This Guy Should Get a Medal (illegal, school, party, claims)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is that he caught the guy leaving the house and administered a beating off of his property. If this had actually happened in his house I doubt he would have ever worn bracelets. In any castle doctrine state you are definitely justified to apply lethal force if someone breaks the plane of your house and possibly if you simply feel threatened on your property.
Oh, so that's why that Texas couple killed that 7-year-old kid and wounded a 5-year-old (plus their parents). Silly me, I thought those homeowners were unhinged, murderous nutjobs. God bless our driveways! So much more important than people.
Oh, so that's why that Texas couple killed that 7-year-old kid and wounded a 5-year-old (plus their parents). Silly me, I thought those homeowners were unhinged, murderous nutjobs. God bless our driveways! So much more important than people.
Did you just equate breaking and entering to stoping on the road in front of someone's house? Really?
Also of relevance is the fact that the burglary "suspect" had already left the house, leaving the occupants of the house in no danger whatsoever, and unharmed. The suspect was, at that point, not an impending danger to anyone, whether or not he was in police custody.
So let's recap your position.
Guy whose home broken into (frantic call from children) = psychotic, violence prone homeowner for stupidly getting in one kick while pumped on adrenaline.
Guy who broke into home, caught fleeing with latex gloves and wire cutters (and in possession of other homes stolen property) = "suspect"
Also, he didn't leave those kids cowering in a bedroom "unharmed", they will relive that event for a long time.
Every single thread with a criminal or convict they are always the victim who really didn't do anything or if they did didn't hurt anyone or don't deserve the punishment that they got. What the heck is wrong with you?
Did you just equate breaking and entering to stoping on the road in front of someone's house? Really?
The castle doctrine doesn't concern itself with such trivialities. Whether you've committed breaking and entering, or whether you were just walking by and sat down on somebody's lawn because you felt faint -- the law treats you as a burglar and gives the homeowner the right to execute you on the spot. If it's proven that those vehicles were 1 inch within the Muhs' property line, the law basically says they had the right to execute them all, the children included. And so, in that case, the discussion tends to focus on things that are, in my mind, irrelevant. For example, some folks are making an issue out of the fact that the Muhs fired at the cars as they were fleeing -- the implication being, of course, that it's okay to shoot a 7-year-old and a 5-year-old so long as they haven't turned their backs yet. Then other folks point out that the Muhs' conduct was only wrong because the victims were on public property -- again, meaning that if a kid chaises a ball onto your drive way, you can go right on ahead and make him dead.
I recently read some contemporary commentary on 17th century England (from which we supposedly derive our liberal traditions) about the near impossibility of securing a death sentence for burglary or theft: "Most people will not procure a man's death for all the goods in the world." Unfortunately, this apparently isn't true of our society. Many of its members will gladly procure a man's death for the slightest infraction against their goods, and kill his family, too.
The castle doctrine doesn't concern itself with such trivialities. Whether you've committed breaking and entering, or whether you were just walking by and sat down on somebody's lawn because you felt faint -- the law treats you as a burglar and gives the homeowner the right to execute you on the spot. If it's proven that those vehicles were 1 inch within the Muhs' property line, the law basically says they had the right to execute them all, the children included. And so, in that case, the discussion tends to focus on things that are, in my mind, irrelevant. For example, some folks are making an issue out of the fact that the Muhs fired at the cars as they were fleeing -- the implication being, of course, that it's okay to shoot a 7-year-old and a 5-year-old so long as they haven't turned their backs yet. Then other folks point out that the Muhs' conduct was only wrong because the victims were on public property -- again, meaning that if a kid chaises a ball onto your drive way, you can go right on ahead and make him dead.
You have grossly misread the Castle Doctrine. All of the examples you have provided do NOT fit the castle doctrine and will get you a long jail sentence.
(Feel free to prove me wrong by providing a news article about someone gunning down this mythological 7-year old in their yard and NOT being charged for it.)
Please read up upon what the actual law says with regards to defense of home etc. etc. If you want to talk about a specific state then I'd be happy to do so.
You have grossly misread the Castle Doctrine. All of the examples you have provided do NOT fit the castle doctrine and will get you a long jail sentence.
But in your reading of the Castle Doctrine, it gives one the right to exact revenge?
Guy whose home broken into (frantic call from children) = psychotic, violence prone homeowner for stupidly getting in one kick while pumped on adrenaline.
Guy who broke into home, caught fleeing with latex gloves and wire cutters (and in possession of other homes stolen property) = "suspect"
Also, he didn't leave those kids cowering in a bedroom "unharmed", they will relive that event for a long time.
Every single thread with a criminal or convict they are always the victim who really didn't do anything or if they did didn't hurt anyone or don't deserve the punishment that they got. What the heck is wrong with you?
Let's recap your position. If a person is left with an unpleasant memory,the normal, civilized, justifiable, psychologically healthy response is to kick the cause of that "harm" in the face. What the heck is wrong with you?
So let's recap your position.
Guy who broke into home, caught fleeing with latex gloves and wire cutters (and in possession of other homes stolen property) = "suspect"
Guy who broke into home, caught fleeing with latex gloves and wire cutters (and in possession of other homes stolen property) = "suspect"
His position is in agreement with US law
Yes, otherwise why should we have, you know, trial and stuff? We could hand out sentences to people on the spot. No trial, no jury, no bothering with presenting evidence. Just arrest the guy and proceed directly to execution. [/end sarcasm]
Let's recap your position. If a person is left with an unpleasant memory,the normal, civilized, justifiable, psychologically healthy response is to kick the cause of that "harm" in the face. What the heck is wrong with you?
I don't know, the "alledged" face kick is yet to be dealt with in a court of law.
Just funny how the burglar is the "suspect" and the homeowner a violent psycopath.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
