Castle Doctrine

**wakewithastart** · 29 Oct 09, 02:09

Originally Posted by Battenberg

I believe in the right to defend your self when you - or anybody else - are in danger. This is common sense.

There is no need to have the right to kill anyone who univited is on your property. The Police will take care of those people, eventually.

If you think you need to defend your property from any trespassing by shoting at the trespasser is there only two scenarios.

A) You are a sociopath who really likes the feeling when you kill someone, and you strongly believe in deadly violence as the best way to handle a dispute. You don't believe the government can garantee your safety, especially since the government is after you. You don't trust anyone but yourself (see below).

B) You are not living in a society governed by law. Hence you have to make up your own "laws" since you are living in an anarchy. In other words, there are no laws.

Your "property" is in fact not your property, it is just stuff you have at your disposal. Since there are no society with laws is there no meaning with the term "property" (there are no institution that it can be registered at). You can only claim that what is yours is what you can defend against others who wants what you believe is yours. Hence, deadly violence is a matter of surviving since you can't trust anyone.

Then are you living an a pre-Hobbesian world before people started to cooperate with eachother in what we now knows as "societies".

The theory here is that the violent/aggressive trespasser has violated the social contract. Chester trying to make off with your daughter, or Sneaky f$#@ making off with my seats, are living in what we know of as a "society," but they have broken Locke's social contract, and thus forfeited their civil rights. The addendum to that theory is that they have also forfeited their right to life. I wholeheartedly agree, and that is the principle behind the castle doctrine.

**tim52** · 29 Oct 09, 02:42

Originally Posted by wakewithastart

The theory here is that the violent/aggressive trespasser has violated the social contract. Chester trying to make off with your daughter, or Sneaky f$#@ making off with my seats, are living in what we know of as a "society," but they have broken Locke's social contract, and thus forfeited their civil rights. The addendum to that theory is that they have also forfeited their right to life. I wholeheartedly agree, and that is the principle behind the castle doctrine.

I find comments like this most disturbing. First off if you kill someone for theft of property assuming they did not threaten your life you would most likely be charged with homicide. If you killed them and then lied about being threatened you should go to jail. Protect your life and that of your family or friends or innocents, no problem. Kill someone over material possessions that can be replaced is wrong. That’s not to say I would not take satisfaction in breaking a 2x4 across their kneecap if I had the chance but to take their life is beyond the pale of society. In addition Locke’s social contract referred to the government taking your possessions not an individual.

When did we as a society begin to place a greater importance on possessions than human life?

**Kernow** · 29 Oct 09, 02:45

Originally Posted by tim52

I find comments like this disturbing. First off if you kill someone for theft of property assuming they did not threaten your life you would most likely be charged with homicide. If you killed them and then lied about being threatened you should go to jail. Protect your life and that of your family or friends or innocents, no problem. Kill someone over material possessions that can be replaced is wrong. That’s not to say I would not take satisfaction in breaking a 2x4 across their kneecap if I had the chance but to take their life is beyond the pale of society. In addition Locke’s social contract referred to the government taking your possessions not an individual.

Agree totally. Good kneecapping would go down nicely. When I served in the Army, if you were caught stealing your fingers would be broken, by closing a door on then, put an end to their horrible ways.

**gunnut** · 29 Oct 09, 02:51

Originally Posted by tim52

I find comments like this disturbing. First off if you kill someone for theft of property assuming they did not threaten your life you would most likely be charged with homicide. If you killed them and then lied about being threatened you should go to jail. Protect your life and that of your family or friends or innocents, no problem. Kill someone over material possessions that can be replaced is wrong. That’s not to say I would not take satisfaction in breaking a 2x4 across their kneecap if I had the chance but to take their life is beyond the pale of society. In addition Locke’s social contract referred to the government taking your possessions not an individual.

Isn't that "torture?"

**tim52** · 29 Oct 09, 03:19

Originally Posted by gunnut

Isn't that "torture?"

gunnut I know your remark is made in jest. But on a serious note if you’re a parent and you see the baby reaching for a pan of boiling water on the stove and you slapped their hand, you could probably find some moron that would say you should never hit a child. Yet that slap on the hand may be a sufficient deterrent that they will not reach for a pan of boiling water in the future. To me it’s a question of what is the appropriate level of force in a given situation.

**Kernow** · 29 Oct 09, 03:24

Can't slap your children in New Zealand, you will be convicted.

**Capsoda** · 29 Oct 09, 03:27

Originally Posted by Chaobam Armour

Can't slap your children in New Zealand, you will be convicted.

On either end one state over in sunny Florida, USA

.

**toemag** · 29 Oct 09, 07:38

At what point does one decide to use a weapon in this type of scenario, does one wait until the gang bangers have actually physically harmed yourself or a member of your family?

The BG's have carte blanche where we have to abide by certain perverted socially and legally binding rules.

Nice one.

Tony

**Officer of Engineers** · 29 Oct 09, 14:10

Originally Posted by tim52

I find comments like this most disturbing. First off if you kill someone for theft of property assuming they did not threaten your life you would most likely be charged with homicide. If you killed them and then lied about being threatened you should go to jail. Protect your life and that of your family or friends or innocents, no problem. Kill someone over material possessions that can be replaced is wrong. That’s not to say I would not take satisfaction in breaking a 2x4 across their kneecap if I had the chance but to take their life is beyond the pale of society. In addition Locke’s social contract referred to the government taking your possessions not an individual.

When did we as a society begin to place a greater importance on possessions than human life?

It's all situation. If they're running away after they learn I know they're there. That's probably the end of it, even if they're running away with my DVD player. If they're sticking around, then they're ready for a confrontation ... and frankly, so should you.

**Chogy** · 29 Oct 09, 14:56

Originally Posted by toemag

At what point does one decide to use a weapon in this type of scenario, does one wait until the gang bangers have actually physically harmed yourself or a member of your family?

Tony

They have forfeited their life the instant they move towards instead of away. If, upon confrontation, they do not turn and run like Usain Bolt, then I am going to assume they want a fight.

In all cases... "I was in fear for my life, and the lives of my family. I wanted to stop them."

**Station 22** · 29 Oct 09, 15:52

Originally Posted by Chogy

I have a 16 year old daughter who came up to me not 3 weeks ago and said "Dad, can you show me how to use that? (points to M1 carbine in my closet). You guys are not always at home."

My wife, who was raised to fear firearms, finally had that epiphany about a year and half ago.

I am not a big fan of deadly force in defense of anything other than people. I am not going to shoot some teen stealing the rims off my car.

I am, they tend to leave your stuff alone if they now they could get killed.

Originally Posted by Battenberg

I believe in the right to defend your self when you - or anybody else - are in danger. This is common sense.

There is no need to have the right to kill anyone who univited is on your property. The Police will take care of those people, eventually.

If you think you need to defend your property from any trespassing by shoting at the trespasser is there only two scenarios.

A) You are a sociopath who really likes the feeling when you kill someone, and you strongly believe in deadly violence as the best way to handle a dispute. You don't believe the government can garantee your safety, especially since the government is after you. You don't trust anyone but yourself (see below).

I'm a good 15 to 20 minutes from the sheriff. How many times should I allow some perp to rape my wife and daughters before I defend my home?
It is not an either/or proposition. Only in your world is someone a sociopath who chooses to be the first and best line of defense against those who do not follow societies laws and mores.

Your "property" is in fact not your property, it is just stuff you have at your disposal. Since there are no society with laws is there no meaning with the term "property" (there are no institution that it can be registered at). You can only claim that what is yours is what you can defend against others who wants what you believe is yours. Hence, deadly violence is a matter of surviving since you can't trust anyone.

Then are you living an a pre-Hobbesian world before people started to cooperate with eachother in what we now knows as "societies".

What kind of fantasyland do you live in?

Originally Posted by wakewithastart

The theory here is that the violent/aggressive trespasser has violated the social contract. Chester trying to make off with your daughter, or Sneaky f$#@ making off with my seats, are living in what we know of as a "society," but they have broken Locke's social contract, and thus forfeited their civil rights. The addendum to that theory is that they have also forfeited their right to life. I wholeheartedly agree, and that is the principle behind the castle doctrine.

Agree, violate the law and you forfeit your rights.

Originally Posted by tim52

I find comments like this most disturbing. First off if you kill someone for theft of property assuming they did not threaten your life you would most likely be charged with homicide. If you killed them and then lied about being threatened you should go to jail. Protect your life and that of your family or friends or innocents, no problem. Kill someone over material possessions that can be replaced is wrong. That’s not to say I would not take satisfaction in breaking a 2x4 across their kneecap if I had the chance but to take their life is beyond the pale of society. In addition Locke’s social contract referred to the government taking your possessions not an individual.

When did we as a society begin to place a greater importance on possessions than human life?

**BadKharma** · 29 Oct 09, 17:35

Obviously there will be different situations that should warrant different reactions. However I believe the Castle Law works also as a deterrent because if criminals know that there "mark" is armed they will generally think twice about felonious acts.

**Capsoda** · 29 Oct 09, 18:00

Originally Posted by Station 22

My wife, who was raised to fear firearms, finally had that epiphany about a year and half ago.
I am, they tend to leave your stuff alone if they now they could get killed.

I'm a good 15 to 20 minutes from the sheriff. How many times should I allow some perp to rape my wife and daughters before I defend my home?
It is not an either/or proposition. Only in your world is someone a sociopath who chooses to be the first and best line of defense against those who do not follow societies laws and mores.

What kind of fantasyland do you live in?

Agree, violate the law and you forfeit your rights.

He is right to a point by brother Alabamian. While in fact what I say I own I do not because I can't take it with me, I am said property's caretaker and watchman while I am still here and reserve the right to protect i, if need be, in a manner that I judge fit according to the circumstances.

As far as Chester the Molester having rights, what rights do the dead have. If Chester lives and does by some mystical chance get to go to prison he has no rights as far as I am concerned but with today's bleeding heart whiny ass society Chester gets a big screen, PlayStation phone credit card and three squares a day. I have lent a hand to people on the outside who have less and am in love with the ideas of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. This dude put the scum away and all but their basic rights (According to the law) stop at the door. For those of you who have never heard of Joe, check him out.

Joe Arpaio

**BD1** · 29 Oct 09, 23:20

Originally Posted by gunnut

My brother had to arm himself to check the house for intruders one night after hearing someone breaking in. He had to protect his wife and daughter. He checked the house and saw the intruder running away.

I had to check my house on 2 occasions when I heard some noise. Once I grabbed my revolver and the other time I had a shotgun. It turns out that some stuff in the garage fell down. But I can tell you this, I would be extremely terrified if I didn't have guns by my side. What could I have done? Call the police? What do I report? Some noise? What if someone was actually in the house and reached me before the cops arrive?

I am not a big guy. I can be overpowered easily, especially by those who work jobs like construction. Humans didn't get this far by using brute force alone. We developed tools. I intent to take full advantage of being a human.

thanks for reply. As i wrote, i would own a self-defence weapon, if situation warranted it.
My wife grew up on a lonely farm right in Est.-Latvian border, in middle of dark spruce woods. And when she was home alone (16-17), she slept with an axe under her bed. She also said she had a cleanup plan as well

- an old pond behind the house. And they kept pigs too ...

edited to add: after wife´s parents moved to city due to health problems, both family dogs that stayed on the farm were shot dead. Smugglers probably - the farm is 60 meters from border.

btw - the story goes well with my signature

)

**BD1** · 29 Oct 09, 23:25

Originally Posted by Prof

BD1:

/snip/.

Doc

Prof - thank you for excellent reply.

View Poll Results: Support or oppose Castle Doctrine?

Thread: Castle Doctrine

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Elements of the Bush Doctrine Will Outlive the Bush Presidency

INDIA’S NEW "COLD START" WAR DOCTRINE STRATEGICALLY REVIEWED

Russian Military Doctrine

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions