Montana home defence or murder

Oh, look! Here are some more data that frontline was somehow unable to find!

Not at all surprisingly, your comment is born from a combination of ignorance, stupidity, a poor moral foundation, intellectual dishonesty, and a pigheaded refusal to pay even the meanest morsel of attention to the facts on hand.

Is not an inability. Real World Rules: Your point, your data to support it.

"I posted it before, go find it yourself" says:

• I'm not that sure of my facts, so if I put the onus on the other person, they'll go away and I won't have to prove my point, or
• I double-checked my data, they don't say what I thought they said, and I don't want the other person to notice, so I'll call them names, or
• I'm accustomed to surrounding myself with people who agree with me on this point, so I've never had to prove it

If this is so very important to you, you'll have the facts and figures at your fingertips every time the argument comes up. That's how it works in the Real World. If all you're going to do is name-call, that says you aren't that sure of your facts.

Plus he's Irish.

The whole point of castle doctrine and stand your ground laws is to allow various shooting despite the fact that the shooters aren't proportionately defending themselves or anyone else. If the shooter were defending himself or someone else then self-defense or defense of others would suffice to justify the shooting. Note that you don't need castle doctrine to conclude that someone who breaks into an occupied home to steal a purse is a greater danger than a purse-snatcher on the street. The point of castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws is to devalue life, to tell shooters that in certain situations they can shoot even if they aren't reasonably afraid that they or someone else might be killed or incur severe physical harm.

The common understanding and actual purpose of castle doctrine is that it allows you to shoot uninvited people in your home regardless of the level of danger they pose. So long as a court and jury don't see an open garage door as an invitation and find that the shooter reasonably believed that the uninvited person presented a reasonable threat of a non-zero level of harm, this case is, under the letter of the law, pretty easy: the shooting was justified.

You're the American version of Rick Deckard. Ignorant, stupid, a poor moral foundation, intellectually dishonest, and pig headed. But your Americanized so you're ten times louder and annoying then him.

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground enable you the victim to defend yourself without worry of going to jail because of some asshole putting you trial. It's assholes that think like you that abused citizens who were protecting themselves that led to these laws being passed.

You write, "that you don't need castle doctrine to conclude that someone who breaks into an occupied home to steal a purse is a greater danger than a purse-snatcher on the street" and you are one hundred percent wrong. You do need Castle Doctrine to protect the victim from the very people who want to put the victim in jail for not putting their tail between their legs and running away.

One doesn't need a gun to apply Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground. I could easily use a bat and still be justified if the situation allowed for it.

Those laws don't devalue life. Those laws say that the victim's life is important. Important enough to be worth protecting.

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground protect people from the people like you who live in a fantasy land and would have no problem putting someone in jail for defending themselves.

This was not really a The Castle Doctrine application. But of course it will spinned this way depending on any particular agenda.

Apparently you haven't noticed the board's Castle Doctrine supporters calling this out as the apparent murder this is.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the idea behind the "Castle Doctrine" was that the invasion of an occupied home was considered a "de facto violent act". The idea being that a person occupying their home did not have to wait for the home invader to display obvious lethal intent to warrant a lethal response.

Which if applied reasonably seems pretty common sense to me.

That's the issue - you can't just have a "Common Sense" doctrine when it comes to self defense. Hard to spin that politically!
Also common sense is an abstract concept within our Justice Circus anyway. And it just doesn't sound cool and sexy and important.

So how far does the "castle" extend? Interior of the house (i.e., past an entrance door and actually within the four walls) only? Outside on the porch asking for help because your car broke down? Close enough to the front door to knock on that door asking for help because your car broke down? Just trying to understand the parameters here.

I would assume, reasonably that the "castle extends" to the point where the intruder has unblocked assess to the occupier of the home.

That is, if an intruder comes in through a window or a door, then in most homes there are only limited ways to halt an intruder. Lost of interior doors do not lock and those that do (say a bathroom) are difficult to escape from if a homeowner tried to isolate themselves.

I don't believe that a homeowner has the right to blast an unwanted intruder from their porch or patio unless the intruder is actually trying to force their way inside or displays a weapon. If you are secure inside you have a chance to call law enforcement and should not be in immediate danger.

It goes without saying that the occupier of a residence should have NO legal obligation to try to BREAK OUT of their own residence just to avoid using lethal force against an intruder.

I'll just save this post for the next time someone is defending eminent domain.

The usual interpretation is the inside of your house or dwelling. IOW, Crackhead Bob can stand in my driveway yelling and screaming and all I can do is call the cops, but if he forces my door I can put one in the head and two in the chest and call it good.

Oh, yeah, eminent domain gets me rock fuckin' hard.
It's the smelling salts that gets me up and ready to fight in the morning.
Kiss me, eminent domain, you mad fool!

If you rob houses that honest people work for, that it morally reprehensible. Don't rob houses and stay alive. You act as if this was not the cause of it all. I don't think it was a trap at all. We will just have to agree to disagree on what is a trap.

Setting out bait and laying in wait is usually how we define "trap," nitwit.

Didn't his wife say it was a trap?

If that is the case then it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks. If she said it was a trap then it was a trap.

Literal, Case Closed.

Guys, I think we misunderstood the wife. She meant it was a tarp, not a trap.
We know this because Admiral Ackbar knows when it's a trap, and would have warned the German kid

Clearly, I need to study all of EP's posts. I like to play the dumbass to make folks yell, for the pure fun of it, but I'll say this for EP -- if he's acting, he's got me beat by miles. We're talking fuckin' Academy Award performance in this thread alone.

You're not trying to understand anything. You're just trolling.....

And Ackbar sounds kinda-of German......

Have your house robbed, then you will understand. You work all your life for what you have and some bastard just takes your stuff and you wonder if he is coming back to do it again. You feel violated and insecure as hell and the cops won't do shit. You folks go right along like the thieves have some kind of divine right to steal the time and effort honest working people put into having things.

Now, I could compose a well thought out rebuttal about how it's actually contrary to that sentiment for anyone to go and entice thieves to the neighborhood. But y'know, I've already acknowledged that you're far better at playing dumb than I am. So I think this is all the response you shall have:

There is no death penalty for robbery. There is no death penalty for making "honest homeowners feel violated".

If the government does not sanction killing people for robbery and "homeowner violation" then unless people are in reasonable fear for their lives then the government cannot sanction individuals imposing the death penalty on criminals.

Wait, wait, let's not be hasty here.

What about people who blow their horns at you 3/10ths of a second after the light turns green? What about people who let their dogs do their business right in front of your porch? What about kids who listen to rap "music" at the highest possible volume, at 2 o'clock in the morning?

I mean, can't these people be used at least as target practice? They have to be made to feel they're good for something, don't they?

Parents with noisome crotch-spawn...

No. No. Death penalty is still too severe. But maybe the "Life-Or-Death Penalty" should be a thing.

Y'know, like throw 'em out of a skydiving plane, only instead of a parachute, you strap 'em into an Acme style flying wing. Or launch 'em out of a catapult off the top of a skyscraper in the ehhhhh, general direction of a huge pile of manure that might cushion their fall. Maaaaayyyyyybe they make it? Maaaaayyyyybe they don't! See, yeah. The "Life-Or-Death Penalty."

You have a vocabulary and a middle finger for such situations.

Geez, Dayton's on fire.