The grounds for standing your ground

posted at 10:01 am on July 20, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

If you need a weekend reading assignment on an important topic, I will definitely suggest Charles C. W. Cooke’s essential read, Stand Your Ground on Stand Your Ground Laws at National Review. This is a subject which I’d thought was pretty much settled law, but has recently been brought back into the spotlight by Eric Holder, as well as his boss. Some of the opinions being expressed by our nation’s top cops fly directly in the face of the principles underlying current law in many areas. In fact, as Cooke points out, this concept is one which has found a comfortable home in many more places than you might think. For proof, he cites Eugene Volokh.

The substantial majority view among the states, by a 31-19 margin, is no duty to retreat. Florida is thus part of this substantial majority on this point. And most of these states took this view even before the recent spate of “stand your ground” statutes, including the Florida statute.

At issue here is what can essentially be defined as an extension of the Castle Doctrine. Holder made the rather startling argument that a citizen out and about in public, when confronted with the immediate threat of death or significant bodily harm, has a duty to attempt to retreat “if possible” before resorting to self-defense. Cooke finds this rather scoff-worthy, as noted in Florida’s current law.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

And here’s the money quote:

In essence, “Stand Your Ground” is a blanket term for any legal regime in which individuals do not have a duty to run away in the event that they are attacked. In states with such systems, juries are not expected to consider whether an individual could feasibly have retreated before resorting to violence in his defense; in states that do not, juries must inquire as to his chance of safely fleeing. In other words, in most of the country the Castle Doctrine has been extended to the village.

When we look at the situation in Florida, the idea of the Castle Doctrine being “extended to the village” comes into sharper relief. The reason, as demonstrated in the Trayvon Martin case, is ironically proven by those complaining about the shooting the most loudly. They argue that Trayvon Martin had every right to be where he was – on a public sidewalk – and should not have been confronted to begin with. But what of the other party in the case? Did he – or would anyone for that matter – have the same right to move freely in the public square? And if someone leaps out on public property and, for example, punches you in the nose and pins you to the ground, where does this duty to “flee if possible” originate?

Further, how does the Holder Theory of Conflict Resolution square with the fundamental principles of our people? When trouble erupts, does he wish to define our legal system for people who run away? If you see a little girl being pulled screaming into a van by some pedophile, and you happen to be an open carry citizen, does Eric Holder admire the person who rushes in to help or insist that you first evaluate if there is some safe route of escape you can take to avoid the chance that you might injure the perpetrator? This essentially cedes the field of battle to evil to ensure that it is not unduly inconvenienced by good.

This makes no sense to me, and I’m hard pressed to think of any compelling argument for Washington to step in and change this for the states. You have zero right to go up to anyone else on public property and assault them in any fashion, and you should be free of the fear of being assaulted yourself. But once the violence has begun, where in the law do we find a requirement that you flee from the place where you have exactly the same right to stand as your attacker? It’s coming from Holder, so you’d assume he must have some basis in the law to make such an assertion. I’m still waiting to hear it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

If the woman were white they’d say she was soft and a coward for having to use a gun.

CW on July 20, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Yeah and don’t forget “What if” she were dressed provocatively? She’d have been asking for it then, right? Probably just trying to provoke L’il angel Trayvon into it so she could shoot him, right?

Whatifwhatifwhatifwhatif.

The dumbest man on Earth can ask questions faster than the smartest man who ever lived can answer them.

Oldnuke on July 20, 2013 at 4:08 PM

So if your neighbors pitbull is in your yard growling at you, castle doctrine applies. Seperate rules of defense. You are more authorized to defend yourself than you would be had you met the same dog down the street?

wolly4321

Actually, that would be a separate concept. You generally have a right to defend yourself against dangerous animals in any location. Simultaneously, you can’t generally just shoot an animal for coming onto your property. One reason is because most dangerous animals run faster than you do. (And, trust me, screaming like a little girl does not make you run faster.) Therefore, retreat is out of the question. Usually, though, a dog simply growling at you is not adequate reason to put it down. It has to advance on you and demonstrate clear intent (for a reasonable person, anyway). (Actually, a person growling at you isn’t adequate reason to plug them, either.)

Bmore on July 20, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Usually (it could be different in your location) the “one bite” rule is a reference to how many attacks a dog is allowed to have before the authorities come and take it away, not to a rule for self-defense. If it bites one person, you’ll get a letter; if it bites two people, they want to take it away and destroy it. You generally don’t have to wait for it to bite you the first time before you plug it – though it having gotten teeth on you is a really good indicator that you were actually being attacked.

Mind you, all these rules about animals go out the window if you’re a policeman and just happen to think a dog even looked askance at you. Especially if you’re committing a warrantless no-knock at the wrong address. Then you’re clear to just blast away.

GWB on July 20, 2013 at 4:15 PM

The USSA
Today

Schadenfreude on July 20, 2013 at 4:17 PM

The Marxist-In-Chief wants a society where we are so afraid to defend ourselves (and preferably helpless to do so), that we will all beg for the protection of the police state that he is gladly providing.

Think of the Jews calling for police protection when Brownshirts were attacking them. Compare that to white people calling for police protection when black mobs are attacking them.

The only alternative is the ability and willingness to defend yourself.

Spartacus on July 20, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Who is Antonio West?

Hello. Don’t recognize me? That’s OK; I understand.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2013/07/white-baby-murdered-by-black-teens-who.html

Fallon on July 20, 2013 at 5:27 PM

MaiDee on July 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Corey has a long history of over charging people, usually because they can’t afford a steelar defense team they take a plea and her record shows many”wins” the thinking was she was using that to jump into a political career after this though that dream is dead.

warren on July 20, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Retreat usually involves turning your back, making you defenseless. Alternatively, backing up while not looking where you’re going is a good recipe for ending up on your back.
As an chronically ill guy I’m weak and slow. Once someone gets within arm’s length of me, it’s pretty much over I’m sure. No amount of karate, projectile vomit or urination will change that either. If I have a gun, and the bad guy is approaching after I ask him to stop… I’ll take my chances with the courts vs. watching my wife and daughters get attacked after I’m incapacitated.

Marcola on July 20, 2013 at 7:08 PM

There are no more castles when federal marshals can enter your house without permission or warrants or when the nsa, fbi, tsa, irs, etc, can follow your every move at any time.

Kissmygrits on July 20, 2013 at 7:26 PM

I’m impressed with your
‘ alls ability to hire ghost writers, these ideas are almost coherent and logical, surely rightwing Death Beasts did not come by them all on their own?

JFKY on July 20, 2013 at 7:44 PM

“What if”
So tell me “libs”, if you’re a rural black family, and the Klan shows up at your house with lumber, gasoline and a rope, do you hide in your house, try to run from the dirtbags with 4-wheelers and hunting dogs (good luck with that), or do you take my recommendation and see how their bodies react to a couple hundred dollars worth of 7.62 or .22 Hornet, while another family member is dialing 911?

S. D. on July 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM

If one wants to see what AG Holder and the President want, look at GB. Self defense is outlawed, even in your home – no castle law -and surely one doesn’t go to the aid of someone being attacked; that is for the police. Pocket knives and pepper spray are outlawed too. Obama, when in the state senate, stated that he didn’t believe in the right to defend yourself in your home with a gun. So would one expect him to not utilize this “crisis” to further his agenda.

amr on July 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM

or do you take my recommendation and see how their bodies react to a couple hundred dollars worth of 7.62 or .22 Hornet, while another family member is dialing 911?

S. D. on July 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Dood/Doodette how much does ammunition cost in your neck of the woods? I figure you nail the largest oaf in the group with 1-2 7.62 X 51mm rounds, what about $1.25 and the rest scatter and don’t come back….

JFKY on July 20, 2013 at 9:37 PM

or do you take my recommendation and see how their bodies react to a couple hundred dollars worth of 7.62 or .22 Hornet, while another family member is dialing 911?

S. D. on July 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Dood/Doodette how much does ammunition cost in your neck of the woods? I figure you nail the largest oaf in the group with 1-2 7.62 X 51mm rounds, what about $1.25 and the rest scatter and don’t come back….

JFKY on July 20, 2013 at 9:37 PM

JFKY – My thought exactly. I just bought a box of .22LR today – 375 rounds for $25. The Tulammo 7.62x39mm I buy is only $5.99 for a box of 20.
I’m good with SD’s basic idea – but I don’t think I could carry a couple hundred dollars worth of ammo…..

dentarthurdent on July 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM

S. D. on July 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Unless the Obama/Holder plan is to disarm the white population…

I am totally in favor of all citizens being able and willing to defend themselves. In this age, it is stupidity not to be able to do that…laws or no laws. We do still have a Constitution. For now.

Maybe if there were not such draconian gun laws in Chicago, there’d be a lot fewer Blacks being murdered by Blacks in Obama’s hometown.

Same for DC…and LA.

Easy pickins…that is what team Obama and their henchmen want.

I used to believe all this nonsense was mere stupidity on the part of the progressives.

Now, I firmly believe it is all part of a plan…going back to H.G. Well’s Things To Come…back in 1936…where only the “good guys” are allowed to be armed…and, of course, they are in control of everything.

The “civilized” world got there because everybody wanted to stop wars…and save everybody from themselves…

For the children, you know.

H.G. Wells is the Father, if you will, of modern Progressivism.

This disarm America is part of a plan.

No doubt about it.

And if a few hundred, or thousand, rural and urban Blacks have to die along the way…no big deal…the Progressives embrace Margaret Sanger whose entire birth control program was aimed at eliminating the lesser races.

Progress. Progress. Progress. The mantra of the early Progressives…and a good number of dictators along the way as well.

coldwarrior on July 20, 2013 at 11:34 PM

Yeah, a bit hyperbolic, but I do like clean high dollar hp stuff. It’s been a quite a while since I bought any rifle ammo. Last time I looked the bug was about $20.00 for a box of 25, .308 around the same.

S. D. on July 20, 2013 at 11:47 PM

I know I’m late, but…

Telling someone they have to attempt to flee seems, to me, that you’re telling them they have a duty to get shot in the back. After that I guess you can “defend” yourself any way you want. I guess.

Squiggy on July 21, 2013 at 7:15 AM

The article ends, “It’s coming from Holder, so you’d assume he must have some basis in the law to make such an assertion. I’m still waiting to hear it.”

Why assume that Holder knows much of anything about the law? His boss, the President, certainly has shown himself to be ignorant of many aspects of the Constitution. Following that example, there’s no reason to believe Holder knows the law.

What they do know is policy, and the malicious uses of power, and getting their way no matter what. If anything, that’s not a government of laws, but of thuggery.

You’ll wait a very long time to hear Holder tell you the basis of his assertion, because there isn’t one other than, “Because I said so.”

Mdirmeie on July 21, 2013 at 9:20 AM

It seems to me that Holder and Obama are claiming that if you do something that offends a hoodie wearing youth, the hoodie wearer has the right to sucker punch and curb stomp you, and you better just lie there and take it. Which kinda explains how they have been governing the country these last few years.

If you don’t like stand your ground laws, then don’t stand your ground. Heh.

bitsy on July 21, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Supporters of Obama’s pretend son are calling for a boycott of DisneyLand. Which is in CA, not FL. But never mind.

Now, if they would boycott the VA State Fair and Kings Dominion, both of those just might have a chance of seeing some of my money again.

BobMbx on July 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM

“This essentially yields the field of battle to evil…” but that’s basically what the principal of innocent until proven guilty is. Stand your ground, by its nature, often results in he-said-she-said scenarios that are difficult to prove who the original guilty party is. But under a castle doctrine, where you flee only until you can’t flee anymore, there is tangible evidence (necessarily) of who the attacker is. If you are attacked in your house, there’s nowhere for you to retreat to. Your attacker obviously had no right to be there. The “wall” that you run up against, whether physical or otherwise (being out of breath from a pursuit, for instance) eliminates that doubt. Your example of a girl being kidnapped is a poor one, because when we talk about the transfer of self-defense rights to a protector (like someone open carrying), the “wall” that a castle doctrine dictates is not the wall of the protector but of the victim, and needless to say, a girl being kidnapped’s “wall” is either the restraining arms of her attacker or the locked doors of the vehicle she is stuffed into.

solatic on July 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM

John McCain has just inserted himself into the “Stand Your Ground” law controversy.
Does he think that he must weigh in on every issue to remain relevant?
Senator, we admire you for your military service but frankly you have become irrelevant and would you kindly please just go away!
We don’t need any RINOs taking apart our country.
Please, go up to Sedona and fade into the sunset.

Art on July 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday urged states to review their “stand your ground” laws amid a widening debate over the Trayvon Martin verdict and racial profiling.

About two dozen states have laws that allow individuals to act in self defense during a conflict without attempting to retreat, including Arizona. A Florida jury’s acquittal of George Zimmerman in Martin’s killing has renewed debate over those statutes.

McCain said he “trusts the judgment” of the jury that acquitted Zimmerman, but said that “stand your ground” rules need a second look.

McCain is just a individual liberty hating despicable Progressive.

PappyD61 on July 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM

. . .
Please, go up to Sedona and fade into the sunset.

Art on July 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Hey, what about the feelings of those who already live there full time?

Trochilus on July 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM

But under a castle doctrine, where you flee only until you can’t flee anymore, there is tangible evidence (necessarily) of who the attacker is. If you are attacked in your house, there’s nowhere for you to retreat to. Your attacker obviously had no right to be there.

solatic on July 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM

The “Castle Doctrine” imposes NO ‘duty’ to flee, whatsoever. It simply expands a resident’s right of self-defense – or use of deadly force – to include the entirety of his property (and vehicle).
If someone is anywhere on your property – even to the very limits of your property boundary – the use of deadly force is authorized if they present a credible threat to your life or anyone on your property.

Solaratov on July 21, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Gotta love it ….
https://mobile.twitter.com/Talkmaster/status/358754490385563648/photo/1

pambi on July 21, 2013 at 12:56 PM

If only…..

dentarthurdent on July 21, 2013 at 1:01 PM

solatic on July 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM

1) There is ALWAYS the potential for he said / she said in any criminal event. SYG is no different, except the law gives the potential victim the right to NOT be a victim. And ideally when it’s over there is only one story anyway, because ideally the criminal is dead.
2) Criminals don’t follow the rules. They concealed carry without a permit; they carry guns illegally (felons can’t have guns); they shoot people for no (legal) reason; and they will shoot you in the back.
3) Law-abiding citizens are already at a disadvantage – SYG is a small step at evening the odds – and that’s because the law-abiding citizen can’t do any of things the criminal is willing to do, or they go to jail – which they obviously don’t want – because they ARE law-abiding citizens.

When people like you try to take away our right to self-defense, you favor and encourage the criminals – because the criminals don’t give a dam about your stupid laws.

dentarthurdent on July 21, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Please, go up to Sedona and fade into the sunset.

Art on July 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Hey, what about the feelings of those who already live there full time?

Trochilus on July 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM

You guys are just gonna have to take one for the team.

KTHXBY

Solaratov on July 21, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Florida: Stand your ground.

Delaware: “Run away!”

Akzed on July 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Stand Your Ground laws look pretty silly when looking at the American people in general.

Appx. 40% of Americans are registered to vote, yet in 2012 less than 40% of the registered bothered to vote. Unpaid grass roots volunteers don’t even make up 1% of Americans.

The people in Egypt make the typical lethargic American look pretty bad today. I used to laugh at the tools in the Communist USSR but not any more.

The basic idea behind the Stand Your Ground laws are that you have the right to protect yourself. What is that worth if you cannot even muster up backbone enough to get involved in your local elections?

It is clear today that the major political parties have succeeded. They want you to sit down, shut up, and let them make your decisions for you. If you are lucky they might even give you a pat on the head for being a good doggie. Maybe.

When you are tired of being tired do look up your local TEA Party. They will help you accomplish things you have yet to so much as dream of.

DannoJyd on July 21, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Delaware: “Run away!”

Akzed on July 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Delaware is Biden’s state – “fire off a couple shotgun rounds from your deck” – ….and get thrown in jail for reckless endangerment….

dentarthurdent on July 21, 2013 at 2:19 PM

The eternal azzhole of the land. His father and gradfather hate him, from their graves.

Schadenfreude on July 21, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Gotta love it ….

https://mobile.twitter.com/Talkmaster/status/358754490385563648/photo/1

pambi on July 21, 2013 at 12:56 PM

and

Gotta love it ….
https://mobile.twitter.com/Talkmaster/status/358754490385563648/photo/1

pambi on July 21, 2013 at 12:56 PM

If only…..

dentarthurdent on July 21, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Yep! Thanks for that! Posted on the topic yesterday!

Could have also added another panel with a scribe asking him,

“Did you tell a friend the guard was a ‘creepy ass cracker?’”

Trochilus on July 21, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Please, go up to Sedona and fade into the sunset.

Art on July 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Hey, what about the feelings of those who already live there full time?

Trochilus on July 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM

You guys are just gonna have to take one for the team.

KTHXBY

Solaratov on July 21, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Heh! I don’t live there. But I do have a close friend who does. I’m going to have a little fun busting his chops now.

Hell, he may even become a commenter on HA after this!

Trochilus on July 21, 2013 at 2:48 PM

…before resorting to violence in his defense;

Do cops have a duty to retreat? Does the Secret Service? Does the military? How about the FBI?

So, in other words.. only us serfs must risk death in retreating. Only us serfs must turn our backs on our aggressors because we are all just too stupid to know how to defend ourselves.. and well.. we just shouldn’t have the right! Because, well.. it’s dangerous for people to go around thinking they have the right to defend themselves from violent acts. It’s not productive for those who want to control every aspect of people’s lives. It’s so much better if the common man thinks he must run away and hide when danger comes. I mean.. it would be best if the masses just fall down to the ground and sucked their thumbs and begged for mercy when confronted by brute force.. but we’ll take “running away and hiding” for the time being.

Hey.. but I have a question… is it “resorting to violence” when a woman strikes back at a rapist? Or is it something else?

What the left wants is for us all to fall down and suck out thumbs! That is part of why the left hates Zimmerman! He dared to strike back at the violence inflicted on him! He should have done the right thing by laying down and taking it.. like a good serf.. until the “professionals” arrived to protect him. But instead.. he became an “individual” who took matters into his own hands.

JellyToast on July 21, 2013 at 9:38 PM

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/19/zimmerman-trial-triggers-right-wing-media-black/194977

“The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn’t to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.

They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain. [CNN, 7/19/13]#

Sometimes, facts and statistics can ruin your day or your message.
The message from “African American leaders” AND OBAMA is that Zimmerman should just have laid down and taken his beating from a violent-Black teen. After all, you racists deserve it!!!
Well! Screw You! If black teens want to be treated better, maybe they should stop assaulting people and robbing local markets.

shorebird on July 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM

The truth is.. the wild west was pretty tame compared to any of our major cities today.
Violence and Lawlessness on the Western Frontier:

A look at two frontier mining towns—Aurora, Nevada, and Bodie, California—illustrates these points.[2] The towns were home to Bannons and Ryans aplenty and saw a considerable number of homicides but they were remarkably free from most crime: robbery, theft, and burglary occurred infrequently and bank robbery, rape, racial violence, and serious juvenile crime seem not to have occurred at all. While the homicide rate was high, the killings were almost always the result of fights between willing combatants. Thus, in Aurora and Bodie, the old, the young, the unwilling, the weak, and the female were, for the most part, safe from harm. If, as many popularly assume, much of America’s crime problem is a consequence of a heritage of frontier violence and lawlessness, then it is ironic that the crimes most common today—robbery, burglar, theft, and rape—were of no great significance and, in the case of rape, seemingly nonexistent in Aurora and Bodie.

So when someone on the left says “We don’t want to return to the wild west” or something. The answer should be.. “If only we could!

Zero crimes reported against women in both of these so called “crime ridden” towns. Oh wait.. there was one crime reported in one of the towns…. and the man served a couple weeks in jail for it. Here you go… he used profanity in the presence of a woman.

Yeah… it was really really bad back then.

JellyToast on July 22, 2013 at 9:27 AM

but I don’t think I could carry a couple hundred dollars worth of ammo…..

dentarthurdent on July 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Dude! You’re at home! You don’t have to carry it!

They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

shorebird on July 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM

Bullshiite. (I know you’re quoting.) The violence taking place now is the result of a society that has degenerated to a barbarous state of tribalism. The only reason “a very violent past” gets brought up is as an attempt to justify said violent, barbarous culture.

GWB on July 22, 2013 at 9:34 AM

I would be willing to wager that The Great Eric Holder himself does not know the facts of this case. people like holder and Obama have been “fudging-it” all there lives and this is what you get when you put people like that in a position of power.

supersport667 on July 22, 2013 at 10:44 AM

I would think the “he said/she said” problem would be more likely to come up in a Castle Doctrine case than in a Stand Your Ground case.

If you take Florida v. Martinez as an example, there were several witnesses who saw or heard events leadning up to and during the confrontation. If the confrontation had taken place inside a home, there would be a much lower chance of witnesses.

What’s odd about this case is that Trayvon didn’t follow Holder’s advice. If he had simply continued home (or stayed there instead of circling back) then he’d still be alive today.

hawksruleva on July 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM

They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

shorebird on July 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM

Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans both had violent pasts in this country, but they aren’t killing themselves and everyone else at nearly the rate that blacks are.

The poverty and dysfunction in black inner cities is caused by the difficult history of liberal rule. The sexual revolution allowed black fathers to walk out on their babies; and the anything goes ’60s counterculture made doing drugs more acceptable. Liberal social policies also created the welfare culture, miserable schools, a carousel of black men going from jail to street, and made it harder for small businesses to survive.

Liberals killed Detroit; and they had a hand in Trayvon Martin’s death, too.
Libe

hawksruleva on July 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM

hawksruleva on July 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM

That’s why “castle doctrine” is a special case within self-defense: you are generally presumed to be in the right if you have to shoot an intruder in your home. There’s very little argument someone can make for legally being in another person’s home if they weren’t invited. (Go read the thread about militarized police to see the prime exception, and how it is abused.)

So, there isn’t much testimony needed:
Det Sgt: “So, he came through your window and you shot him?”
Homeowner: “Yep”
Flatfoot: “Sarge, there’s no blood or anything outside – just his footprints coming up to the window and some broken glass.”
Det Sgt: “Well then, I think we’re about done here. You know, amonia will help get the blood out of your carpet.”
Homeowner: “Thanks, sergeant, I’ll give it a try.”

GWB on July 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM

OK, so if Joe wants to be on solid legal ground, he waits for Jim on the sidewalk in front of Jim’s house. This is how you can get away with executing someone you don’t like in Florida?
 
Time Lord on July 20, 2013 at 11:11 AM

 
So another dead thread, Time Lord?
 
We’ll add you to the list of every other (D) voter/poster on Hotair.com who can’t defend the topics they introduce and flee the thread instead. There isn’t really a list, frankly. It’s all of them.
 
Great job on helping dispel the low-info Obama voter myth, btw. Well done.

rogerb on July 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM

rogerb on July 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Poor little ‘timelord’ whines and snivels that conservatives won’t engage him in some sort of ‘meaningful conversation’, so that he won’t have to “live in a bubble”…

and when they do…s/he/it finds that its arguments truly are absurd and insupportable…

so it – like all of the concerned, leftist trolls, takes a fast powder and flees the “meaningful conversation”.

Typical…and not surprising.

Solaratov on July 22, 2013 at 3:55 PM

GWB on July 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Det: So why did you put 22 rounds in him?
Homeowner: That’s all I had in the magazine….

(I keep a .40 cal Glock with a 22 round mag full of Golden Saber HPs within reach these days.)

dentarthurdent on July 22, 2013 at 6:39 PM

and flees the “meaningful conversation”.

Typical…and not surprising.

Solaratov on July 22, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Jesus H. Christ! What “meaningful conversation”? You’ve been doing nothing but insulting me like a bunch of middle school bullies. Don’t worry, I’m never going to disturb you on this site again. Enjoy circle-jerking among yourselves.

Time Lord on July 22, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Time Lord on July 22, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Keep practicing.

You’ve almost got that whining and sniveling down pat…but it needs a bit of polishing (and a dash of originality).

I addressed you – at least twice – in a manner conducive to conversation; oldnuke did so; blink did – more than once; as did others – and you did not deign to answer.

Go ahead and run away. If you can’t discuss something intelligently and on an even intellectual plane with grown-ups who will treat you as a grown-up…you’re in the wrong place. You seem to have a bit of growing to do yet…though I doubt that you’ll be encouraged to do so in the leftist echo-chamber.

Next time, act like an adult and you’ll be treated like one.

Best of luck in your future endeavors.

Solaratov on July 23, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3