-
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.
The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. -
No one is required to retreat when defending themselves or a third party that is obviously the victim. The offender put themselves in harm's way and as such has to accept the results if the victim or the victim's defender choses to stand and fight. We have not stayed a "free" country because we chose to run and hide. We stand up for our rights and one of those rights is not to be forced to retreat in the face of danger if we choose not to. It is one of the core reason we are fighting for our rights to bear arms and defend ourselves. We are chosing not to retreat and surrender our country, our lives, our families safety, our property, or anything else to those who would violate out rights.Comment
-
Certainly not if you're in your home. "A man's home is his castle" is an English phrase, remember.Great Britain has a forced retreat law I believe.
I can't recall the last time someone was prosecuted for using necessary force in public either.
NTMLast edited by Manic Moran; 02-15-2011, 9:36 PM.Comment
-
I keep hearing Brits prosecuted for public and home self-defense, they aren't?Comment
-
Name one who wouldn't be prosecuted in the US for the same event. (e.g. shooting people in the back as they're running away, i.e. Tony Martin).
This is an odd one, though. Might even be prosecuted in some States for it, but the Brits let him off.
That's not to say there isn't gun-related legal stupidity in the UK. My favourite was one guy who turned in a firearm he found to a police station, and was done for posession.
NTMComment
-
You know what? This point stands out to me; I think this will save some homeowners against unreasonable civil litigation. There's very little to no liability for the property owner if the person who got injured was doing something where there is an "assumption of risk" that they will be hurt doing said activity. It's the same reason you don't see ski resorts getting put out of business every year by the people who break their bones on the runs.
Burglers and other criminals WILLFULLY engage in an activity that has been shown to be harmful to your health in a number of occasions.Originally posted by greasemonkeyComment
-
Retreat may not be a duty, but in most cases its a sensible thing to do to prevent violence, charges, court fees, etc etc etc. In your own residence, however, retreat is not an option....Comment
-
True story.
Two or three years ago an Oakland (CA) home owner was home during the day. His place apparently got burgled a lot. Fed up with his home being targeted, that week day the man decided to stay home. And sure enough, that day he was home, somebody tried to break in. Hearing scrabbling noises at one of his windows, the man armed himself with his pistol and waited for the forced entry. But for whatever reason the burglar couldn't and walked off the property. Angry and scared, the home owner opened his door, shouted at the guy's back that he was armed, and told him to stay away. And what did the would-be burglar do? Well, he turned around and headed back to the man's house. How did the home owner react? He shouted to the guy: Don't come any closer or I'll shoot you. But the burglar kept walking towards him. So the home owner shot the would-be burglar on the sidewalk in front of his house. Or at least, that's where the guy ended up wounded.
And the Alameda County DA did not press charges against the home owner. Instead the burglar went to jail. Or I guess prison. Because he had a previous burglary conviction.x
"Let those find fault whose wit's so very small,
They've need to show that they can think at all;
Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow;
He who would search for pearls, must dive below." -- John DrydenComment
-
Just another example of the UK status, this one just came across the wire last week.
Only an air rifle, mind, hence the burglar was able to be brought before the court.A burglar shot by a man defending his home was told by a judge that he had just received summary justice.
<snip>
"When I went into the dining room, he was trying to pull my motorbike through the window. I told him, not very politely, to get out, but he just stared straight at me. Because I have the rifle, I know a bit about the law around it so I showed him the gun and gave him a chance to leave before I did anything. I knew you can’t just shoot someone. He raised this iron bar up and started coming towards me so I just pulled my gun up and shot him. Even then, he started to come towards me again and threw a brick at me. He must have thought it was a single shot rifle, but I shot him again."
(Who the hell keeps a motorbike in the dining room?)
This judgement by Ireland's highest court relies heavily on British law, as the question, to the judge's suprise, had never come up before in Ireland. It's written in plain English, not Legalese, and is an eye-opening read to people who think that Europeans are forced to be defenceless by law. (if you want to save time, go about 1/3 the way down to the section titled 'The Legal Issues')
Operative clause:
NTMIt is, in our view, quite inconsistent with the constitutional doctrine of the inviolability of a dwellinghouse that a householder or other lawful occupant could be ever be under a legal obligation to flee the dwellinghouse or, as it might be put in more contemporary language, to retreat from it. It follows from this, in turn, that such a person can never be in a worse position in point of law because he has decided to stand his ground in his house.Last edited by Manic Moran; 02-22-2011, 12:19 PM.Comment
-
What this country needs are more judges willing to impose "loser pays" rules upon vexatious civil cases. Lawyers who make a living off "loser" cases knowing that there is a small chance of losing each case, but only losing their own time/filing fees, etc. may press bad cases just for the uncertainty factor.
If the lawyer had to eat the cost of unnecessary defense, things might be a bit more sane. I realize that the idea was to keep huge corporations from pushing all cases away merely by the amount of money that they possess, but this is already pretty much happening anyway. Unless you have a case that you KNOW that you can win AND you will be awarded legal fees AND collect, the other side will usually just overspend you out of your case. I know, I've had it happen.
No "loser pays" means yet more abuse of the system."What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"
-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
"Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
I like my guns like the left likes their voters-"undocumented".Comment
-
Wikipedia answer
States with weak or no specific Castle Law
These states uphold castle doctrine in general, but may rely on case law instead of specific legislation, may enforce a duty to retreat, and may impose specific restrictions on the use of deadly force.
New York (May not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor.)
PennsylvaniaIowa ([36])
Nebraska
New Hampshire (A proposed law was vetoed in 2007.[3])
New Mexico
Virginia
Vermont
District of Columbia
- Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
- Register liberals, not guns . . . they cause more damage. -vantec08
- Liberalism is a mental disorder. Hoplophobia is but one symptom of the irrational thought processes of our demented political class on the left. -Wrangler John
- There is no real justice anymore. The legal system is just that: the legal system, not the justice system. -kcbrown
- California is essentially a banana republic . . . corrupt and intransigent.
Comment
Tweet
There are currently 4787 users online. 120 members and 4667 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 8:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment