Ayup
Sebastian on why we need castle doctrine: Because when you’re cleared of any wrongdoing in a self-defense case, the scumbag ought not be able to sue you.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 15th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Get Umbrella liability insurance!!! It will pay the defense costs and settlements if you are found guilty of defending yourself in a civil suit. It’s cheap too, with limits starting at $1m and commonly up to $10m.
Insurance: Rich white people that have your back.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:32 am
The rest of us: broke white people that barely have money for ammo in the first place.
Castle doctrine wins. 😉
April 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Arrg. True castle doctrine is separate from preventing deservedly shot scumbags from suing those they tried to victimize.
“Castle Doctrine” protects you from being prosecuted for shooting someone who has unlawfully and with force entered your home, and perhaps certain other places (in Texas, it includes “habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment.” Instead of having to wait for him to break in and THEN show imminent threat to your life or limb, you may assume than anyone unlawfully breaking in has this intention and act accordingly. It relieves the resident of trying to figure out what his assailant is up to.
“Civil Immunity” prevents you from being sued if you kill or injure someone in a legal act of self-defense. In Texas, this includes the good guy’s use of both force and deadly force. It doesn’t matter whether you are at in your “habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment,” or if you are walking down the street or at the gas station or wherever. Prior to “Civil Immunity,” Texas self-defenders had to rely on “Affirmative Defense;” they could be sued, but assert they had performed a legal act self-defense as a defense against liability. Of course they had to hire lawyers and go to trial to do this, and the hurdle for adjudging responsibility in a civil case is much lower than a criminal one.
“Stand Your Ground” means that when you are in a place you otherwise have a right to be in, you are not required to retreat if unlawfully threatened by a thug. You may defend yourself as the situation dictates as long as you otherwise follow the laws of self-defense, but you are not required to run away even if you are able and a “reasonable person” would do so. May make good tactical sense to retreat, but you are not legally required to do so.
It seems these three concepts have all been conflated under the name “Castle Doctrine,” but they are separate issues that can come into play in the same situation. In Texas, Senate Bill 378 was called the “Castle Doctrine Bill,” but it actually implemented all three of these concepts into Chapter 9 of the Texas penal code. The guy in the linked article legally used self-defense to protect his home (and I would bet Pennsylvania does have a law in accordance with castle doctrine on its books); what he needs now is Civil Immunity.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
The pragmatic folks could just compromise and give the shot thug a portion of what he states he wants. baby steps.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Screw that. I’m not giving any thug anything he wants if he broke into my home (or otherwise threatened me or initiated force against me). I will stand my ground or retreat as I feel confident in doing so. For him to be able to sue me for his injuries when I’ve legally acted in self-defense is ridiculous.