Castle Doctrine
-
This is slightly ambiguous. Are we to assume he was convicted and not gotten off for some other reason?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
dan neely wrote:
Are we to assume he was convicted and not gotten off for some other reason?
He was convicted. AFAIK the "Castle Doctrine" defense was not valid (in the state of Illinois) due to the fact that the intruder never actually entered his house. In this case, both parties were wrong. She never should have tried to enter his house and he never should have fired a weapon through a door when he really had no idea who/what was on the other side.
-
dan neely wrote:
Are we to assume he was convicted and not gotten off for some other reason?
He was convicted. AFAIK the "Castle Doctrine" defense was not valid (in the state of Illinois) due to the fact that the intruder never actually entered his house. In this case, both parties were wrong. She never should have tried to enter his house and he never should have fired a weapon through a door when he really had no idea who/what was on the other side.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
he never should have fired a weapon through a door when he really had no idea who/what was on the other side.
Words to live by. A couple of hungry dobermans in the front yard on the other hand. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
dan neely wrote:
Are we to assume he was convicted and not gotten off for some other reason?
He was convicted. AFAIK the "Castle Doctrine" defense was not valid (in the state of Illinois) due to the fact that the intruder never actually entered his house. In this case, both parties were wrong. She never should have tried to enter his house and he never should have fired a weapon through a door when he really had no idea who/what was on the other side.
IL's version of the law is watered down, from the WP aticle "Use of deadly force is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed"; which I take it means forced entry only. Frankly I'm more amazed that they have any form of it at all. Out of curiosity was the trial held in greater chicago, or the rural part of the state?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
IL's version of the law is watered down, from the WP aticle "Use of deadly force is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed"; which I take it means forced entry only. Frankly I'm more amazed that they have any form of it at all. Out of curiosity was the trial held in greater chicago, or the rural part of the state?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
he never should have fired a weapon through a door when he really had no idea who/what was on the other side.
Words to live by. A couple of hungry dobermans in the front yard on the other hand. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
A couple of hungry dobermans in the front yard on the other hand. .
Until recently I had a 70 pounder sleeping in the hallway. She was loud, grumpy, old and, really doted over my son. Man, do we ever miss her.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
-
Oakman wrote:
A couple of hungry dobermans in the front yard on the other hand. .
Until recently I had a 70 pounder sleeping in the hallway. She was loud, grumpy, old and, really doted over my son. Man, do we ever miss her.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
Until recently I had a 70 pounder sleeping in the hallway. She was loud, grumpy, old and, really doted over my son. Man, do we ever miss her.
Pets were put on earth to teach us what uncoditional love was all about. My true sympathies for your loss. Give this to your son: Just this side of heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge. When an animal dies that has been especially close to someone here, that pet goes to Rainbow Bridge. There are meadows and hills for all of our special friends so they can run and play together. There is plenty of food, water and sunshine, and our friends are warm and comfortable. All the animals who had been ill and old are restored to health and vigor. Those who were hurt or maimed are made whole and strong again, just as we remember them in our dreams of days and times gone by. The animals are happy and content, except for one small thing; they each miss someone very special to them, who had to be left behind. They all run and play together, but the day comes when one suddenly stops and looks into the distance. His bright eyes are intent. His eager body quivers. Suddenly he begins to run from the group, flying over the green grass, his legs carrying him faster and faster. You have been spotted, and when you and your special friend finally meet, you cling together in joyous reunion, never to be parted again. The happy kisses rain upon your face; your hands again caress the beloved head, and you look once more into the trusting eyes of your pet, so long gone from your life but never absent from your heart. Then you cross Rainbow Bridge together…
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Pawel Krakowiak wrote:
I am just looking for possible ways of abusing such law as you have.
In theory any law can be abused and made to serve another purpose. What's your point?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
In theory any law can be abused and made to serve another purpose.
Maybe not any, it's a generalization... ;) All laws should be made as complete as possible (so no one can know them :| ), so there's no room for abuse.
Oakman wrote:
What's your point?
My point is to show that some laws, like the Castle Doctrine or the law to have guns at home or the law of the death sentence are not perfect. The opponents of such laws will use similar arguments, I think. There must be a reason why we can't have guns here (so people don't start killing each other, guns are too easy for this), the worst judgment is life sentence (because some death sentences are performed on innocents and it's too late once you find it out; for religious people there's also the argument of that only God can rule life) and burglars are also protected from harm (I don't have arguments for this - it's ridiculous). That said, I would still prefer your law over ours. As for the death sentence in example, most Poles are for it and if we were to vote we would have the death sentence back. I think from the three laws I mentioned I would only be skeptical about guns. At least in Poland if I am attacked on the street I am almost sure I won't get killed, I may be robbed & beaten up and even go to a hospital but nobody will shoot me. I wanted to hear some Castle Doctrine abuse stories from Americans, but no one seems to have any. :) Maybe the law, although imperfect (can it ever be?), is good enough.
-
But if I prepared some "evidence"... Like a broken window, a fight scene (crashed furniture, etc.). I think there's room for abuse.
-
Oakman wrote:
In theory any law can be abused and made to serve another purpose.
Maybe not any, it's a generalization... ;) All laws should be made as complete as possible (so no one can know them :| ), so there's no room for abuse.
Oakman wrote:
What's your point?
My point is to show that some laws, like the Castle Doctrine or the law to have guns at home or the law of the death sentence are not perfect. The opponents of such laws will use similar arguments, I think. There must be a reason why we can't have guns here (so people don't start killing each other, guns are too easy for this), the worst judgment is life sentence (because some death sentences are performed on innocents and it's too late once you find it out; for religious people there's also the argument of that only God can rule life) and burglars are also protected from harm (I don't have arguments for this - it's ridiculous). That said, I would still prefer your law over ours. As for the death sentence in example, most Poles are for it and if we were to vote we would have the death sentence back. I think from the three laws I mentioned I would only be skeptical about guns. At least in Poland if I am attacked on the street I am almost sure I won't get killed, I may be robbed & beaten up and even go to a hospital but nobody will shoot me. I wanted to hear some Castle Doctrine abuse stories from Americans, but no one seems to have any. :) Maybe the law, although imperfect (can it ever be?), is good enough.
Pawel Krakowiak wrote:
All laws should be made as complete as possible (so no one can know them ), so there's no room for abuse.
You're smart enough to realise that you have defined an impossible task and made fun of yourself - which means I don't have to do it. :-D
Pawel Krakowiak wrote:
There must be a reason why we can't have guns here (so people don't start killing each other, guns are too easy for this),
I don't know about your country, I am sorry to say, but I do know that the gun control laws in Washington DC and New York City have done nothing to keep them from being near the top of the list of murders (most by illegal guns) per capita. In London,. the problem seems to be that knife attacks are skyrocketing.
Pawel Krakowiak wrote:
I wanted to hear some Castle Doctrine abuse stories from Americans
It's not a common defense because, in truth, it just doesn't happen that often.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Pawel Krakowiak wrote:
All laws should be made as complete as possible (so no one can know them ), so there's no room for abuse.
You're smart enough to realise that you have defined an impossible task and made fun of yourself - which means I don't have to do it. :-D
Pawel Krakowiak wrote:
There must be a reason why we can't have guns here (so people don't start killing each other, guns are too easy for this),
I don't know about your country, I am sorry to say, but I do know that the gun control laws in Washington DC and New York City have done nothing to keep them from being near the top of the list of murders (most by illegal guns) per capita. In London,. the problem seems to be that knife attacks are skyrocketing.
Pawel Krakowiak wrote:
I wanted to hear some Castle Doctrine abuse stories from Americans
It's not a common defense because, in truth, it just doesn't happen that often.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I do know that the gun control laws in Washington DC and New York City have done nothing to keep them from being near the top of the list of murders (most by illegal guns) per capita
Maybe they get the guns from the other states where it's possible to buy and own them? So, if Washington or New York was another country (so you'd be checked before entering from another one) they couldn't bring so much guns. But what use is there for a prohibiting law in one state if you can just go to Dallas, buy a gun and come back with it to New York? I am not saying that there are no guns in Poland, but I would expect a gangster (I mean, serious crime) with a gun, but not a common thief on the street which robs me from my mobile phone. ;) In the US I am afraid it's all too easy to be shot by an ordinary robber just because you can have guns. Here to get a gun you either need to be police, prosecutor or perhaps a businessman who can prove that his life may be at a stake.