Here's what happens with your Castle Doctrine

[Larry Gude]

Isn't that...

A The onus is on the criminal in Texas. .

...an interesting concept.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

Didn't Jesus teach you anything?

So someone steals your toaster, you fill their gut full of buckshot to keep them from getting away? Not even the police have that power; what makes you think a vigilante does?


Certainly the thieves deserve to be punished, but the gravity of their offense is not proportional to a death penalty.

The old man was not threatened until he, contrary to the orders of the police, deputized himself and most eagerly sought stop a pair of thieves with deadly force.

...Jesus said something like 'love thy neighbor'. Would looking out for your neighbor fall under 'loving' them?

This old guy didn't go out looking for trouble; it came to him, to his neighbors home. Is society better served by someone who would break into another's home or someone who would prevent it? Whose to say a regular police officer wouldn't have shot these criminals? Whose to say it would have been just or not? The people in the wrong paid for their crimes and all we should be debating is whether or not they deserved getting killed. Isn't it better for other criminals to live in fear rather than the law abiding?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

All human lives are not of equal value. Think of it thining the herd. Those that chose to do stupid and bad things put themselves at risk of being removed from the gene pool.

 

[Bruzilla]

...that's what I am trying to establish as far as how forestal views 'the people'. If it was 'the peoples' toaster and there is no right to an individual then he has a point. If 'the people' mean him and you and me and our individual rights then he'll need to make some sort of allowance for individual, private rights as opposed to those that 'the state' allows us.

I think we're leaving point a bit. My point is that the government is bound by laws that the population are not. I do not need a search warrant to go look in my kid's room for all my missing tools. I can go directly to a court house and file charges against someone without having to do a thorough investigation. And I can kill someone I view as a threat without having to have a death warrant signed by the governor.

To Forrestal's point, his reading of the 2nd Ammendment is the typical Liberal view that's been around for years. The problem he and those like him have is that a simple reading of the 2nd ammendment could be interpreted in their favor, but there are stacks of supporting documentation from the Founders on the record that clearly established their intent. They were not concerned with protecting hunting rights (most people hunted for their food at the time, so that would have been like us having a Constitutional ammendment to protect grocery stores), and the Continental Army and Navy had been established to protect us from foreign threats.

The real purpose of the 2nd Ammendment, as supported by Thomas Payne and the other framers of it, was to make sure that the people always had an ability to fight back against an internal enemy. They had learned from Europe that once a government controlled the guns, they could control the people. In America, they wanted the people to control the government, and the only way to ensure that policy would be to make sure than the people had the means to defend themselves against a tyrannical government if one ever came to power.

 

[Larry Gude]

I think it is of...

I think we're leaving point a bit. My point is that the government is bound by laws that the population are not.

....of a kind;

The government IS bound by laws the population is not bound by AND thoughts about criminals such as forestal is enunciating goes to the mindset of that relationship as to who is preeminent; the citizen or the government.

forestal takes offense to a citizen perhaps over reacting to defending a neighbors property. His objections are numerous including that the police told the guy what to do or not to do along with, that a toaster isn't 'worth' all this and also leaving out the mindset of a person who would do such a thing in the first place; invading someones home and taking their stuff.

I think we're making a similar argument from different points; it is we, the people, who are preeminent, not the government and certainly not criminals.

forestal thinks the injustice is that the two criminals are dead. I think the injustice is that this man would be in any kind of peril, or threat of, for killing them.

 

[PsyOps]

Sorry, I don't salute thieves or murderers.

BTW, murderers are worse than thieves.

In your own words you question the actions of others. Your words speak loud and clear that you'd have done nothing to stop these criminals from violating yet another home, family, innocent person. This is a nothing more than appeasing the criminal and criminalizing the innocent people wanting to defend their lives and property.

You wrote:

So someone steals your toaster, you fill their gut full of buckshot to keep them from getting away? Not even the police have that power; what makes you think a vigilante does?

Perhaps they and we should. I promise you there would be less crime. But you and our legal system propose to take all the rights out of the hands of innocent people and put all the rights into the hands of criminals. You can't why crime continues to rise then in the same breath condone inaction as a means to solve the problem.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I think we're leaving point a bit. My point is that the government is bound by laws that the population are not. I do not need a search warrant to go look in my kid's room for all my missing tools.

So can the police, they just can't use that as evidence in a court of law. However they may be charged with breaking and entering and you won't because you live there.
Bad analogy.
Try to compare it to looking in your neighbour's house for missing tools. Both you and the police are bound by the same general restrictions of searching without a warrant.

I can go directly to a court house and file charges against someone without having to do a thorough investigation.

And so can the police, it happens all the time. What can happen as a result of both you and the police doing this is you can both be sued if you are wrong.

And I can kill someone I view as a threat without having to have a death warrant signed by the governor.

So can any human being. If they are a threat to your life and limb, then you can use deadly force to protect yourself. The difference between the cops and us in most states is that in many states we are required to look or seek a retreat before using deadly force and the cops are allowed to confront.
MD is slightly different from some states. In MD you are allowed to confront if they are committin a felony, you are allowed to conduct citizen's arrest and you are allowed to hold them. If they attack you you can defend your life and this is the same as with the police.
But the difference between the police and us is that if the felon has a weapon and is running away the police can use deadly force to stop them and we cannot (with some rare exceptions) because they are a continuing threat to others, but we cannot shoot because they are no longer a threat to us at that moment.

To Forrestal's point, his reading of the 2nd Ammendment is the typical Liberal view that's been around for years.

Careful how you use the word liberal. It is not a civil libertarian view, it is a Progressive's view to think it does not give the People the RKBA.
Only a certain flavor of liberal thinks it does not give the People (individuals) the right to keep and bear arms. I am an proof that only some liberals have the collective view because I am a liberal that recognizes it is an individual right.
Look at this online poll for instance: USATODAY.com - Quick Question
There is no way that USA Today's readership is only 4% liberal.

 

[FromTexas]

...Jesus said something like 'love thy neighbor'. Would looking out for your neighbor fall under 'loving' them?

This old guy didn't go out looking for trouble; it came to him, to his neighbors home. Is society better served by someone who would break into another's home or someone who would prevent it? Whose to say a regular police officer wouldn't have shot these criminals? Whose to say it would have been just or not? The people in the wrong paid for their crimes and all we should be debating is whether or not they deserved getting killed. Isn't it better for other criminals to live in fear rather than the law abiding?

I love when people use the Jesus argument.

''Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth,'' he said. ''I did not come to bring peace, but a sword''

Or how about when he chased charlatans out of temple with a whip?

I guess the Bible calls him the Lion of Judah for no reason, or how about this visual of his return:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one but he himself knows. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Hmmm.....

 

[Bruzilla]

So can the police, they just can't use that as evidence in a court of law. However they may be charged with breaking and entering and you won't because you live there.
Bad analogy.
Try to compare it to looking in your neighbour's house for missing tools. Both you and the police are bound by the same general restrictions of searching without a warrant.

That's a great analogy. I can go into my kid's room and search without a warrant. Period. The police can't. Period. Although you bring up a point of interest that I've had IRT the warrantless wiretapping debate. The way I see it, there's nothing illegal about the government doing wiretaps, they are just prohibited from using the evidence gained from the taps to prosecute someone.

And so can the police, it happens all the time. What can happen as a result of both you and the police doing this is you can both be sued if you are wrong.

You might want to go back to law school. The police can't grab up someone for no cause. Let's say I see someone speding. I can go into the courthouse and file charges against them. If I call the police and report the person as speeding, and I tell them that I will not go to court to testify, they can't take any action (we used to get these calls at the Sheriff's Office all the time).

So can any human being. If they are a threat to your life and limb, then you can use deadly force to protect yourself. The difference between the cops and us in most states is that in many states we are required to look or seek a retreat before using deadly force and the cops are allowed to confront.
MD is slightly different from some states. In MD you are allowed to confront if they are committin a felony, you are allowed to conduct citizen's arrest and you are allowed to hold them. If they attack you you can defend your life and this is the same as with the police.
But the difference between the police and us is that if the felon has a weapon and is running away the police can use deadly force to stop them and we cannot (with some rare exceptions) because they are a continuing threat to others, but we cannot shoot because they are no longer a threat to us at that moment.

Wow... where do you start with this one? First, there's a bunch of holes with your statements. The use of deadly force is much different between J.Q. Public and law enforcement officials. Police must receive extensive training and certification, and their actions are held to a much higher standard than mine would be. Good luck finding a jury that won't find a cop who was armed with a pistol, pepper spray, taser, and a baton in the wrong for shooting a man with a crowbar. For me, I just get to shoot. Next, states are dropping the retreat first policies because there's really no way to prove if you tried to retreat. To your last point, private citizens get a lot of leeway from juries in what's reasonable or not reasonable. In panic situations it becomes real hard to qualify what a person does. If they shoot an attacker, and keep shooting out of refelx as the guy tries to flee, he's not going to get convicted.

Careful how you use the word liberal. It is not a civil libertarian view, it is a Progressive's view to think it does not give the People the RKBA.
Only a certain flavor of liberal thinks it does not give the People (individuals) the right to keep and bear arms. I am an proof that only some liberals have the collective view because I am a liberal that recognizes it is an individual right..

Well, let me put it another way: this is a view that I've never heard from a Conservative. It is a view that I've only heard from Liberals. So while not every Liberal may share this view, it is still a Liberal view.

 

[Novus Collectus]

That's a great analogy. I can go into my kid's room and search without a warrant. Period. The police can't. Period. Although you bring up a point of interest that I've had IRT the warrantless wiretapping debate. The way I see it, there's nothing illegal about the government doing wiretaps, they are just prohibited from using the evidence gained from the taps to prosecute someone.

There is something illegal about the government doing wiretaps as per the Fourth Amendment. But there is no criminal penalty in the Fourth Amendment for them doing so. This is why judges throw out the evidence they illegally obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment as the penalty curtailling further abuses (this has a name, but it eludes me at the moment).
There are however criminal penalties for wiretapping without a warrant in federal law.
The police can go into your kid's room and search without a warrant under a number of circumstances without tresspassing at the time, but whether or not they can use the evidence they find is not likely.

You might want to go back to law school. The police can't grab up someone for no cause.

You might want to go back and re-read your post I was responding to. YOu never said anything about grabbing someone up, you said "press charges" without an investigation.

Let's say I see someone speding. I can go into the courthouse and file charges against them.

I don't think you can in MD. You might be able to file a criminal complaint, but most likely not apply for charges to be issued with the commissioner for a traffic violation.

Wow... where do you start with this one? First, there's a bunch of holes with your statements. The use of deadly force is much different between J.Q. Public and law enforcement officials.

I thought I said that.

Police must receive extensive training and certification, and their actions are held to a much higher standard than mine would be. Good luck finding a jury that won't find a cop who was armed with a pistol, pepper spray, taser, and a baton in the wrong for shooting a man with a crowbar.

Before Taser's were issued, cops were told to shoot somoene with a weapon that would not put it down and were still an imminent threat with threatenning motions as I understand it. From what I have heard they were not told to try and use the baton as the first thing to do on someone with a knife or a crowbar if they can shoot them. Trying to use a baton instead of shooting a criminal with a deadly weapon is what gets cops killed. So take the Taser out of the equation and not only would you see juries not convict, you wouldn't even see charges filed against the cop.
Forget about pepper spray too. Pepper spray is effective to about 25 feet at most, an armed criminal can cover 25 feet in less time than many people start feeling the effects the pepper spray. Expecting or insisting that cops MUST use pepperspray on a criminal armed with a crowbar instead of shooting them will get cops killed.
Good luck finding a prosecutor that would press charges on a cop that shot someone attacking them with a crowbar.

Next, states are dropping the retreat first policies because there's really no way to prove if you tried to retreat.

No, do some research, the few states that are passing stand your ground laws passed them because it is dangerous for people to doubt their actions and hesitating to defend their lives because they are worried about complex legal issues.
It is dangerous to turn your back on an attacker to even look for an avenue of escape and it is dangerous to hesitate when attacked.
The laws were also passed because of either ambiguity in self defense laws making prosecution inconsistent, and/or it was also to stop over zealous prosecutors from ruining victim's lives by prosecuting them against all common sense.

If they shoot an attacker, and keep shooting out of refelx as the guy tries to flee, he's not going to get convicted.

Depends on the situtation, but here in MD that happened once that I have read and the man was convicted. The case even went up to the MD Court of Special Appeals IIRC.

 

[itsbob]

The value of human life gets cheaper by the day. Killing someone for stealing is not acceptable.

No the value of criminal life gets cheaper and cheaper. If they aren't willing to pay the ultimate price for their choice of career (which they know as a risk of their profession), they should probably look at a different career.

 

[forestal]

There's plenty of infringing going on, and everyone pretty much accepts it.

• You can't buy a fully automatic weapon without putting up some cash, having a background check, and getting a license.
• You can't buy a firearm from a vending machine.
• You can't buy a firearm and have it shipped to your house via UPS.
• You can't own a firearm if you beat your wife.
• You can't own a firearm if you are a convicted felon.
• You can't own a firearm if you are under 21.

If you accept any of these laws, than you pretty much accept the fact that the government has the right to restrict the sale of firearms to its citizens.

Anyway, all this argument may be moot. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, no matter what the original intent was.

Am looking forward to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision to review DC's right to keep handguns out of its residents hands.

No, it says the People's right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. The 2nd also mentions militias as a reason the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The People's right is not subordinate to the militia reason. This is why the DC handgun law was overturned, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

 

[Novus Collectus]

There's plenty of infringing going on, and everyone pretty much accepts it.

• You can't buy a fully automatic weapon without putting up some cash, having a background check, and getting a license.

• 
  The NFA of 1934 is probably not Constitutional and the only SC case addressing it in a 2nd Amendment context was indeterminate as well as skewed not determining anything on this issue conclusively. That is why the Supreme Court decided to hear the end Amendment D.C. v Heller case.
  Only some people accept it so speak for yourself.
  
  

  [*]You can't buy a firearm from a vending machine.

  No, but you can make your own handgun without the state's or the fed's permission here.
  Hell, you don't even have to tell the state you made one.
  
  

  [*]You can't buy a firearm and have it shipped to your house via UPS.

  Yes you can. There are more than a few ways.
  
  

  [*]You can't own a firearm if you beat your wife.

  Yes you can. You can own one if you were never convicted of the crime, and you can own one even if you were convicted if you apply for and recieve relief from prohibition.
  
  

  [*]You can't own a firearm if you are a convicted felon.

  Yes you can. You can own one if you were convicted of a felony in another country and if you were convicted in this country there are at least two ways you can get relief from being prohibitted from owning a firearm.
  
  

  [*]You can't own a firearm if you are under 21.

  Yes you can!!! Even in MD you can own or even purchase a firearm if you are under 21.

 

[Ken King]

There's plenty of infringing going on, and everyone pretty much accepts it.

• You can't buy a fully automatic weapon without putting up some cash, having a background check, and getting a license.
• You can't buy a firearm from a vending machine.
• You can't buy a firearm and have it shipped to your house via UPS.
• You can't own a firearm if you beat your wife.
• You can't own a firearm if you are a convicted felon.
• You can't own a firearm if you are under 21.

If you accept any of these laws, than you pretty much accept the fact that the government has the right to restrict the sale of firearms to its citizens.

Anyway, all this argument may be moot. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, no matter what the original intent was.

Am looking forward to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision to review DC's right to keep handguns out of its residents hands.

And restrictions such as those you have listed could still exist as we all know that the rights are not absolute. For instance, freedom of speech does not protect disturbing the peace and freedom of religion does not allow one to partake in human sacrafice or having multiple wives. Furthermore the case being in DC, a Federal enclave, might not answer the questions of applicablity towards the states as DC is not a state.

 

[forestal]

You're confusing the issue of when one right infringes on another.

If public safety is the issue, the government could easily take away all of our guns and say its for our own good.

DC is not a state, but it is a self governing entity as are cities, and states.

And restrictions such as those you have listed could still exist as we all know that the rights are not absolute. For instance, freedom of speech does not protect disturbing the peace and freedom of religion does not allow one to partake in human sacrafice or having multiple wives. Furthermore the case being in DC, a Federal enclave, might not answer the questions of applicablity towards the states as DC is not a state.

 

[itsbob]

General Sherman Kicks (Southern) Ass.

Hey, the 2nd amendment says that well regulated militias, like the kind they actually had at the time the Constitution was written, can own guns. There is no provision for private citizen ownership.

A Militia IS the private citizen..

We have an Army, we have a National Guard, but the militia is the private citizen, armed and ready to defend his country.

You ever wonder why the USSR or China has NEVER even thought about invading the US?? It's not because our Army is bigger, or stronger.. nor is our Navy.. It's the armed private citizen that has them shaking in their boots and unable to invade.

 

[Bustem' Down]

A Militia IS the private citizen..

We have an Army, we have a National Guard, but the militia is the private citizen, armed and ready to defend his country.

You ever wonder why the USSR or China has NEVER even thought about invading the US?? It's not because our Army is bigger, or stronger.. nor is our Navy.. It's the armed private citizen that has them shaking in their boots and unable to invade.

Actually the State Militia became the National Guard.

 

[Novus Collectus]

You're confusing the issue of when one right infringes on another.

If public safety is the issue, the government could easily take away all of our guns and say its for our own good.

DC is not a state, but it is a self governing entity as are cities, and states.

Partially true, but seriously missapplied. The idea of "your rights end at my nose" does not make it easy for the government to restrict a right under the guise of protecting other's.

The right to address your grievances to government is completely protected, but since other people have the same right, then wherever your right starts to limit theirs, the government may have a position of limiting one person's to preotect another's.

Look at protesting on public property for instance.
One has a right to address their greivances on the National Malll, but since all Americans have the wsame right, you cannot monlopolize the public property forever for your protesat. The other citizens have a right to access of that same property.
Therefore, the government has the position to issue permits to protect the equal access and as a result the equal protection of civill rights.

Look at freedom of speech.
You have a right to say or print or publish whatever you want so as long as it does not violate other's civil rights/
You can call for the admonishment of another person, but as soon as you call for their harm as an incitment to another to carry it out, then you are putting them at risk and therefore violating their civil right.
You can say whatever you want about another person, but as soon as you lie about them and they are damaged financially as a result, you have infringed on their civil right,.


The government can no more take our guns for public safety any more that it can limit the free excersise of religion, freedom of speech, limiting the right to pettition grievances to governmant or the press.

As I undertyand it, the Supreme Court has ruled that there has to be a severe compellling interest for public safety (protection of other's civl rights) that is ultimately prevalent before they consider the protection of other's rights by restrictions of other's rights.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Actually the State Militia became the National Guard.

No it didn't.

Some national guards supposedly replaced the idea of militias. but the militias did NOT automatically become the National Guard.

There is an organized militia, and ther is an unorganized militia.

Even Maryland has a militia that is not the National Guard.

Also, the Second Amendment was not repealed and as a result the understanding of the state's milititas being made up of able bodied men in the states was not supplanted. The National Guard law is NOT a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Bustem' Down]

No it didn't.

Some national guards supposedly replaced the idea of militias. but the militias did NOT automatically become the National Guard.

There is an organized militia, and ther is an unorganized militia.

Even Maryland has a militia that is not the National Guard.

Also, the Second Amendment was not repealed and as a result the understanding of the state's milititas being made up of able bodied men in the states was not supplanted. The National Guard law is NOT a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes they did.

The Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system. The Army National Guard is part of the United States Army, comprising approximately one half of its available combat forces and approximately one third of its support organization. The Air National Guard is part of the United States Air Force.

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From that point on the militia's ceased to exist in the form they were in.

The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, was the result of a program of reform and reorganization in the military establishment initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish-American War of 1898 after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire United States military.

United States Senator Charles Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard, sponsored the 1903 act, which gave Federal status to the militia. Under this legislation the organized militia of the States was required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia