Teenage Girl Shot And Killed In Texas Because Of Stand Your Ground Law - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;36724438]Uhh, no, not with further precedence. As I've said already, intentionally killing is never considered reasonable. Your goal is to end the danger, not to end a life. If you say you consciously intended to kill, and if you're dumb enough to fucking say "they were asking for it" or "they deserved it," you're going to prison. It's not vague at all. It's well-defined and tested in precedence. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] "They were in my house" is not reasonable cause. Mountains of federal precedence dictate that. Castle Doctrine is state-level legislation. Ever heard of the Supremacy Clause? Castle can fuck right off if you did something federal precedence says was unnecessary.[/QUOTE] Castle for my state (Arizona) says [quote] A.**NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER, A PERSON IS JUSTIFIED IN THREATENING TO USE OR USING PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON IF THE PERSON REASONABLY BELIEVES HIMSELF OR ANOTHER PERSON TO BE IN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY AND THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE IS THREATENED OR USED WAS IN THE PROCESS OF UNLAWFULLY OR FORCEFULLY ENTERING, OR HAD UNLAWFULLY OR FORCEFULLY ENTERED, A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OR OCCUPIED VEHICLE, OR HAD REMOVED OR WAS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE ANOTHER PERSON AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON'S WILL FROM THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OR OCCUPIED VEHICLE. B.**A PERSON HAS NO DUTY TO RETREAT BEFORE THREATENING OR USING PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.[/quote] [url]http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/laws/0199.htm&Session_ID=83[/url] Now if I'm reading this correctly, if I believe someone is a danger to myself or my family I'm allowed to react with force. I define danger as someone in my house at midnight. How do you define a danger?

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36725087]I think the problem I have in understanding is that, by what you have been telling us, the Castle Doctrine is not valid in ANY case or for any reason because, as you have also told us, the taking of a life is never justified in any case or for any reason. Unless I have completely misunderstood what you've been saying, that's what I've gathered.[/QUOTE] Castle Doctrine removes the duty to retreat. It does not grant greater authority to use lethal force. It merely means you aren't legally obligated to leave. You are still expected to conduct yourself under the conditions prescribed by self defense precedence. You can stay in your home that is being invaded, but that doesn't mean you can use lethal force without it being absolutely and provably necessary. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sottalytober;36725303]if I'm reading this correctly, if I believe someone is a danger to myself or my family I'm allowed to react with force. I define danger as someone in my house at midnight. How do you define a danger?[/QUOTE] And someone being in your home does not constitute provably imminent peril of death. You do realize that what you just quoted abides precisely by Supreme Court precedence, merely removing the duty to retreat. I'm not going to explain the Supremacy Clause again. Just because Arizona state law says something doesn't make it valid. Federal precedence overrules all.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36723956]I'm saying you should fucking run. Get out. You aren't justified in self defense before you're actually, provably in danger.[/QUOTE] If you have to flee from your own home, I'd say that means you are in danger.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36725357]If you have to flee from your own home, I'd say that means you are in danger.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. It means you fled before danger was imminent. Lethal force is only justified in such a case on a federal level. Jesus Christ, you people are just being dense now. All of this shit has been argued in cases ad-nauseum and your side has a way of losing. Do you people wonder why Castle Doctrine is being challenged on a federal level? It's because overzealous implementation of the doctrine is contradictory to federal law.

Why does this always happen to these kinds of threads? I dont know about you, but if there is someone who has entered [I]my [/I]home with a intent to take my stuff or hurt me, im gonna shoot at the bastards.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36725372]No it doesn't. It means you fled before danger was imminent. Lethal force is only justified in such a case on a federal level. Jesus Christ, you people are just being dense now. All of this shit has been argued in cases ad-nauseum and your side has a way of losing. Do you people wonder why Castle Doctrine is being challenged on a federal level? It's because overzealous implementation of the doctrine is contradictory to federal law.[/QUOTE] If you are running from your property because of attackers, that IS imminent danger. You are the only person I've ever seen who says that the pro-self defense side loses this arguments. The courts tend to disagree with you. And Castle Doctrine has not been challenged at any level of judicial power. Why don't you cite this supposed challenge? And how is it contradictory to federal law? [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=KommradKommisar;36725442]Why does this always happen to these kinds of threads?[/QUOTE] Because some people on these forums think it's more honorable to die begging for your life than it is to take matters into your own hands and defend yourself and your family from those who intend to do harm.

[QUOTE=Sottalytober;36725303]Castle for my state (Arizona) says [url]http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/laws/0199.htm&Session_ID=83[/url] Now if I'm reading this correctly, if I believe someone is a danger to myself or my family I'm allowed to react with force. I define danger as someone in my house at midnight. How do you define a danger?[/QUOTE] this is in the law you just quoted: [quote]IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY[/quote] a person in your house does not put you imminent peril of death.

-snarp-

[QUOTE=Lankist;36725317]Castle Doctrine removes the duty to retreat. It does not grant greater authority to use lethal force. It merely means you aren't legally obligated to leave. You are still expected to conduct yourself under the conditions prescribed by self defense precedence. You can stay in your home that is being invaded, but that doesn't mean you can use lethal force without it being absolutely and provably necessary. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] And someone being in your home does not constitute provably imminent peril of death. You do realize that what you just quoted abides precisely by Supreme Court precedence, merely removing the duty to retreat. I'm not going to explain the Supremacy Clause again. Just because Arizona state law says something doesn't make it valid. Federal precedence overrules all.[/QUOTE] You didn't answer my question. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36725478]this is in the law you just quoted: a person in your house does not put you imminent peril of death.[/QUOTE] I should have expanded my scenario, my fault. Someone in my house justifies threatening of lethal force. Shooting immediately would be asinine.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36725453]If you are running from your property because of attackers, that IS imminent danger. You are the only person I've ever seen who says that the pro-self defense side loses this arguments. The courts tend to disagree with you. And Castle Doctrine has not been challenged at any level of judicial power. Why don't you cite this supposed challenge? And how is it contradictory to federal law? [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Because some people on these forums think it's more honorable to die begging for your life than it is to take matters into your own hands and defend yourself and your family from those who intend to do harm.[/QUOTE] I think you are far more likely to put yourself and your family in harms way than any burglar

[QUOTE=Ridge;36725453] Because some people on these forums think it's more honorable to die begging for your life than it is to take matters into your own hands and defend yourself and your family from those who intend to do harm.[/QUOTE] Oh of course, the best way to die is with a loaded pair of undies :v:

[QUOTE=Ridge;36725453]Because some people on these forums think it's more honorable to die begging for your life than it is to take matters into your own hands and defend yourself and your family from those who intend to do harm.[/QUOTE] and other people like to insinuate someone actually said you should die begging for your life. guess what no one did.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36725453]If you are running from your property because of attackers, that IS imminent danger. You are the only person I've ever seen who says that the pro-self defense side loses this arguments. The courts tend to disagree with you.[/quote] [url]http://www.independent.com/news/2011/jun/03/vargas-stand-trial-isla-vista-murder/[/url] [url]http://www.independent.com/news/2012/apr/11/murder-cases-hinges-self-defense-claim/[/url] [url]http://www.independent.com/news/2012/may/02/vargas-guilty-voluntary-manslaughter/[/url] This is merely one detailed example of a man (one Benjamin Vargas) who lost his case because, despite his belief in necessity, he used deadly force unnecessarily and killed a man. He faces up to 11 years in prison. [quote]And Castle Doctrine has not been challenged at any level of judicial power.[/QUOTE] You serious? [url]http://www.bradycampaign.org/[/url] Just one of the major lobbying organizations challenging it on a daily basis. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sottalytober;36725500]I should have expanded my scenario, my fault. Someone in my house justifies threatening of lethal force. Shooting immediately would be asinine.[/QUOTE] When you expand the scenario to fit the law, of course it's going to be defensible. The point is that your original scenario isn't.

[QUOTE=Tigster;36716324]She plotted with others and executed a plan to break into someone's home. Why is she any different than some unattractive middle aged burglar?[/QUOTE] If you would break into someone's home I suppose you wouldn't want to take a bullet to the head for it? There are possibilities to help young people changing their life instead of instantly killing them...

[QUOTE=aliensoldier;36725738]If you would break into someone's home I suppose you wouldn't want to take a bullet to the head for it? There are possibilities to help young people changing their life instead of instantly killing them...[/QUOTE] As is the Brady Campaign motto at this point: we don't kill teenagers for stealing stereos.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36725676][url]http://www.independent.com/news/2011/jun/03/vargas-stand-trial-isla-vista-murder/[/url] [url]http://www.independent.com/news/2012/apr/11/murder-cases-hinges-self-defense-claim/[/url] [url]http://www.independent.com/news/2012/may/02/vargas-guilty-voluntary-manslaughter/[/url] This is merely one detailed example of a man (one Benjamin Vargas) who lost his case because, despite his belief in necessity, he used deadly force unnecessarily and killed a man. He faces up to 11 years in prison. You serious? [url]http://www.bradycampaign.org/[/url] Just one of the major lobbying organizations challenging it on a daily basis. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] When you expand the scenario to fit the law, of course it's going to be defensible. The point is that your original scenario isn't.[/QUOTE] My original scenario still is...I said react with force, not necessarily deadly. There are no laws to keep me from tacking some one in my house are there?

[QUOTE=Ridge;36725453]Because some people on these forums think it's more honorable to die begging for your life than it is to take matters into your own hands and defend yourself and your family from those who intend to do harm.[/QUOTE] Please quote that post, I'd love to see it. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sottalytober;36725776]My original scenario still is...I said react with force, not necessarily deadly. There are no laws to keep me from tacking some one in my house are there?[/QUOTE] Discharging a firearm is always deadly force. Even brandishing it is intent to use deadly force. You keep marginalizing your own argument. Tackling someone? I don't care if you tackle someone. We're talking about deadly force. I don't give two shits if the most that happens is somebody gets a booboo on their knees. Though I would highly advise against escalating the situation to violence in any scenario considering, statistically, you are more likely to get yourself injured that way.

[QUOTE=Sottalytober;36725776]My original scenario still is...I said react with force, not necessarily deadly. There are no laws to keep me from tacking some one in my house are there?[/QUOTE] If everyone in the US wasn't armed to the teeth then you'd probably be perfectly fine in confronting a burglar The bed has been made unfortunately

Lankist is a silly goose

[QUOTE=Lankist;36725676][url]http://www.independent.com/news/2011/jun/03/vargas-stand-trial-isla-vista-murder/[/url] [url]http://www.independent.com/news/2012/apr/11/murder-cases-hinges-self-defense-claim/[/url] [url]http://www.independent.com/news/2012/may/02/vargas-guilty-voluntary-manslaughter/[/url] This is merely one detailed example of a man (one Benjamin Vargas) who lost his case because, despite his belief in necessity, he used deadly force unnecessarily and killed a man. He faces up to 11 years in prison.[/quote] California does not have Castle Doctrine the same way other states do. [quote]You serious? [url]http://www.bradycampaign.org/[/url] Just one of the major lobbying organizations challenging it on a daily basis.[/quote] Fun fact. Since the Supreme Court ruled gun ownership an individual right, the Brady Campaign is now technically a hate group.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36725920]California does not have Castle Doctrine the same way other states do.[/quote] Uhh did you read the case? Castle Doctrine doesn't let you stab someone sixteen times. [quote]Fun fact. Since the Supreme Court ruled gun ownership an individual right, the Brady Campaign is now technically a hate group.[/QUOTE] go on.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36725778]Discharging a firearm is always deadly force. Even brandishing it is intent to use deadly force. You keep marginalizing your own argument. Tackling someone? I don't care if you tackle someone. We're talking about deadly force. I don't give two shits if the most that happens is somebody gets a booboo on their knees. Though I would highly advise against escalating the situation to violence in any scenario considering, statistically, you are more likely to get yourself injured that way.[/QUOTE] Then what are you supposed to do? If someone breaks into your home, brandishing a lethal weapon, and you have no means of escape or a family to protect, what are you supposed to do? This is assuming that the invader does not leave after you issue a verbal warning of any kind. Seriously, I'm looking for a practical answer here.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36725949]Then what are you supposed to do? If someone breaks into your home, brandishing a lethal weapon, and you have no means of escape or a family to protect, what are you supposed to do? This is assuming that the invader does not leave after you issue a verbal warning of any kind. Seriously, I'm looking for a practical answer here.[/QUOTE] From what Lankist has posted if they are brandishing a weapon AT you that counts as imminent danger and you can use self defense

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36725949]Then what are you supposed to do? If someone breaks into your home, brandishing a lethal weapon, and you have no means of escape or a family to protect, what are you supposed to do? This is assuming that the invader does not leave after you issue a verbal warning of any kind. Seriously, I'm looking for a practical answer here.[/QUOTE] i'm fairly sure that brandishing a lethal weapon gives cause for lethal force

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36725949]Then what are you supposed to do? If someone breaks into your home, brandishing a lethal weapon, and you have no means of escape or a family to protect, what are you supposed to do? This is assuming that the invader does not leave after you issue a verbal warning of any kind. Seriously, I'm looking for a practical answer here.[/QUOTE] We aren't talking about that. We're talking about the use of deadly force in a situation whose only certainty is that someone broke into your house. I have explained five times what constitutes self defense. If someone provably threatens you and you have no other recourse, yes you are justified in a limited capacity (as mentioned above, you can't stab them sixteen fucking times or you go to prison for eleven years). The issue is that you don't [I]know[/I] they're a threat in the aforementioned situation, and self defense precedence demands you are certain you are under direct threat or you are otherwise wholly accountable for your actions. If you take it upon yourself to use deadly force before you are in imminent danger the severity of which justifies the use of deadly force, you will be held accountable for your actions. You'll probably face around a decade of prison time for jumping the gun. The same laws that apply to the hypothetical criminal apply to you too.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36726006]We aren't talking about that. We're talking about the use of deadly force in a situation whose only certainty is that someone broke into your house. I have explained five times what constitutes self defense. If someone provably threatens you and you have no other recourse, yes you are justified in a limited capacity (as mentioned above, you can't stab them sixteen fucking times or you go to prison for eleven years). The issue is that you don't [I]know[/I] they're a threat in the aforementioned situation, and self defense precedence demands you are certain you are under direct threat or you are otherwise wholly accountable for your actions. If you take it upon yourself to use deadly force before you are in imminent danger, you will be held accountable for your actions.[/QUOTE] Thank you for giving me a straight answer this time. Now I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

Just out of curiosity, if you hear someone break into your house, you grab a weapon, the burglar sees it and draws his own, and shoot shoot him, is that self defense? Or does you already having your weapon drawn count as threatening him?

[QUOTE=Mingebox;36726050]Just out of curiosity, if you hear someone break into your house, you grab a weapon, the burglar sees it and draws his own, and shoot shoot him, is that self defense? Or does you already having your weapon drawn count as threatening him?[/QUOTE] In that case, you took the initiative and forced the burglar to draw his weapon in self defense, so you'd be in the wrong.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;36726050]Just out of curiosity, if you hear someone break into your house, you grab a weapon, the burglar sees it and draws his own, and shoot shoot him, is that self defense? Or does you already having your weapon drawn count as threatening him?[/QUOTE] You could potentially be found to be the aggressor in that scenario. Criminals also have the privileges of self defense as bystanders (in fact, court precedence endorses the use of lethal force even against [I]police[/I] if you are wrongfully put in harm's way). If you threaten to kill a burglar, and thereby escalate the situation to violence [I]yourself[/I], it does not constitute self defense. You were the aggressor, not the defender. Defense requires you don't make the first move, and actively escalating a situation to violence is the easiest way to sabotage a self defense plea. You probably won't go down for murder charges, but you'll face a nickle or a dime for manslaughter. You will also, as an ex-convict, be prohibited from possessing a firearm when your incarceration ends, and any future cases of self defense utilizing a firearm will probably see you catching murder charges. Convicts aren't allowed to have guns, so think of it like this, gun nuts: If you're in a situation like this, is taking the shot worth going to prison and losing your individual gun rights for the rest of your life? Is the situation severe enough to give up that gun forever and your freedom for over a decade? If yes, then you might just be justified.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;36726050]Just out of curiosity, if you hear someone break into your house, you grab a weapon, the burglar sees it and draws his own, and shoot shoot him, is that self defense? Or does you already having your weapon drawn count as threatening him?[/QUOTE] Grey Area. You're allowed to (in Arizona atleast) threaten with a deadly weapon; but only if you have reasonable cause [quote]A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13‑1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13‑1507 or 13‑1508, kidnapping under section 13‑1304, manslaughter under section 13‑1103, second or first degree murder under section 13‑1104 or 13‑1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13‑1405, sexual assault under section 13‑1406, child molestation under section 13‑1410, armed robbery under section 13‑1904, or aggravated assault under section[/quote] might vary by state