 👆
Originally posted by dadudemon
We fundamentally disagree and there's literally nothing you can say other than changing your position and agreeing that the couple was legitimately in physical danger from the angry mob.In this particular situation, there's no compromise. There's no new position that I can take that is closer to your position while you also taking a new position that is closer to my original position. My position will not change at all because the couple was fundamentally in danger of experience violence from the angry mob who had trespassed onto their property, screaming, yelling, etc. So much so that the couple armed themselves and successfully got the couple of leave their property.
I don't think this. This is the law - what I think doesn't matter. They would be legally justified in doing so.
Point of clarification: people shot in the back clearly running for the gate exit, however, would not be legally justified.
That's because their use of screaming while holding guns was successful in driving off the angry and violent mob.
However, you're getting to use hindsight to make your assessment and, thankfully, the law doesn't require hindsight like this. The moment the angry mob trespassed and the couple warned them once or twice, they are legally justified to open fire on any accosting them. All the dead bodies. All of them.
Nope. I do not. We fundamentally disagree and it is not a position I will compromise on. So there's no middle ground for us to reach. This is not a middle ground that should be reached. However, you can compromise your personal safety or the safety of your loved ones by not exercising your rights to the castle doctrine so your personal morals are not compromised on this. We both win.
That's our middle ground: the law is there for those who choose to protect themselves and their loved ones. Those who do not wish to do so, do not have to do so. And they can exercise a "personal duty to retreat" in that scenario if they wish.
We at least agree, there, right?
Yeah, it does seem like we won't agree on the topic as we just fundamentally see it differently. I found it very informative anyways you hear your and Silent Master's perspective, so thank you for sharing it with me.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Are you disagreeing with my opinion that a reasonable person would feel threatened under DDM's stated scenario?
I am saying that threatened is too wide a term, they would feel threatened for sure, but there are different levels of threat, and not all of them merit a violent or lethal response.
Originally posted by Artol
A threat of grave injury or death, which would have to be determined in a legal proceeding after a death occurred.
So you believe, a reasonable person would not feel that level of threat when faced with an angry mob illegally entering their property and then refusing to leave. Keeping in mind that they live in an area that has been subjected to weeks of protests, several of which escalated into violence?