More Guns Means We Are Safer, Right?

CFM said:
Sorry, boy, but my State's laws say all I have to have is a presumption. That means what I believe not what you believe.
Click to expand...

So you think all you need is to presume someone is a threat to blow them away?

You should make some presumptions and test it out then, racist.
Just pick anyone you don't like and presume away!
LOL
zOOxMa0.gif
 
Leonthecat said:
So you think all you need is to presume someone is a threat to blow them away?

You should make some presumptions and test it out then, racist.
Just pick anyone you don't like and presume away!
LOL
zOOxMa0.gif
Click to expand...

Again, boy, it's not what I think but what the law says.

It's not up to me to pick. It would be the idiot stupid enough to "pick" himself.
 
Leonthecat said:
You still need to demonstrate how they threatened you if you choose deadly force.
Many who thought castle doctrine laws would cover them find themselves in prison for life.

LOL
Click to expand...

You should probably stop trying to talk about the law. You suck at it and it makes you look ignorant. Castle doctrine specifically says "the mere occurrence of tresspassing" and "occasionally the subjective requirement of fear" are enough to justify deadly force.

From wikipedia:
Justifiable homicide[2]*inside one's home is distinct, as*a matter of law, from castle doctrine because the mere occurrence of*trespassing—and occasionally a*subjective*requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the*burden of proof*of*fact*is much less challenging than that of justifying a homicide.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
 
domer76 said:
Anal gratification.
Click to expand...

Says another coward that claims people shouldn't own guns but doesn't have the guts to try and take them. What's worse for you, boy, is that you've posted pictures claiming it was me and where I lived then failed to show.
 
Sirthinksalot said:
You should probably stop trying to talk about the law. You suck at it and it makes you look ignorant. Castle doctrine specifically says "the mere occurrence of tresspassing" and "occasionally the subjective requirement of fear" are enough to justify deadly force.

From wikipedia:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Click to expand...

My State's laws use the phrase "presumption of reasonable fear". If someone unlawfully enters my house, vehicle, or place of business, I have the right to use deadly force without fear of prosecution or civil suit.
 
Sirthinksalot said:
You should probably stop trying to talk about the law. You suck at it and it makes you look ignorant. Castle doctrine specifically says "the mere occurrence of tresspassing" and "occasionally the subjective requirement of fear" are enough to justify deadly force.

From wikipedia:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Click to expand...
Lawyer: 'Castle doctrine' unlikely to apply in fatal Raleigh shooting
RALEIGH, N.C. — A lawyer who once killed two men trying to rob his home said Wednesday that a Raleigh homeowner charged in a weekend shooting death likely won't be able to argue he was defending his property when he fired. 16

Kouren-Rodney Bernard Thomas, 20, was killed outside 3536 Single Leaf Lane early Sunday. Homeowner Chad Cameron Copley, 39, has been charged with first-degree murder in the case and remains in the Wake County jail without bond.

Copley called 911 shortly before 1 a.m. Sunday to complain about armed "hoodlums" racing and vandalizing his neighborhood and telling police he was ready to take action.

"I'm locked and loaded, and I'm going to secure the neighborhood," he told a dispatcher.

About seven minutes later, his wife called 911 to report the shooting, and he took the phone from her and said he had shot in self-defense.

"They do have firearms, and I'm trying to protect myself and my family," he said, noting that he had fired a warning shot that might have hit someone.

Investigators said Copley fired a shotgun through a window from inside his garage, striking Thomas, who was outside.

Under North Carolina's "castle doctrine," someone has the right to use deadly force to defend his or her home, vehicle or workplace from an imminent threat.

"One of the requirements is that person against whom the force is used is either in the home or attempting to get in the home," said Raleigh attorney Karl Knudsen. "If the deceased was not physically on the shooter's property, than the castle doctrine does not apply."

Copley never told 911 dispatchers that someone was trying to get into his home. Police, however, haven't said exactly where Thomas was when he was shot.

"The law presumes that you were in fear of serious bodily injury or death," Knudsen said.

He has some personal experience with protecting his home and family. Two men tried to rob him in his home in the early 1980s while he was inside with his wife and newborn baby. They shot him, and he fired back, killing both men.

Knudsen also noted that the castle doctrine law has no provision for any warning shot.

"In that case, you don't fire warning shots. You shoot the person who is threatening you," he said. "By definition, a warning shot is something to say, 'Hey, I'm armed. Go away.' They're typically fired up in the air, not horizontally into a group of people."

Copley also told the 911 dispatcher that he was "on neighborhood watch" at the time, but other residents in the Neuse Crossing subdivision said Wednesday their neighborhood has no organized watch program.

http://www.wral.com/lawyer-castle-doctrine-unlikely-to-apply-in-fatal-raleigh-shooting/15918476/
 
Leonthecat said:
So you think all you need is to presume someone is a threat to blow them away?

You should make some presumptions and test it out then, racist.
Just pick anyone you don't like and presume away!
LOL
zOOxMa0.gif
Click to expand...

You forgot the condition that they have come inside your home without permission. You really suck at this.
 
3 Castle-Doctrine Myths That Could Cripple You And Your Family After A Self Defense Shooting…


Myth #1: The Castle Doctrine and “Stand Your Ground” Are Bulletproof
The castle doctrine states that a man’s home is his castle, and he is entitled to defend it with any force he deems necessary.

The Stand Your Ground law is similar, but extends outside of the home – if you feel your life is threatened, you are entitled to defend it by any means necessary.

Except you aren’t.

Both the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground can be countered by any number of legal hoo-ha, and if you don’t have a good lawyer, you can get completely screwed over if the police manage to “prove” to a judge that you weren’t really in danger or that you shouldn’t have had the gun in the first place.

Bottom line?

These laws aren’t foolproof, and you still need to find out what the legal precedents are in your state.

Myth #2: Self Defense Insurance Will Cover Your Legal Fees
VERY few insurance companies will even offer insurance for using your firearm in self-defense, even if it is completely justifiable.

(Even if the judge FINDS it completely justifiable – they still may not cover it.)

Self defense insurance may not pay anything at all until after the trial, which means you’re stuck paying all your legal fees up front.

And if you lose?

The insurance won’t pay then either, so you could be completely bankrupt simply for defending yourself in your own home and in court.

Self defense insurance may also have a ridiculously low payout, far too low to pay the actual fees incurred by a trial.

Some payouts are so small they won’t even cover the cost of retaining legal representation – much less the cost of having that lawyer’s services through the trial.

These policies usually won’t cover bail or lost wages, either, which means that even if you manage to get your legal fees covered, you’re still significantly in the hole.

Which means that . . .

Myth #3: You’ve Protected Your Home and Family
Here’s the nasty truth:

Defending your home could cost you that home.

Defending your family could cost you your family.

Horrible, but true.

The legal fees are substantial, and as we’ve said, self-defense insurance isn’t a reliable way to get those fees paid.

You’re a regular guy/gal and you have a regular guy’s/gal’s savings account – probably enough to cover the cost if the truck breaks down or you need to handle an emergency – but not the amount of a lawsuit.

You can lose your house to pay those bills.

You can lose all the assets you have.

You can lose your retirement account and IRA, and incur further penalties for dipping into those accounts.

And you know the #1 thing that breaks up families?

Money trouble.

Every time.

Divorce rates for people in situations like this are staggering.

Your relationship with your children can suffer.

It will undoubtably be one of the worst things that has ever happened in your life.

Unless…

…you learn about those little-known “legal traps” most gun-owners fail to pay attention to.

There aren’t a lot… but any one of these pitfalls could mean the difference between you and your family legitimately recovering from the nightmare you just saved them from in your home…

… or losing everything and living out the rest of your days in a prison cell.




https://moderncombatandsurvival.com/featured/3-castle-doctrine-myths-that-could-cripple-you-and-your-family-after-a-self-defense-shooting/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top