Mississippi finally gets a \"Castle Law\"

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:25 am

Two thoughts from an \"outsider\" here..

1. If such a law needs passing, holy ★■◆● your country and homeland security is fucked up big time!!!11

2. What's the point of the law? Allowing people to protect themselves or dissuade burglars from breaking and entering? I don't see how it's helping any of those two. If it's about protecting yourself, deadly force should only be allowed if you are confronted with mortal danger yourself, i.e. it's you or him (or your child, whatever). As long as the burglar is just picking drawers downstairs, there is no mortal threat. If it's about dissuading burglars, it's not going to work either. They'll just wait till you're on holiday or something, then they can just go about their business in all tranquility.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:44 am

Typically, a \"Castle Law\" simply states that you have no obligation to attempt to flee a threat while you are within the confines of your home. There is a presumption that you have the right to be safe in your home, and that you have a right to use deadly force if you are threatened by an intruder. In public, however, you are obligated to attempt to flee the threat if possible.

Either way, if you shoot someone, you're going to jail, no matter what. That's a given. Expect to be arrested, booked and possibly even tried.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:42 am

Yea, up close and personal. Makes it a lot harder to kill than to just fire a gun from a mile away. Not a single one of you gun nuts has it in you to kill with a sword, otherwise you wouldn't be sitting on a computer for hours at a time like me. Same with everyone else in this country.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:00 am

If someone needed killing, and I didn't have a gun, I'm pretty sure I'd find another way. Or die trying, anyhow.

Edit: Admittedly I've never killed a human before, but I've killed and butchered meat animals.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:40 am

You think you could? Jam a knife in someone's stomach and feel thick blood rush over your hands? Doubt it, you're just a big a wimp as the rest of us here. No insult intended, it's the truth and everyone here is part of it.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:23 pm

Speak for yourself...

Would I just go jam a knife in someone's stomach? Not only no, but hell no. Only a sociopath or worse would do that.

BUT, and here's the big kicker...If all I have is a baseball bat or a knife to defend my family against an assailant in my home, you bet I'd use 'em. I wouldn't even waste time thinking. I'd stick it into their guts and dig around with it. I'd beat their head into a rotten pulp.

Maybe you'd lie down and allow the guy to kill you, but I like living. I'm sure I'd feel lousy about it afterward, but I'd also feel thankful. Regrets are for the living.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:21 pm

Let's change it up a bit, what if you could have a gun, but there was a chip in it that rendered the gun useless if it was brought outside your home. The only time you could ever use it would be inside your home for defense. Would you be for something like that? I'm talking a complete foolproof method of hitting the kill switch on the gun, would you be for that? 'Cuz you all talk about how guns are just for defense...

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:34 pm

So we've gone from Castle Law to Gun Control in one easy step? Bad idea, for a lot of reasons, most of which are not germaine to a discussion of self-defense within your private residence.

Maybe you should start your own thread though, and call out all the gun-toting pussies on their lack of manly sword-wielding vigor.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:43 pm

Huh? It's tied in perfectly, the castle law states you can arm and fire assailants at your will, so would you support something with guns that allowed only that?

As for my own thread, I've tired of posting about the gun nuts on this board. That I won't do...

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:03 pm

The so-called \"Castle Doctrine\" doesn't specify what means of deadly force are allowed, only the circumstances under which a judicial presumption of self-defense would be granted. How does gun control tie into this again?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:51 pm

Would you use deadly force if someone entered your house unarmed?

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:59 pm

Zuruck wrote:Let's change it up a bit, what if you could have a gun, but there was a chip in it that rendered the gun useless if it was brought outside your home. The only time you could ever use it would be inside your home for defense. Would you be for something like that? I'm talking a complete foolproof method of hitting the kill switch on the gun, would you be for that? 'Cuz you all talk about how guns are just for defense...

First, the chip would be essentially worthless. The crooks would take what, 5 minutes to figure out how to disable it and just use it like a normal gun. (Or they would just avoid it... there and plenty of others out there.)
Second, good luck making it reliable. Even the people who would only use their guns for self-defense would avoid it.... I wouldn't be dumb enough to let a computer decide if a given case (provided the computer's limited sensing abilities) is one the merits gun use or not. I can't see any way that the system could even come close to being reliable.

Sorry Zur, take another stab at it.

On the other hand, I think Zuruck has a point, WA. I think that what a person would really do in such a case is only seen what it actually happens. Who knows, you might opt to flee... many people would. I would certainly hope that you would have enough self control to simply stop the person, not to go crazy with it.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:37 pm

snoopy, I said in my post that if there was a complete foolproof way to make it happen. That means that it works 100%, theoretically.

And I think snoopy got a piece of it. Is there such a thing as too much force? Do you kill an unarmed bandit? Are four whacks with a bat too many? Does your home extend to your lot and anything on it?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:06 pm

Zuruck wrote:Not a single one of you gun nuts has it in you to kill with a sword

I don't own a gun. I DO own a sword. And a very small crossbow.

If I ever felt my family was threatend, darn tootin I'm using both of those (and anything else I can get into my hands at the moment) on the badguy.

COULD I kill? I certainly hope so. And history indicates that you would be very surprised at what a frightened person can do. Civilization is only a thin veneer, scratch it and you'll find the barbarism underneath.

On the other hand, no, I do NOT pretend that killing someone wouldn't have a profound affect upon me. Unless you are a hardened psychopath, killing ALWAYS has a profound affect. But threaten my family, and I'll worry about both the law and the psychiatric bills later...

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:35 am

Zuruck wrote:Would you use deadly force if someone entered your house unarmed?

If they advanced on me threateningly, they would get ONE warning to stop. After that, I would apply force until I felt that the outcome was a reduction of threat. Given that I would probably be scared, I might over-apply force, or overestimate the amount needed. Not my problem though. I didn't invade THEIR home.

Other scenarios would vary according to the situation. The right to defend yourself is not a license to kill.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:27 pm

Zuruck wrote:Not a single one of you gun nuts has it in you to kill with a sword,

When did this become a machismo contest? I don’t WANT to kill anybody for any reason. But if someone directly and credibly threatens my family, I am going to use whatever is at my disposal to neutralize the threat. If lethal force is the only option left, I would prefer to use a gun (I am lumping rifles and handguns together here) for the simple reason that I can keep some distance between myself and the assailant. He may be a 99th degree black belt in kick-ass after all. But if all I have is a sword, I use the sword. If all I have is the top of the toilet tank, then I will use that. However, my first instinct is to avoid the confrontation all together.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:35 pm

Dedman wrote:When did this become a machismo contest?

Man I wish I could have cut to the heart of it like that. Nice. I wasted my energy on the shell. You struck to the heart of it.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:37 pm

WarAdvocat wrote:You struck to the heart of it.

With a sword

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:21 pm

War was the only one that tried to touch on what I was saying. How can a legislature pass a law like this and expect people to use appropriate force. If deadly force is needed, then use it. If some drunk idiot passes out on your lawn, do you get to shoot him? A bum takes shelter under your tree in your backyard that isn't fenced in, can you drop a .50 on him?

This post isn't about being macho. It's bothering to read that people hold no regard for human life and talk about shooting people like it's eating cotton candy. It's all bs from these people.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:45 pm

Another note here: You don't have the same rights on your PROPERTY as you do inside your HOME. Thus the term \"Castle Doctrine\" and not \"Property Line Doctrine\".

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:59 pm

Zuruck wrote:It's bothering to read that people hold no regard for human life and talk about shooting people like it's eating cotton candy. It's all bs from these people.

I don't think that's it at all. We are talking about a "Castle Doctrine", and in doing so the presumption is that someone has broken INTO your HOME and is a potential PHYSICAL THREAT to YOU and/or YOUR FAMILY. In that context the discussion of using deadly force is not at all the same as "holding no regard for human life". Using leathal force to protect your self is what the discussion was about.

Some drunk bum passed out on your front lawn or under a tree in your back yard is outside the context of the topic.

I and others here have stated in this thread that deadly force is the LAST thing we want to use. That is hardly the same as "holding no regard for human life".

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:20 pm

Zuruck wrote:Would you use deadly force if someone entered your house unarmed?

If it was required, abosolutely. Ever see someone loaded up on PCP? However, I'm not going to blow them away first thing if I don't see a weapon. I'll give them a verbal warning. If they refuse to leave, then its their fault.

War was the only one that tried to touch on what I was saying. How can a legislature pass a law like this and expect people to use appropriate force.

What, do you think we're going to act out bits and pieces from the DOOM series? Don't be stupid Zuruck.

If deadly force is needed, then use it. If some drunk idiot passes out on your lawn, do you get to shoot him? A bum takes shelter under your tree in your backyard that isn't fenced in, can you drop a .50 on him?

Thats outside the context of the law and you damn well know it. This isn't about going gung-ho on anyone that dares to set foot on your property. This is about protecting yourself, or those you care about inside your home from dangerous intruders.

This post isn't about being macho. It's bothering to read that people hold no regard for human life and talk about shooting people like it's eating cotton candy. It's all bs from these people.

Oh really? How is it that we "hold no regard for human life" just because we would actually defend ourselves from criminals? You're taking a real leap to grasp those straws bud.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:35 am

Ok seriously, does this just go over everyone's head? I'm not saying you can't defend your home, I'm saying that a law like this is going to open the door for way too many questions to be asked after something happens. Do you think everyone will adhere to the \"castle\" part of it? Absolutely not.

You guys don't get it. I'm all about protecting your family, all I'm arguing about is the responsiblity this law puts in an individual person. Sadly, I feel that most people cannot handle that sort of thing. My take, LOCK your doors and windows. If you live in an unsafe area, buy a reinforced door with a steel jamb and laminated windows. If you are that worried about where you live, move somewhere else.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:52 am

Old guy here in FL shot a tresspasser through a sliding glass door. The tresspasser was trying to open the door. The tresspasser was OUTSIDE the house at the time of the shooting.

Result:
1 Dead tresspasser.
1 old guy in Jail for murder.

Hope that's clear enough for you? The message is pretty clear, you shoot first without a clear and present danger to life and limb, you go to jail.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:15 am

Thanks for the example. That's what I'm talking about..the clear distinction of what people can and can't do. Was the sliding door locked? Maybe he should have brandished the gun first which would have scared the man off. If I saw a 12 gauge looking at me, I'd think twice about it.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:13 am

Well what they teach you in defense class is to make sure they fall INSIDE the house when you shoot 'em, not outside.

Hope that helps

scav_engr · Post by **scav_engr** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:41 am

Nah, any of the 'bleeding heart' or 'heart felt' idea's on this issue is a bunch of crap. As soon as someone raises ANY IDEA in question of what that dead THEIF was doing- now supports the *rights* of said CRIMINAL in where they should have never been before they were killed for being a THREAT to others they had no care for. This is philosophical- not reality conversation. This is what the peace-nic's try to legislate- can't be done. When it is, society becomes a disaster.

FACT- \"we\" live in REALITY- and in REALITY- there are *bad* people in the world, and these same *bad* people have no care for you or your family. THIS IS A FACT. When someone 'breaks' into a home that is not their own- THEY ARE THE PREDATOR, AND THEY ARE THE THREAT. How come a handcuffed THEIF (or worse) is guilty, but a DEAD THEIF is innocent? If said 'someone' doesn't have ill-intent why are they there? Doesn't matter what they're 'personal problems' may be, doesn't matter whom they've *touched* in their lives- THEY'RE *TOUCHING* OTHERS BY INTIMIDATION, WILL, AND FORCE OF THEIR OWN.

Garage, bike, non-life threatening? A good majority of people in this world posed the question of this is- Absolutely damn right- some *stranger* comes into my dwelling, takes something they don't own- they are a THREAT. Tough $hit if said *stranger* takes this risk and gets killed. THAT'S THE POINT OF HOME PROTECTION- a DAMN good DETERRANT to petty theives. And yes- no jail time for homeowner when proven STRANGER, THEIF, THREAT, on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Nah, that's where the line in drawn and where it should be. Some criminal's bad childhood, drug problem, or any personal problems- ARE THEIR OWN to get/find THEIR OWN HELP. After thoughts of killing said INTRUDER? Under threat, I'll sleep just fine, said *INTRUDER* had no problem THREATENING ME.

Home protection Gun laws should absolutely be ENACTED in EVERY STATE. You peace-nic types just don't seem to 'get it' and obviously have never been threatened or violated in such ways- or you wouldn't have so much *wisdom* to dispurse on the rest of society. Those whom will steal and take from OTHERS, are already operating in a manner that- YOU make no difference to them, if YOU DIE while they're doing 'thier business'- know what? That's YOUR problem that YOU got in the way.

Where's my gun stored? Is it clean? Can I reach it? Yeah, it's in my ankle holster, and easily retrieved. Uh-huh- here's my concealed to carry permit- mr. officer. For you 'peace-nic' types- if guns scare you- so does reality, time to grow up. Can't stop dreaming up *disaster* scenarios where all *bad* gun 'things' happen? %99.99999999 of them never do- you have too much time on your hands, go find something to do and don't worry about it. Had a personal someone 'harmed' by someone with a gun? That's called CRIME and the CRIMINAL didn't present himself for a BACKGROUND check, and he didn't much care about his victim cause he KNEW that person wouldn't be armed like he was.

Congrats MS, hope this passes legislation in my homestate yesterday.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:20 pm

WarAdvocat wrote:Well what they teach you in defense class is to make sure they fall INSIDE the house when you shoot 'em, not outside.

Hope that helps

Hah, I like that. Are we done with this discussion? I'm fine with where we are at.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:50 pm

welcome to the DBB scav_engr

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:32 pm

MD-2389 wrote:http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislatio ... px?ID=1858

(It was voted in the other day)

Ths is the only online source I can find atm. Mississippi residents can now legally shoot to kill when it comes to home intruders. They are no longer required to "run away" at the first sign of danger.

I say its about damn time we start seeing more legistlation like this put in place. Thoughts?

And then there is the case of that guy you really don't get along well with, and everybody knows it, and you invited him to your home and shot him as intruder. And as people know you had been enemies, they will blame it on him intruding your home unasked for.

Why not run away and only shoot if you have left no other choice? And then it's not just shoot, it's shoot to kill.

How sick.

You don't seem to notice how violent the U.S. population is, that allowing everybody to carry a gun makes things only worse. Not that I was against self-defense, but it simply doesn't work that way.

Well, we had this discussion before, and I admit it is pointless to argue rationally about this topic with somebody who is in dire need of that kind of p3nis extension.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:39 pm

Because you shouldn't have to run from your own home. Your home should be the one place in the world where you can feel safe at all times. And this law doesn't give anyone the right to use deadly force without provocation or need; it's still meant as a last-ditch effort. I fully agree with the earlier comments; if someone enters your home intending to take your possessions or potentially harm you, they forfeit all guarantees of their own safety.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:58 pm

Top Gun wrote:if someone enters your home intending to take your possessions or potentially harm you, they forfeit all guarantees of their own safety.

Amen!

On the other hand, it's not a license to kill, despite what some people seem to think. Diedel, I can assure you that unless you're MUCH better than the cops, the scenarios you invented are VERY unlikely. They cops can spot a liar a mile away. That's their job, and despite what you might hear, they're pretty damn good at it usually. They've dealt with similar situations literally hundreds of times, and spoken with hundreds of murderers too. If you lie to them, they'll see through your story as soon as they hear he was your enemy.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:09 am

i just wanna say that i agree with what Zurick said about this thread turning into a strange kinda \"are you as much a badass as me?\" dickwaving competition.

i mean, some of this stuff is right outof a USA Army advertisement, or a George Bush \"i wanna give more money to the military industrial complex and accuse everyone who disagrees of being unamerican\" speech that gets the blood of every red-blooded red-NECKED american pumping violently through the veins of their \"overcompensating for something\" \"i'm a big boy now!\" testicles:

When it comes to self-defense, or defense of family or friends, I will not hesitate to protect those I care about.

I CAN'T HEAR YOUR SOLDIER!!! ARE YOU A MARINE OR A PUSSY?! GIMME A GOOD RAMBO SCREAM!

RAAAARARAAARAARRAA!!

WHAT!?

ARAARARARAAASDFadsgafsdasFSFSDFASDFSAFDASDFAD!~@!!@#@#!@

i'm just joshin... ok not totally

.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:35 am

When the s**t hits the fan, that's when you'll find out if you're a man. Until then it's all talk, and to that extent, and that extent only, I agree with you roid

So keep on talkin'

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:47 am

WarAdvocat wrote:that's when you'll find out if you're a man.

Just to reduce the "testicular fortitude" element, I would add "Or Woman". And if you don't think a woman will fight to defend her kids, well, you just haven't ever gotten between them. Think mother bear.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:38 am

Kilarin wrote:...I would add "Or Woman".

Ok, I guess... I WAS talking to roid, after all

What I want to know is when did it become politically incorrect dick-waving "overcompensating" redneckedness to be willing to use whatever came to hand (including deadly force) to protect your family (or die trying anyhow) against a violent intruder in your own home? If it's wrong to feel that way, yeah, I'll gladly be wrong.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:02 am

How about this one?

You have an argument with a group of drunk people outside your house who were making a lot of noise in the dead of night and woke up your family. Finally they beat you up. You flee back to the house, grab your gun, get out and shoot some of them. Now you're the 'winner' and have paid them back. Why did they touch you anyway?

Very natural reaction, I'd say.

On the other hand, if they didn't injure you severely, you can get back into the house, bear the humiliation for the moment, call the police, have them arrested, charged, and sentenced. Your wounds will heal, you have your self-esteem restored, and can visit them in jail and just sit there in front of them, silently, and smile. Aaaaaaah. That would give unparalleled satisfaction to the thought of \"f* you mofo\". When you leave, wave your hand a little.

The question for me is how often you'd actually need to shoot an intruder to your home. I don't know your crime statistics. Here in Germany burglars almost exclusively come to homes where the owners are on vacation.

I have decided that it's better for me not to have a gun at home (my father would have given one to me, had I joined a gun club and acquired the license). I feel a gun would bring a sense of violence to my home I wouldn't like to have there. And then, if the gun would be easily accessible enough to be of any use if I'd get surprised by an intruder, it would be easily accessible for everybody else, including my son. If it was locked away in a gun safe (which is the law here in Germany), I would probably be wounded/dead before I had fumbled the key into the lock anyway.

Go figure.

Your entire society seems to be geared towards violence and aggression in a way that is bewildering to somebody living in pretty safe Germany. And obviously a lot of gun owning Americans' thoughts are directly relating manliness with gun possession. Hrmpf. What I said.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:49 am

Your entire society seems to be geared towards violence and aggression in a way that is bewildering to somebody living in pretty safe Germany.

We DO have a problem with violence, but its more of a human problem than an American one.

I'm not certain what the numbers are in Germany, but Canada has some rather strict gun control laws, and the end result is that their per-capita rate of crimes involving KINVES is 3 times the per-capita rate in the US. Take away peoples guns and they will stab each other. Take away the knives and they pull out baseball bats.

[edit]I can't support this number as stated. please see this post for clarification.[/edit]

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:23 pm

That's a great statistic, Kilarin. Please provide links!

Diedel, if you think that you'd go in the house and get a gun if someone beat you up, then I'm very glad you're not a gun owner.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:48 pm

Kilarin wrote:
WarAdvocat wrote:that's when you'll find out if you're a man.
Just to reduce the "testicular fortitude" element, I would add "Or Woman". And if you don't think a woman will fight to defend her kids, well, you just haven't ever gotten between them. Think mother bear.

excellent point.

I would trust a woman with a gun more than i'd trust a man with one. Due to the psych differences between the genders. Men, in our contemporary society today are quite insecure and immature compared to women.

WarAdvocat wrote:Diedel, if you think that you'd go in the house and get a gun if someone beat you up, then I'm very glad you're not a gun owner.

I think what Diedel is indicating is that he is honest enough with himself to admit the things he'd probably LIKE to do if he had a gun, which is why he doesn't want a gun, because he doesn't want to go down that road.
I applaud him for his honesty, i'll chime in to say i feel the same. I don't want to protect anything with a gun because i don't trust what i could be tempted to do with it. I don't want the power.

Mississippi finally gets a \"Castle Law\"

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: Mississippi finally gets a \"Castle Law\"

Re:

Re:

Re: