Cdubyah Posted November 15, 2010 Report Share Posted November 15, 2010 http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20101115/NEWS01/11150306/Prosecutors-defense-at-odds-about-home-defense-lawIn a way I agree, in a way I disagree.What are your thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 15, 2010 Report Share Posted November 15, 2010 I guess I see both sides, but what do I care if two drug dealers shoot each other? Society is still better off with one less "person of ill repute" on the streets.I don't know why an innocent would be breaking into a drug dealers home/car anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted November 15, 2010 Report Share Posted November 15, 2010 (edited) Defense Attorneys are going to use whatever they can in an attempt to get not guilty verdicts for their clients; that's their job.Is "castle" being "abused"? The article only cited 2 instances, and said nothing on the order of "...these are only two of the thousands of instances...", so it seems to me to be a non-issue.In the first instance mentioned, the defendant (who happened to be a drug dealer) was in his vehicle. The person that was shot and killed broke the defendant's car's window in an attempt to get into the car. I don't know if the defendant was dealing drugs from his vehicle. Assuming he wasn't, the shooting seems, to me, to be justified. Even assuming he was dealing drugs from his car, which is illegal, could he still not fear for his life and be allowed to protect himself? I am not an attorney, so I can't answer that.In the other instance, a man broke into a house and was stabbed to death. The article mentions nothing about drugs. I don't see any problem there.If 'castle' happens to be used in a specious manner, would a D.A. not be savvy enough to be able to shoot holes (no pun intended) through that tactic? The rights of the homeowner/victim MUST outweigh the occasional misuse of 'castle'.* NOTE: I put 'castle' in quotes because 'castle' is a marketing term, not a legal term. It is a package of civil and criminal reforms under a heading that states refer to as Castle Doctrine.Ohio's specific version of Castle Doctrine made two broad changes, one civil and one criminal. The civil reform is not self-defense related and is easy to understand and simple to summarize: If you are harmed while you are committing a crime, whether or not you are charged with that crime, you have no civil cause of action against anyone for the harm you suffered. In other words, if you are committing a crime and get hurt, it is your own damn fault.The criminal law change is more nuanced. A simple description: If you are lawfully in a residence or motor vehicle, and someone trespasses or attempts to trespass into that residence or vehicle, then you are legally presumed to be properly acting in self-defense, including using lethal force, until the prosecution proves otherwise. Edited November 15, 2010 by jblosser 'or', not 'of' in my last sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdubyah Posted November 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2010 Kick my front door in and I will put 8 holes in your chest. Period. Anyone that argues against "castle" is officially declared a retard in my court. I completely agree with your first statement. I really don't want them tampering with the law. As it could hang me the "law abiding" citizen out to dry, if they were to reform it.However, I don't like some ass bag using it as his defense. I realize that is what a Defense Attorney is for, to get your less than abiding citizens off with a slap on the wrist. Just don't want them to screw me over in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted November 15, 2010 Report Share Posted November 15, 2010 The article is nothing more than a couple of retards who don't like the law using very poor examples of their interpretations of its abuse. Nothing very news worthy nor anything to worry about, these examples were part of the discussion before the law was passed so the same arguments should have no traction in trying to repeal it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted November 15, 2010 Report Share Posted November 15, 2010 The article is nothing more than a couple of retards who don't like the law using very poor examples of their interpretations of its abuse. Nothing very news worthy nor anything to worry about, these examples were part of the discussion before the law was passed so the same arguments should have no traction in trying to repeal it.+1 simple enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 If I stole drugs from you.. then go to the police station and fill out a report. Kick my front door in and I will put 8 holes in your chest. Period. Anyone that argues against "castle" is officially declared a retard in my court. Have a nice day.I agree, mostly. I don't think it really matters what you're busting down my door for, if I think that you're going to put me or my family in danger, I'm gonna shoot you. That said, if I catch you stealing my TV, and you're going out the door, I'm not going to shoot you in the back. I don't think castle protection should be used to shoot any intruder at any time for any reason. But any inkling that there is a risk of harm, fire away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 All the people in my line of sight at any given moment should have an 'inkling' they're at 'risk of harm'. Because I'm a hardass like that.Especially on the internetz. Be skeerd! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted November 17, 2010 Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 If I stole drugs from you.. then go to the police station and fill out a report. Kick my front door in and I will put 8 holes in your chest. Period. Anyone that argues against "castle" is officially declared a retard in my court. Have a nice day.I hope you are leaving only eight holes because you don't have 9 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted November 20, 2010 Report Share Posted November 20, 2010 I believe I should be able to shoot anyone that enters my house forcibly without my permission. Intentions be damned.oh hai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.