Montana home defence or murder

IOW, "dead men tell no tales."

On what basis? I thought you had the right to defend your property?

That won't stop some bleeding heart Judge or Jury for siding with the injured because he was just "actin a fool" and would "never hurt nobody".

No. You have the right to defend yourself with deadly force. By extension and under the right circumstances, that can include "defending your property." For example a home invasion where the perps intend to steal all your stuff but find you at home and armed. Oops, sucks to be them.

Shooting to wound also leaves you open to assault, aggravated assault, or attempted murder charges because now the three-time loser with a rapsheet as long as a freight train can claim his actions were innocent and the mean ol' gun nut just wanted to shoot someone. If you're feeling sufficiently imperiled that you pull a weapon and use it, then you terminate the threat. You shoot to kill.

Because this is 'Murica, and we're a very lawsuit happy country. II've seen a mentally handicapped girl sue her parents for giving birth to her.

"You owe me big time, old man! You didn't leave Data dismantled in a cave! You didn't build your precious Data out of sub-standard parts!!".

In my state it's the property line.

So you live on your lawn?

What state?

Arr, he be sittin' in Davy Jones' locker.

Delusionoyia

Doesn't stop people from suing you. NOTHING stops people from suing you.

North Dakota, and we both know he's lying. It's this kind of "funny" that fuels the stereotype.

Killing them does.
...course, then their survivors can sue you.
So...you've just got to kill everybody.

In North Dakota you have a duty to retreat if you are outside: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/sta...cle_ed903704-151a-11e3-88ad-0019bb2963f4.html

Actually, I'm not lying - a lot of state law enforcement leaders threw a bitch fit when it went on the ballot a few years back and then it went on to pass. I guess its possible the legislature went on to quietly modify it - wouldn't be the first time, or the last time. Just recently the state's voters turned down an initiative to make animal abuse a felony, only for legislature to go on to quietly pass it anyway. And the only reason I know about that is because my roommate worked with the legislature.

And yet, there's Post #165. So we'll assume it's your interpretation of the law, not the law itself, that's at issue here.

No, my edit explains what probably happened.

Neither mburtonk's link nor your edit say "I can shoot someone for stepping on my lawn," which is essentially what you said in Post #157.

In Mississippi, you can shoot anyone on your property who causes you to feel threatened. No joke, that's the law.

When I visit family or friends in MS, you bet your rear end I call them before I drive up their long, long driveways.

And we all like it that way.

I have a long driveway, and when a vehicle I don't recognize comes up, they've opened my gate already. That makes me apprehensive. I mean, it says "No trespassing." :|

But I'd have to wait until they were in better position to harm my family. :|

So far, the only violaters have been door to door salespeople.

If you can shoot to wound, you're not feeling threatened. You lose something like 80% of your manual dexterity when you're in a self-defense situation due to adrenaline (the body naturally numbs your extremities as well, so you can use them to block blows and also as attached clubs).

You guess? What kind of stupid nonsense is that? "I guessed."

Is that what you would say in court after shooting someone?

You've got a computer. It takes a few seconds to bring up the current law as it stands. And no it wasn't quietly changed when you weren't looking.

Oh, hey, look, yet another instance of you deliberately misrepresenting something someone else has said. Which is exactly why I called you a hypocrite in the Bundy thread.

Considering my threshold for shooting someone or even involving a firearm, I doubt I ever would have run afoul of the law. And the current law being what it is doesn't describe in any way the process of it getting that way. I remember the issue coming up on the ballot and that it passed, which is why the various county sheriffs and city police chiefs were throwing a hissy.

Really? You're going to accuse Garamet of deliberately misrepresenting what you wrote here?

She asked how far does the castle go.

You said in your state it's the property line. In context every single person is thinking that you think it's acceptable to shoot as soon as a bad guy crosses your lawn.

You then follow that up with nonsense about your state quietly changing laws which is just more proof that you have no clue what the actual law is.

Captain X doesn't understand what "property line" means.

It is a misrepresentation. As this thread already illustrates, there are criteria that have to be met for castle doctrine to apply, which doesn't include the act of simply setting foot on someone's land. So, yes, that would be a misrepresentation.

Yes. A misrepresentation on your part.

Garamet asked the question. You provided the misrepresentation in your answer.

I answered her question about how far castle doctrine extended. There was no misrepresentation on my part.

Castle Doctrine does not go outside your home.