Castle Doctrine

[Troll]

It's ok to kill people trying to rob your home or break into your car. It is justifiable homicide.

[Mike]

It's the crazy people who are all to eager to find an excuse to commit justifiable homicide that worry me more than a simple robber.

[Gorbet]

It's ok to kill people trying to rob your home or break into your car. It is justifiable homicide.

I could understand using lethal force against someone breaking into a house with the occupants inside but how on earth can you justify killing someone trying to break into your car unless they're armed and you're inside?

[Alexander]

My use of force would depend on the situation. If I were in my house and someone broke in and I had a gun this is what I would do:
-If they were unarmed I would hold them at gunpoint and call the police.
-If they were armed I would shoot.
-If I couldn't tell whether they were armed I would shoot.

[Troll]

I could understand using lethal force against someone breaking into a house with the occupants inside but how on earth can you justify killing someone trying to break into your car unless they're armed and you're inside?

Because you have a right to protect your property from robbers, and robbers don't have a right to exist.

[0xDEADBEEF]

Now here in canada we don't have either of these things (killing people via castle, or guns for all because we aren't afraid of eachother).

Someone breaks into my house, i make sure my family etc is safe, if that means going to the kitchen and finding my nice meat cleaver and decapitationg the bloke if he's endangering our safety then yep. Changes are, someone who breaks into your house isn't going to go "oh you caught me well lets have some crumpets till the bobbies come around". Chances are that thieves also don't want to be murderers, just make some money, not have the fbi follow them and blood on their hands.

Then again, you never know, they get panicky and run into a 7/11 and shoot the guy because maybe he knows their faces.

You should have the right to defend your life and protect your safety if it is directly being endangered, regardless of WHERE it took place and the ownership of the property.

What do you do if the guy's robbing you? Call the cops. Don't be an idiot. Risking your life is not worth something you probably have covered by home owners insurance.

Or we can forget that and just shotgun kids in the face because they TP your house, because that's justifiable.

[Chaos]

Well I guess it's time for another edition of trolling for comments. A car is not worth a human life. A home is not worth a human life unless there's a human life inside it threatened by the invasion. That's why if you went on vacation and set deathtraps all through your house and they killed a robber or three the police would want to have some words with you when you got back. We're all big on rights here especially in saying we have the right to do ridiculous things but somewhere DE missed the lesson on which right has highest priority.

[Troll]

And according to you, the right with the highest priority is the "right" to rob other people.

[Chaos]

Well no maybe I wasn't clear but the established legal position on the right to use lethal force is if your life or the life of another is in imminent danger. Not if you're in your house twenty feet from the road and you see someone breaking into your car. Not if the guy has no gun and you push him down some steps and he breaks both his legs. Human life is apparently pretty cheap to you.

[Beer Nuts]

And according to you, the right with the highest priority is the "right" to rob other people.

No, the highest priority is that of life. Your material possessions, no matter how much you wish it, are not worth a human life. Please do not use the Castle Doctrine as leverage for your hillbilly redneck "get off my property" argument. The Castle Doctrine is specifically designed to protect human life, not assets.

[Troll]

Well no maybe I wasn't clear but the established legal position on the right to use lethal force is if your life or the life of another is in imminent danger. Not if you're in your house twenty feet from the road and you see someone breaking into your car. Not if the guy has no gun and you push him down some steps and he breaks both his legs. Human life is apparently pretty cheap to you.

And the South Carolina legislature too. There is no "duty to retreat." You have a right to protect your property too.

No, the highest priority is that of life. Your material possessions, no matter how much you wish it, are not worth a human life. Please do not use the Castle Doctrine as leverage for your hillbilly redneck "get off my property" argument. The Castle Doctrine is specifically designed to protect human life, not assets.

Not in South Carolina!

Oh and by the way I'm not arguing about legal precedent, I'm arguing what should be. The law should be that you have a right to protect your property and robbers do not have a right to exist. I think this is a fair assumption and would lead to a lot less deaths and robberies in the future.

[Chaos]

And the South Carolina legislature too. There is no "duty to retreat." You have a right to protect your property too.

You are misrepresenting the South Carolina and Florida legislatures. The right to use lethal force must be in response to an imminent lethal threat against yourself or another. "No duty to retreat" means you can confront the robber with your weapon but you cannot deliberately try to kill the robber unless he attacks you or someone else in your home.

Oh and by the way I'm not arguing about legal precedent, I'm arguing what should be. The law should be that you have a right to protect your property and robbers do not have a right to exist. I think this is a fair assumption and would lead to a lot less deaths and robberies in the future.

That's nice but irrelevant. Legal precedent is strong evidence.

Considering that for most of human history your view on robbery was in fact the prevailing one and for some reason robbery did not disappear from the human experience, I'd say your wrong.

[Beer Nuts]

Oh wait.....this is another "the way I see it" thread.

I'll cease any and all logical or factual arguments.

[Troll]

That's nice but irrelevant. Legal precedent is strong evidence.

Evidence of what?

Considering that for most of human history your view on robbery was in fact the prevailing one and for some reason robbery did not disappear from the human experience, I'd say your wrong.

That doesn't prove what you claim it does. I said it would reduce robberies, not end them. People are much less likely to try to rob your car if they know they will get shot in the process. Why don't police cars get jacked more often? What about National Guard humvees, that don't even have keys?


Oh wait.....this is another "the way I see it" thread.

I'll cease any and all logical or factual arguments.

Thats fine, if you can't support you opinion with logical or factual arguments then please don't post here.

[Pizza]

Oh wait.....this is another "the way I see it" thread.

I'll cease any and all logical or factual arguments.

yeah but then the troll will have nothing to eat! do you really want to starve the troll?

[Chaos]

That doesn't prove what you claim it does. I said it would reduce robberies, not end them. People are much less likely to try to rob your car if they know they will get shot in the process. Why don't police cars get jacked more often? What about National Guard humvees, that don't even have keys?

Well then go and prove that robberies occurred less often when it was kill him or he'll kill you from the get-go. You're making a claim that needs evidence, provide some. Less robberies in the past than today? I somehow doubt it.

The police and the National Guard would not kill someone trying to jack a Crown Vic or a Humvee unless that person attacked them with lethal force first. Even over in Iraq or Afghanistan they'd give him a chance to surrender. You've just refuted your own argument, thread's over, can we lock it up?

[Troll]

No you do not get to decide which threads stay open or not. Feel free not to post in this one.

[Pizza]

That doesn't prove what you claim it does. I said it would reduce robberies, not end them. People are much less likely to try to rob your car if they know they will get shot in the process. Why don't police cars get jacked more often? What about National Guard humvees, that don't even have keys?


Why don't we extend "castle doctrine" to every crime, then? According to your logic isn't the potential to get killed the best deterrent?

[0xDEADBEEF]

Download a song
ran a red
went 3 over the limit
swore in public


http://cdn.holytaco.com/www/sites/default/files/images/2009/6a0105369f1d46970b01156fe4d6c7970c-800wi.jpg
OFF WITH HER HEAD

[DemolitionSquid]

Whoa whoa whoa.

When the HELL did Nuts get back!?

[Paxel]

swore in public
How is that a crime?

[Gorbet]

Because you have a right to protect your property from robbers, and robbers don't have a right to exist.

I disagree. You have a right to protect your house from being burgled but the fact that someone breaks the law does not mean they are yours to do with as you please. If you don't support the concept of reasonable or proportianate force then why are you always happy to criticise the police when they employ what you consider over the top methods?


That doesn't prove what you claim it does. I said it would reduce robberies, not end them. People are much less likely to try to rob your car if they know they will get shot in the process. Why don't police cars get jacked more often? What about National Guard humvees, that don't even have keys?

Police cars don't get stolen because they tend to have police members either in them or in close proximity. Police won't shoot someone breaking into their car, they'll just have them handcuffed and arrested within five seconds because they have the legal power and equipment to do something about it. Members of the public don't have the same legal power, equipment or training.

It's also rare for police cars to get stolen because they're POLICE CARS. They are blue and black and white and green and gold and covered with decals and flashing lights. What use are they to steal?

How is that a crime?

Quite a few places would consider it to be offensive behaviour.

[0xDEADBEEF]

How is that a crime?

Oh I dont know it's a ticketable offense downtown. I don't think it's actually enforced and just a way to keep hobos away from malls.

[Troll]

Why don't we extend "castle doctrine" to every crime, then? According to your logic isn't the potential to get killed the best deterrent?

Eventually I think we should for most crimes.

Download a song
ran a red
went 3 over the limit
swore in public

Government /=/ Private

Any questions?

I disagree. You have a right to protect your house from being burgled but the fact that someone breaks the law does not mean they are yours to do with as you please. If you don't support the concept of reasonable or proportianate force then why are you always happy to criticise the police when they employ what you consider over the top methods?

Because the police are the government and can never be trusted under any circumstances and should always be questioned. The burden should always, at all times, in all cases, be overwhelmingly against the police and government. We should automatically assume wrongdoing on the part of government and they should have to prove their innocence.


Quite a few places would consider it to be offensive behaviour.

I think freedom of speech should trump peoples "sensibilities."

[Pizza]

Government /=/ Private

Any questions?

Yeah just one: huh?

Downloading a song violates the same principle as stealing from someone's car. You offered no sound refutation of this point.

[Troll]

No I don't recognize intellectual property rights.

[Pizza]

No I don't recognize intellectual property rights.

Took a pen home from work. Death row?

[Troll]

If the government is involved then no. Assuming he did it maliciously and intently, yes I believe the owner reserves that right. However, this is a non-issue since owners are unlikely to dispense such punishments to their employees due to bad PR and working environment.

Your arguments against free market principles and anarchist society are not convincing. Without the government, society would collapse and everyone would start murdering each other!

[0xDEADBEEF]

No I don't recognize intellectual property rights.

Didn't realize we were dealing with a megalomaniac communist.

[Troll]

Because I recognize that intellectual property is bullshit?

[0xDEADBEEF]

Ok ok, so let me get this right.
People can kill people who walk onto Mah PROPERTY yee haw

If I invent something, I have no rights to profit from it.

What next, you're a visionary?

[Pizza]

If the government is involved then no. Assuming he did it maliciously and intently, yes I believe the owner reserves that right. However, this is a non-issue since owners are unlikely to dispense such punishments to their employees due to bad PR and working environment.

Your arguments against free market principles and anarchist society are not convincing. Without the government, society would collapse and everyone would start murdering each other!

Oh so we're talking about free enterprise and anarchist society are we? In that case if I can shoot anyone who comes on my property, the burglar should be able to shoot back, right? He could even shoot first, I suppose. And have a right do so.

If I invent something, I have no rights to profit from it.

What next, you're a visionary?
Actually, he's saying you DO have a right to profit from it, just no more right than anyone else.

[Chaos]

Actually, he's saying you DO have a right to profit from it, just no more right than anyone else.

Step 1. Wait for someone to come up with an idea.
Step 2. Steal it.
Step 3. Profit!

The ancient riddle has been solved! Thanks DE, the mystery of step two has finally been revealed. You just have to be a thief to profit.

Without intellectual property there is no such thing as property period.

[0xDEADBEEF]

Which is crazy. If I invent amazing box x, what, you should be allowed to make knockoffs? That's disgusting.

[Chaos]

Apparently since it is "intellectual" the time and effort spent on creating it simply doesn't count. Time and effort are not limitless simply because you're a writer or musician or what-have-you. They are finite and irreplaceable once spent. If I spend two years writing the next Great American Novel in order to sell it to a publisher and make money to provide for myself that's two years I could have spent doing something else; if someone steals it and sells it for cheaper or free I'm screwed. DE would tell me too damn bad buddy that's not real property. The time and effort I spent on it was real so why is the product not real?

[0xDEADBEEF]

Maybe he doesn't understand what IP actually is?
Does he think it's like, getting a copyright on emotions? Give me a dime when you feel happy? I can't grasp how he thinks IP is not justifiable, and further more: that because HE thinks IP is invalid, justifies shooting kids in the face with a shotgun for TPing your house.
Intellectual property is worth trillions.

[Golgo 13]

Since we're on the topic:

Man who stabbed burglar in his mothers home charged with murder (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223342/Man-stabbed-death-burglar-ransacking-mothers-house-charged-murder.html)


Applying for bail for Roberts, who is also charged with wounding the younger raider with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, Raj Chand, defending, said: 'This must have been a dreadful situation for any law-abiding member of the public.

'Someone said to me earlier that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I said that he was in the right place at the right time. An Englishman's home is his castle.

'He says he was in the right. He regrets what happened, but he was defending himself and his property.'

District Judge John Stobart initially said he would take the 'rare decision' to grant bail because of Roberts's flawless record of reporting to police.


At the same time, in the same country:

Out in two years: Fury as judges cut sentence on Baby P tormentor because he 'does not pose significant risk' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223323/Baby-P-thug-freed-years-appeal-judge-declares-hes-risk.html)

Baby P thug could be freed in under three years after appeal judge declares he's not a risk

I thought the entire point of prison was to punish, not consolidate risk.

[Gorbet]

Because the police are the government and can never be trusted under any circumstances and should always be questioned. The burden should always, at all times, in all cases, be overwhelmingly against the police and government. We should automatically assume wrongdoing on the part of government and they should have to prove their innocence.

What a load of garbage. The police are not the government, they operate at arm's length. I find it strange that you will support some legal precedents, such as freedom of speech and the right to self defence but others such as reasonable force and legal equality (police having the same legal protections as anyone else for those playing at home) you either don't support at all or support to different standards for different types of people.

I think freedom of speech should trump peoples "sensibilities."

Well most people, who are just as entitled to use a public place as you, have a right to use public places without being confronted by people swearing and carrying on. It's not about people getting fined the second they swear. You're unlikely to find it getting enforced at protests so 'freedom of speech' is not something to be worrying about. It's one of those areas where discretion and common sense of enforcement comes into play. Someone continuously swearing outside a shopping centre where mothers and children are would be considered offensive, someone swearing outside the same shopping centre at 3:00 AM would probably get looked at differently.

[Bourbon]

Holy shit, DE.

I agree with everything you just said.
No, I really don't. Stupid fuck.

[Troll]

Since we're on the topic:

Man who stabbed burglar in his mothers home charged with murder (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223342/Man-stabbed-death-burglar-ransacking-mothers-house-charged-murder.html)



At the same time, in the same country:

Out in two years: Fury as judges cut sentence on Baby P tormentor because he 'does not pose significant risk' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223323/Baby-P-thug-freed-years-appeal-judge-declares-hes-risk.html)



I thought the entire point of prison was to punish, not consolidate risk.

You see this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is the product of people like Chaos and Head Asplode who cry bloody murder when somebody is trying to protect their property.

Ok ok, so let me get this right.
People can kill people who walk onto Mah PROPERTY yee haw

If I invent something, I have no rights to profit from it.

What next, you're a visionary?

Sure, you can form a business and market your product like Thomas Edison did, or you can sell it to a company who already has the infrastructure in place.


Oh so we're talking about free enterprise and anarchist society are we? In that case if I can shoot anyone who comes on my property, the burglar should be able to shoot back, right? He could even shoot first, I suppose. And have a right do so.

Not have a right to do so, he would be in the wrong.

Step 1. Wait for someone to come up with an idea.
Step 2. Steal it.
Step 3. Profit!

The ancient riddle has been solved! Thanks DE, the mystery of step two has finally been revealed. You just have to be a thief to profit.

Without intellectual property there is no such thing as property period.

Because the alternative makes much more sense right?

Like light! If Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb that means it never would have existed, and we'd all be walking around in the dark!

No I don't think so. Not at all. Just because someone invents something doesn't mean it never would have been invented without them. This is especially true when it comes to scientific processes (ex: alternative energies that the oil industry holds the patent rights to). Or these "life saving drugs" that pharma companies make billions off of, because if they didn't create AIDS treatment that means it never would have been invented right? Get the fuck outta here.

Which is crazy. If I invent amazing box x, what, you should be allowed to make knockoffs? That's disgusting.

Yeah why not? Should you hold a monopoly on this box that probably would have been invented anyways?

"Oh sorry man, you can't wear shoes because somebody else invented shoes and you're not wearing their brand." Fuck that.

Apparently since it is "intellectual" the time and effort spent on creating it simply doesn't count. Time and effort are not limitless simply because you're a writer or musician or what-have-you. They are finite and irreplaceable once spent. If I spend two years writing the next Great American Novel in order to sell it to a publisher and make money to provide for myself that's two years I could have spent doing something else; if someone steals it and sells it for cheaper or free I'm screwed. DE would tell me too damn bad buddy that's not real property. The time and effort I spent on it was real so why is the product not real?

Oh my God if we don't have intellectual property rights then what on Earth will the RIAA executives do for a living? I mean after all, they have "earned" the "right" to profit from music that artists make and then pay the artists a tiny fraction of the money they are making.

What on Earth would we do without Boys Like Girls, Miley Cyrus, or the Jonas Brothers?

Maybe he doesn't understand what IP actually is?
Does he think it's like, getting a copyright on emotions? Give me a dime when you feel happy? I can't grasp how he thinks IP is not justifiable, and further more: that because HE thinks IP is invalid, justifies shooting kids in the face with a shotgun for TPing your house.
Intellectual property is worth trillions.

I think you are the one who has a serious misunderstanding of what was said and what wasn't said. Try again.

[Chaos]

Like light! If Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb that means it never would have existed, and we'd all be walking around in the dark!

No, because Thomas Edison put in the time and the effort to invent it, he deserves to be rewarded for his time and effort and not have some schmuck who didn't put in any time or effort screw him over.

Oh my God if we don't have intellectual property rights then what on Earth will the RIAA executives do for a living? I mean after all, they have "earned" the "right" to profit from music that artists make and then pay the artists a tiny fraction of the money they are making.

What on Earth would we do without Boys Like Girls, Miley Cyrus, or the Jonas Brothers?

This is all irrelevant. Regardless of your opinion of the quality of Boys Like Girls, Miley Cyrus, or the Jonas Brothers, they all use their finite amounts of time and effort in order to create something that people want to buy so they can provide for themselves. They do in fact deserve to be paid for their work if people are willing to buy it, which they are.

Where did you get the idea that work shouldn't be rewarded?

No I don't think so. Not at all. Just because someone invents something doesn't mean it never would have been invented without them. This is especially true when it comes to scientific processes (ex: alternative energies that the oil industry holds the patent rights to). Or these "life saving drugs" that pharma companies make billions off of, because if they didn't create AIDS treatment that means it never would have been invented right? Get the fuck outta here.


This has nothing to do with anything anyone said. It's you responding to some phantom poster. What you're saying isn't even relevant to the discussion.

Honestly this just struck me and it's hilarious. Episode 26 of Metalocalypse, "Cleanzo." DE is Murderface:

William Murderface: But I could've written any Dethklok song! I could've written any of them!
Nathan Explosion: But you didn't write any you didn't, though.
William Murderface: But I could have!
Nathan Explosion: But you didn't!
William Murderface: But l could have
Nathan Explosion: I could've invented, oh, yeah, the floor,you know, but I didn't.
William Murderface: But that doesn't mean you shouldn't get credit for inventing the floor!
Nathan Explosion: I -- that should mean that l don't get credit for it!

[Operatoring]

And according to you, the right with the highest priority is the "right" to rob other people.
So If I was threatening to slash your tires in front of you, you feel you would have the right to shoot me?

How about if some children were trespassing on your lawn and playing manhunt. Let's say one of these kids hides on your porch. Would you shoot them for trespassing?

How about if one of those kids saw a lawn gnome on your porch and decided he would impress his friends by taking it. Would you shoot him in the back while he walked off with your gnome?

Let's say you came back to your car to find a broken window and a man fleeing with your radio. Would you shoot him in the back also?

[Troll]

No, because Thomas Edison put in the time and the effort to invent it, he deserves to be rewarded for his time and effort and not have some schmuck who didn't put in any time or effort screw him over.

Yes he can get his reward, by selling his idea or creating a company to market his new product. Nothing wrong with that under my system.

This is all irrelevant. Regardless of your opinion of the quality of Boys Like Girls, Miley Cyrus, or the Jonas Brothers, they all use their finite amounts of time and effort in order to create something that people want to buy so they can provide for themselves. They do in fact deserve to be paid for their work if people are willing to buy it, which they are.

Where did you get the idea that work shouldn't be rewarded?

Where do you get this idea that I claimed anything even remotely similar to what you are saying? They can get rewarded, no problem. They do not require intellectual property rights to do so. They can make all the money they want when they go on tour, I don't have any problem with that at all.

This has nothing to do with anything anyone said. It's you responding to some phantom poster. What you're saying isn't even relevant to the discussion.

Honestly this just struck me and it's hilarious. Episode 26 of Metalocalypse, "Cleanzo." DE is Murderface:

It has everything to do with the discussion (intellectual property). The premise behind this bizarre concept is that if the government does not "protect" this hypothetical property then these life-saving drugs and what not will never get invented, which I think is bullshit.

[Chaos]

Just because you didn't invent the floor doesn't mean you shouldn't get credit for it!

Thanks for playing DE.

[Troll]

1. So If I was threatening to slash your tires in front of you, you feel you would have the right to shoot me?

2. How about if some children were trespassing on your lawn and playing manhunt. Let's say one of these kids hides on your porch. Would you shoot them for trespassing?

3. How about if one of those kids saw a lawn gnome on your porch and decided he would impress his friends by taking it. Would you shoot him in the back while he walked off with your gnome?

4. Let's say you came back to your car to find a broken window and a man fleeing with your radio. Would you shoot him in the back also?

I went ahead and numbered them so I don't have to quote mine.

1. Yes, I have a right to protect my property and you don't have a right to slash my tires.
2. No of course not, I like kids.
3. No but I should have every right to tackle the kid and take back my property. This is a personal choice, however. What if the kid was a member of a gang who liked to terrorize the neighborhood like we see in Great Britain? I think someone like that deserves to be shot in the face.
4. I think I should have the right to shoot him, yes.

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

Just because you didn't invent the floor doesn't mean you shouldn't get credit for it!

Thanks for playing DE.

I'll take your non-response to what I said as an admission of defeat. No re.

[0xDEADBEEF]

This is where you said it.

No I don't recognize intellectual property rights.

You have no clue what IP is, do you?

[Bourbon]

DE always gets his way.

Always.

He is the ultimate troll, if he is kidding. If he isn't, his argument is fault.

I can't condone the killing of a man because he is stealing something as simple as a TV. If no one is at harm, there is no sensible reason to kill a man. You truly do not care at all for the human race. I bet you would press the button.

You are the next Jigsaw. I can see it now.

[Troll]

This is where you said it.

At what point did I or anybody contest my original statement, and furthermore, how could I contest ever saying that and simultaneously be defending my statement at the same time? You're not very bright are you?

You have no clue what IP is, do you?

That question is not supported by anything in your post.


I can't condone the killing of a man because he is stealing something as simple as a TV. If no one is at harm, there is no sensible reason to kill a man. You truly do not care at all for the human race. I bet you would press the button.

You are the next Jigsaw. I can see it now.

I care for innocent people. I don't consider robbers and thieves to be innocent.

[Gorbet]

Innocent or not, please demonstrate how it is either proportianate or reasonable to shoot someone because you see them running from your car with the stereo. There is no threat to life, just a theft. It's not robbery, it's not even burglary. It is just plain and simple theft.

Where do you draw the line at shooting people committing crimes just because they aren't innocent?

[Troll]

I think the malicious act of stealing the stereo from somebody is justifiable to shoot them. This actually happened to me before when I was in basic training and somebody stole my 2 12" subwoofers if I was there and caught them in the act I think I would be justified in shooting them. These kinds of people are straight criminals and lowlifes and don't deserve to be on the streets stealing from more and more people. I can't depend on the cops coming, not catching the guy, and occupying 2-3 hours of my time filling out a damn report that will accomplish nothing. Better to shoot the fucker and prevent him and people like him from doing what they do best -- make life miserable for the rest of us law-abiding citizens.