Car Thief Killed; Woman Released Without Charges - Castle Law Discussion

[Dattebayo]

Women tend to make bad decisions when preggers.

[Chaotic_Warlord]

Women tend to make bad decisions when preggers.

That's just begging to get flamed by the female NICO members.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Women tend to make bad decisions when preggers.

So she's not under duress anymore?

Your ninja edits rack dissaprin!

[Dattebayo]

Bring it on!

Maybe she has a history of making mistakes... maybe that's how she got pregnant, too.

[Dire91]

I saw since here life wasn't threatened in anyway that she should go on trial for what is it 2nd degree murder?

[Dattebayo]

So she's not under duress anymore?

I'm sure that's what she said to the police, but I wanted to say what I really meant.

[PoorManQ45]

I personally don't think this fits the criteria for Castle and furthermore that Castle itself is too much freedom to trust every joe-schmo civilian with. What do you guys think?

Do you even know what the Castle Doctrine is?

It gives you the right to stand your ground when you are on your property.

Previously you had no option but to attempt to flee from a threat. If you retaliated you could be charged for any injuries, up to and including murder charges, resulting from your self preservation attempts

[PoorManQ45]

Um... the police? You should be allowed to do what is in your power and what is within reason. Using force, deadly force at that, is not reasonable. You are committing one crime against another crime..

If you are in fear for your life, you should have the right to defend yourself with deadly force.

If someone busts through your front door, you're in your bedroom, what should you be able to do?

[PoorManQ45]

So you have intent to kill and you are just waiting to be able to use Castle Law as an excuse to do it? I'd be worried that you are just as dangerous, if not more so than many thieves.

So, a citizen that exercises their legal rights is dangerous to you? What does that say for your belief in the legal system?

[Chaotic_Warlord]

Wow for once I actually agree with something that PMQ has said, maybe the world really is turning upside down. usually anything you post just infuriates me to the point of trying to physically strangle you through my PC monitor.

Castle Doctrine defined via wakopedia:"Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car. * The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary * The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force * The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business."

Notice how car is listed as an acceptable reason of use. /thread

[PoorManQ45]

Texas has not had legalized open carry of ANY sort since the Civil War. Pennsylvania, on the hand, does.

You Wild West cowboys, you.

I wish more states had non-permit Open Carry. It would be nice to walk around with the 6 shooter. Obviously all laws would still apply, but I bet crime would go down drastically if you gave citizens the right to react with deadly force to certain crimes. Like if you catch someone in the act of dragging away a child, once you identify the person is not the guardian... Yeah, they'd be dead in an instant.

[PoorManQ45]

* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary

These two let this woman 100% off the hook.

[bmike818]

Thief or not, a car is not worth a persons life.

If he wasn't stealing, he would still be alive. Don't steal, don't die.

she probably drives a Nissan, that is why she is so protective over it.

[silent dave]

She was in no danger from the second floor and should've called the police. She didn't attempt to stop the theft before killing someone. She made a bad decision and should be somewhat accountable.

For the castle doctrine: If someone unlawfully enters into my house, including my garage, while I am there I will assume they intend violence and are armed when encountered and I will defend myself to the fullest extent of my ability without waiting for them to shoot first.

If they are trying to break into my vehicle in my driveway or on the street, or are there to do other damage to my property outside of my house, I will go out to protect my property and will defend myself to the extreme if i feel threatened.

[Dattebayo]

If he wasn't stealing, he would still be alive. Don't steal, don't die.

Don't steal, don't die?Sure. Why don't we just lower the punishment to cutting off your hand?

You guys are fu*king crazy. What if someone was just admiring your car and got shot? There are alot of what-ifs I can think of. I guess you morons can't think that far in advance tho, lets just shoot them all.

[Ar878]

she probably should've called the police.no need to blow some kid's head off. let the cops do their work.

[audtatious]

Coulda, shoulda, didn't.....She WAS protecting her property as she has the right. I think she made the wrong decision but I was not there. The one good thing about these laws is it gives the criminal a reason NOT to perform criminal activity as the gains may not be worth the risk.

[Dattebayo]

She WAS protecting her property as she has the right.

She sniped some kid from a window across open air, and it wasn't her property she was parked on. Still think she has the right?

Why don't we just take the second amendment and wipe our fat as$es with it.

[PEZi]

Only a small percentage of the people in possession of a firearm are properly trained in how one should be used.

i've been through the proper training of a firearm... it was a long a** course!!!

the problem is that no course can make you make the right decision once your adrenaline gets pumping... i still don't think a life was worth the car... but s*** happens... if the guy wasn't an idiot he'd still be alive

[silent dave]

Whether it is a rental or the place someone owns it is where they live, it is their residence. This is their home. There is a protective feeling most people will have.

[audtatious]

She sniped some kid from a window across open air, and it wasn't her property she was parked on. Still think she has the right?

Why don't we just take the second amendment and wipe our fat as$es with it.

WTF are you babbling about? You saying the guy is protected because he was standing on property that she didn't own while trying to jack her car? You have no right to protect your property if it is not on "your" land?

What the hell does the 2nd Amendment have to do with this? Owning a gun and using it in a "legal" means is two different things and I have NOT stated she did the right thing.

[Red coupe]

Me and Dattebayo have been on the same page too damn much lately.

I officially switch my position and agree with the other side.

I plan to buy a gun, and execute teenagers shop lifting from the local Lucky Aid. If they don't steal they won't get killed.

[audtatious]

Have any of you really paid attention to the news report? There is no mention that this case is even covered via the Castle Doctrine in the least. She was not IN the car and her home was not being compromised. No charges have been brought up against her at this point but that does not mean there won't be charges. Lots of fishyness going on with the details.

[audtatious]

Me and Dattebayo have been on the same page too damn much lately.

I officially switch my position and agree with the other side.

I plan to buy a gun, and execute teenagers shop lifting from the local Lucky Aid. If they don't steal they won't get killed.

Knock yourself out. Have fun in prison, hope someone sends you lube.

[Dattebayo]

WTF are you babbling about?

You know very well I wasn't "babbling". I think it was very clear.

You saying the guy is protected because he was standing on property that she didn't own while trying to jack her car? You have no right to protect your property if it is not on "your" land?

WTF is with putting words in my mouth? PLEASE READ VERY CAREFULLY:

I never said anything about anyone being "protected". She fired a firearm across a public area (sure, the apt building is private property, but generally the parking lots are public), I think that's a little dangerous, don't you? I mean, next time I'm at Walmart and I see a guy across the lot standing around my car, I should pull out my shotgun and fire away, right?

What the hell does the 2nd Amendment have to do with this?

She owned a gun. She used said gun in a manner that is as if she wiped her as$ with the amendment. I guess that wasn't clear enough. I know you said you didn't agree either, but I really needed to say that anyway.

[audtatious]

You know very well I wasn't "babbling". I think it was very clear.

WTF is with putting words in my mouth? PLEASE READ VERY CAREFULLY:

I never said anything about anyone being "protected". She fired a firearm across a public area (sure, the apt building is private property, but generally the parking lots are public), I think that's a little dangerous, don't you? I mean, next time I'm at Walmart and I see a guy across the lot standing around my car, I should pull out my shotgun and fire away, right?

She owned a gun. She used said gun in a manner that is as if she wiped her as$ with the amendment. I guess that wasn't clear enough. I know you said you didn't agree either, but I really needed to say that anyway.

No, the parking lot is not public. It's owned by the complex. Hell, even Gov-owned parking lots are not public anymore if you look at the latest lawsuit via the Post Office and an employee they fired for having a gun in his trunk. Hell, technically, the US Gov owns ALL US property as they can take away everything a citizen owns via non payment of taxes or via the Gov deciding your property would be of better use by some other person or group or company.

2nd Amendment has to do with owning a gun and has nothing to do with the laws on the books concerning its use. Trying to associate her use of the gun with the right of ownership via the 2nd Amendment puts forth that you don't approve of gun ownership and simply want to use her action as a reason to remove the right to own guns from the population in general. Is that your direction?

There is more to this case than meets the eye and I'd be interested in seeing what the final conclusion is.

[Dattebayo]

2nd Amendment has to do with owning a gun and has nothing to do with the laws on the books concerning its use. Trying to associate her use of the gun with the right of ownership via the 2nd Amendment puts forth that you don't approve of gun ownership and simply want to use her action as a reason to remove the right to own guns from the population in general. Is that your direction?

There you go, putting words in my mouth again. Forget it, OK? I'm not discussing this any more.

[audtatious]

I asked if that was your direction. That's not putting words in your mouth.

[bmike818]

If they don't steal they won't get killed.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Thief or not, a car is not worth a persons life.

I dislike the way modern society views theft as a petty crime. It is not petty. You screw with my s***, you affect my life. There's nothing petty about stealing a car. We're WAY too soft as a society. Punishments used to have a purpose: deterrent. Now they're just "corrective." Screw corrective. After the fact is too late. Punishment must be severe enough to deter. Death is a great deterrent.

Pity is misplaced in this situation. The kid CHOSE to put his greed above the personal interests of another person. At that moment he chose to sacrifice his rights as a human. He does not get pity. "Petty" criminals are often the worst kind. They have no respect for their fellow humans and society's soft laws allow their behavior to be profitable. It was not profitable for this one. Hopefully he serves as a lesson to others.

Stop taking pity on criminals. It's disgusting.