See other Resistance Articles
Title: RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE WINS
Source:
American Free Press
URL Source: http://americanfreepress.net/html/self-defense_wins.html
Published: Oct 27, 2006
Author: Mark Anderson
Post Date: 2006-10-27 19:56:17 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 240
Comments: 19
STATES EMPOWER ‘CASTLE DOCTRINE’ SO HOMEOWNERS CAN PROTECT FAMILIES By Mark Anderson October 30, 2006 | American Free Press Around 15 states have passed or are strongly considering codifying “the castle doctrine” into law. Based on English common law, this doctrine establishes that intruders breaking into homes, businesses or automobiles would be barred from filing lawsuits against property owners who act in self defense to protect themselves, their property and their loved ones. Many states are also crafting such a law to also protect property owners from lawsuits filed by intruders’ relatives. Florida started the trend to legally protect homes and business owners from frivolous lawsuits by intruders and assailants, based on the presumption that anyone, who is pursuing forcible or unwelcome entry, likely has harmful intentions. “The law assumes that if someone is attempting to break into your house or steal your car, then they also have the intent to cause bodily harm,” said Michigan State Rep. Neal Nitz in an Aug. 20 legislative news circular. Other states that have passed variations of this self-defense law include Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, Kentucky, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona and Georgia. This idea, which has been discussed in the halls of legislatures for years—with the National Rifle Association lobbying in favor of it—has been gaining steam since the spring of this year. Arizona’s version was signed into law by Gov. Janet Napolitano on April 25. Wyoming’s took effect in August. “The House passed this bill at the end of April and the Senate followed suit and passed it in early June,” said Rep. Nitz of Michigan. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat who’s not necessarily a fan of measures that have NRA support, signed the bill into law in July. Texas and Wyoming are on the verge of passing similar legislation. The Oct. 13 Dallas Morning News noted that State Sen. Jeff Wentworth is sponsoring this kind of legislation with co-sponsorship from State Sen. Jane Nelson. Pennsylvania, where a recent deadly shooting spree at an Amish one-room school devastated a small community, also is strongly considering joining this trend. So far, there is not much talk among legislators on how to truly protect schoolchildren. Many schools have adopted the modest measure of locking external doors during the school day, which is not foolproof. Some districts, such as the South Bend, Ind., Community School Corp., have armed city police officers at all, or nearly all, school buildings, at least most of the time. In years past, when several tragic school shootings in Columbine, Colo., and elsewhere made headlines, there was talk of allowing certain school officials to take training and have an accessible firearm locked away on school property in case they’re needed. However, school officials in a suburban Fort Worth, Tex., school district have sought the advice of trained defense experts to school kids in when to fight back against individuals who come into a school armed and looking to kill students. According to the Associated Press, Response Options has been brought in to teach kids and teachers to make as much noise as possible and to throw anything at gunmen, including desks, chairs, shoes and backpacks. “Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success,” Robin Browne, a major in the British Army reserve force and an instructor for Response Options, told AP. People should “react immediately to the sight of a gun by picking up anything and everything and throwing it at the head and body of the attacker and making as much noise as possible. Go toward him as fast as [you] can and bring [the gunman] down.” In Switzerland, the castle doctrine is an integral part of that nation’s culture; the lack of restrictions on owning and bearing arms, the citizen-based military and the nation’s strict neutrality regarding foreign policy have kept the peace for centuries with an unmistakably low crime rate. (Issue #44, October 30, 2006)
RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE WINS
Mich. Gov. Jennifer
Granholm supports “castle.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: CharltonHest, boonie rat, lodwick, Brian S, All (#0)
PING!
“The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper
I figure you should have the legal right to shoot anyone who tries to break into your house.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
Mine's a simple doctrine...break into my house, and you have signaled intent to harm my family. I will shoot to kill. ALL states should have such 'castle laws' in place. I am surprised at some of the states MISSING from this list.
uh.."castle laws" codified? thought the Second embodied the right to defend oneself and one's home?
I'm sure everyone here agrees with that, but you know as well as I that there are PLENTY of judges, lawyers, and (G-d forbid) juries that don't. :-( Therein lies the problem.
This would be about the first useful action I've seen out of the NRA.
If you're not pissed off, you're just not paying attention.
My view is similar but but with considerably fewer conditions or restrictions.
In Connecticut (surprisingly), you can shoot an intruder. In New York, last that I knew, an intruder must demonstrate deadly intent (eg: shooting at you, attempting to stab you (do have stab wounds, please, etc), wacking you with a solid object (please have broken bones as evidence)) in order to shoot the a-hole. That was two years ago; could have changed.
...with conviction there is no sacrifice
Got my MN carry permit. In class, we were told that the threshold was that we "feared the person may attempt grievous bodily harm on ourselves or others". Then we could shoot him. So: Stealing a car, no. Stealing a car with me in it, yes. Coming after me or my family with a knife, yes. Running down the street with a knife after he sees my gun, probably. It's a pretty grey area up here, and the concealed-carry instructors suggest you lawyer up immediately, rather than answer ANY questions the police might have.
If you're not pissed off, you're just not paying attention.
As an ex-cop, I can affirm that. Even in the academy they told us if we were involved in a shooting, to NEVER talk to the police!! Even as a cop! The police are not your friend in a situation like this, and in fact, are always the enemy. Save the words for the courtroom, and be sure you hire "Shark" for a defense attorney. I had a CHP in Tx for 8 years and finally let it lapse out of sheer principle. I carry anyway now, and I carried before the law went into effect. Always better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. F**k 'em! I am sick and tired of requesting "permission" to excercise my Constitutional rights.
This is actually the legislative intent ... that being to cloud a very simple issue in an effort to employ lawyers. I have seen signs in the past that stated "Trespassers will be shot on sight" ... I have also heard (and think it's true) that when the commission of such a criminal act occurs in Texas at night it is viewed as more heinous and shooting the perp is quite legal even outside of the home. I have spoken with the local Sheriff here where I live about this and other things, such as the Patriot Act providing federal perps the ability to enter ones home without notice or warrant. My statement to him was that I didn't give a rat's ass what the pencil neck freaks in D.C. have to say about it, "ANYONE" entering my abode without an invitation would have his/her ass blown right back out the door. I have the means and motive ... they only need to provide me the opportunity.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams
bump
True - to the best of my knowledge.
So eloquently stated and expresses my exact emotions !
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams
This isn't about the legal right to shoot in defense of home or self. All of these states already have that. This is about barring a crim's family from suing you if you deprive them of their only means of support. Remember, the guy you plug is a crim but his family isn't and they can sue you....and win....unless barred by statute. Now, you would think that because a perp's family lives off of ill gotten gains that they'd be barred from seeking restitution or damages from a law abiding homeowner who killed their meal ticket. But, under rules of equity that isn't so. (And of course the lawsuit will say that he fed his family with honest labor, too, until you brutally snatched it away with your stainless steel, laser-sighted Buntline Special!) My state of DE protects the homeowner from criminal but not civil action. In fact, DE won't pass any laws that handicap any lawyers, ever.
No, until I snatched it away with my .357 Sig Sauer loaded with Magsafes.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
No, until I snatched it away with my .357 Sig Sauer loaded with Magsafes. Uh, either ought to do it!
Good luck getting any money out of me. I can make myself about as judgment-proof as I need to be.
If you're not pissed off, you're just not paying attention.
So they've got a license to bust you. Think that through.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
#2. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
#3. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#4. To: who knows what evil, BTP Holdings, ALL (#3)
#5. To: christine (#4)
thought the Second embodied the right to defend oneself and one's home?
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#6. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
This idea, which has been discussed in the halls of legislatures for years—with the National Rifle Association lobbying in favor of it—has been gaining steam since the spring of this year.
#7. To: YertleTurtle (#2)
I figure you should have the legal right to shoot anyone who tries to break into your house.
#8. To: YertleTurtle (#2)
#9. To: rack42 (#8)
In New York, last that I knew, an intruder must demonstrate deadly intent (eg: shooting at you, attempting to stab you (do have stab wounds, please, etc), wacking you with a solid object (please have broken bones as evidence)) in order to shoot the a-hole.
#10. To: Indrid Cold, bluedogtxn, lodwick, christine (#9)
It's a pretty grey area up here, and the concealed-carry instructors suggest you lawyer up immediately, rather than answer ANY questions the police might have.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#11. To: Indrid Cold (#9)
It's a pretty grey area up here, and the concealed-carry instructors suggest you lawyer up immediately, rather than answer ANY questions the police might have.
#12. To: IndieTX (#10)
F**k 'em! I am sick and tired of requesting "permission" to excercise my Constitutional rights.
#13. To: noone222 (#11)
I have also heard (and think it's true) that when the commission of such a criminal act occurs in Texas at night it is viewed as more heinous and shooting the perp is quite legal even outside of the home.
#14. To: lodwick, IndieTX (#12)
F**k 'em! I am sick and tired of requesting "permission" to excercise my Constitutional rights.
#15. To: Indrid Cold, YertleTurtle (#9)
#16. To: HOUNDDAWG (#15)
until you brutally snatched it away with your stainless steel, laser-sighted Buntline Special!)
#17. To: YertleTurtle (#16)
until you brutally snatched it away with your stainless steel, laser-sighted Buntline Special!)
#18. To: HOUNDDAWG (#15)
This is about barring a crim's family from suing you if you deprive them of their only means of support.
#19. To: IndieTX (#10)
I carry anyway now, and I carried before the law went into effect.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest