Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 128

Thread: Castle Doctrine Under Fire - Score One For Freedom-Haters

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Castle Doctrine Under Fire - Score One For Freedom-Haters

    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    If this goes to trial I predict it becomes a national news story.

    The antis are going to use it as evidence to ban guns.

    I would think the trial has to be moved out of Missoula County and if that happens I predict they get a jury that is pretty sympathetic to homeowners and self defense.
    It did go to trial, and the homeowner, Kaarma, was found guilty.

    Justice perverted.

    Prosecutors argued Kaarma was intent on luring an intruder into his garage and then harming that person. That night, Kaarma left his garage door partially open with a purse inside. He fired four shotgun blasts, pausing between the third and fourth shots, witnesses said. Three witnesses testified they heard Kaarma say his house had been burglarized and he'd been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder.

    University of Montana law professor Andrew King-Ries noted state law does allow homeowners to use deadly force to protect their property, but it requires them to act reasonably.

    "What the jury's saying here is, you have a right to defend yourself, but this isn't reasonable," King-Ries said. "Lots of people have guns here, and lots of people feel very strongly that comes with a responsibility to handle your weapon appropriately."
    Source.

    The problem I have with the results is they seem to ignore the FACT that the perp, Diren Dede, was STILL trespassing on Kaarma's property, then inside his home (garage), in the early hours of April 27, 2014. That meets the requirements of the Castle Doctrine.

    Link.
    Last edited by since9; 12-17-2014 at 11:15 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Sorry, but that case had nothing to do with castle doctrine. Not the way it was set up and not the way it played out.

    http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-103.htm

    45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.

    (2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:

    (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or

    (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.
    It's that only if clause that folks need to pay attention to. In the case cited the best Kaarma thought was going to take place was a simple burglary.

    While SCOTUS has said that cops do not need to know what the law actually is, we mere mortals are still stuck beind that "ignorance is no excuse" stuff.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Now if the law was like I want it to be wherein the guy could have shot anyone on his land with or without cause, he would be free today.
    Really? You want to be able to just shoot anyone on your land with or without cause? School children taking a shortcut? A neighbor retrieving a wiffle ball or frisbee, perhaps a family pet?

    This is what we should be petitioning our gov'ts for ... not "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" that leads to these types of convictions but simple to understand laws that say a land owner has the right to shoot anyone on his land.
    Do you not hear how incredibly insane that sounds? Certifiable.

    Makes the law very simple and easy to understand.
    There are far better ways to keep the law simple without legalizing murder on the basis of real property ownership. Here are five simple steps towards that ideal:

    Step 1: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's an absolute, not conditional.

    Step 2: You cannot shoot someone merely for trespassing.

    Step 3: You can shoot them if they refuse to leave. You must, however, give them reasonable opportunity to do so.

    Step 4: You can shoot them if they're inside your home, provided they do not have a reasonable expectation of being allowed inside your home (invited guest, family member residing with you, emergency responder answering a call, etc.).

    Step 5: You can shoot them anywhere on or off your land if they present a clear and present threat to life, limb, or property, EXCEPT when the individual in question owns property and you're on their property. Then, the ball is in his court, not yours.

    Most people have no idea what they are doing in the jury box.
    That's the first sane comment you've made this thread...

    I would like to see the jury instructions for this case.....anyone have it?
    I'll keep my eyes peeled.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Sorry, but that case had nothing to do with castle doctrine. Not the way it was set up and not the way it played out.
    The author of the article also mentioned how Florida was crossing new grounds with respect to extending the castle law beyond the home, and specifically mentioned the Zimmerman/Martin case. That had everything to do with self-defense, and nothing to do with castle law.

    While SCOTUS has said that cops do not need to know what the law actually is, we mere mortals are still stuck beind that "ignorance is no excuse" stuff.
    How do we change that, skidmark? I strongly suspect if even 1% of Americans wrote their Congressmen often, clearly presenting "SCOTUS says the cops don't need to know the law, so why are we being held to a higher standard?", then Congress would get tired of hearing it and would act. If not, ramp it up to 5%.

    I have repeatedly seen products of my own writing appear in bills. It DOES work.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    ....

    (referencing a comment about SCOTUS ruling that cops do not need to know what the law actually is)

    How do we change that, skidmark? I strongly suspect if even 1% of Americans wrote their Congressmen often, clearly presenting "SCOTUS says the cops don't need to know the law, so why are we being held to a higher standard?", then Congress would get tired of hearing it and would act. If not, ramp it up to 5%.

    I have repeatedly seen products of my own writing appear in bills. It DOES work.
    You are right on target. SCOTUS has said time and time again that if the country is unhappy with how a law was interpreted it should get Congress to repeal that one and write a new one that makes the intent clear(er).

    "No person shall be indicted, charged, or made to stand trial for a charge that is not an actual violation of law, and any such person brought to trial shall have the charge dismissed with prejudice.

    It is the obligation of law enforcement officers to assure that any charge they bring is an actual violation of law, and shall only hold an arrested person in investigative custody for a reasonable time to determine the existence and applicability of the law claiming to have been violated. Failure to verify the existence and applicability of the law for which a charge has been brought shall be prime fascia evidence of gross negligence and indifference; as such it shall void any claim of immunity from civil or criminal prosecution."

    That took me about 3 minutes to dream up and type. (Yes, I type slowly.) Now I need to figure which existing law(s) would be a good vehicle for amending with that little gem. All suggestions and offers of assistance will be welcomed.

    My Congressman probably will consider it.

    My Senators (both of them) will send it as evidence my name should be put on yet another watch list.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    You are right on target. SCOTUS has said time and time again that if the country is unhappy with how a law was interpreted it should get Congress to repeal that one and write a new one that makes the intent clear(er).

    "No person shall be indicted, charged, or made to stand trial for a charge that is not an actual violation of law, and any such person brought to trial shall have the charge dismissed with prejudice.

    It is the obligation of law enforcement officers to assure that any charge they bring is an actual violation of law, and shall only hold an arrested person in investigative custody for a reasonable time to determine the existence and applicability of the law claiming to have been violated. Failure to verify the existence and applicability of the law for which a charge has been brought shall be prime fascia evidence of gross negligence and indifference; as such it shall void any claim of immunity from civil or criminal prosecution."

    That took me about 3 minutes to dream up and type. (Yes, I type slowly.) Now I need to figure which existing law(s) would be a good vehicle for amending with that little gem. All suggestions and offers of assistance will be welcomed.

    My Congressman probably will consider it.
    My Senators (both of them) will send it as evidence my name should be put on yet another watch list.

    stay safe.
    SCOTUS has also stated that they cannot hold a future set of Congress Critters to the acts of our current batch of Congress Critters. Then again, SCOTUS has done a masterful job of dodging the issue of what the meaning of "shall not be infringed" really means.

    The law that I'm pressing my Congress Critter into filing...have the DH banished as not being real baseball, Pittsburgh Steelers sent packing to the CFL, and Nickleback to pay us to listen to them at the same rate a radio station pays them to play their "music."

    I'm sure that the majority of the country will encourage their Congress Critters to support this bill and to urge the POTUS to sign it into law.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member RugarRev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    62
    //snip// Three witnesses testified they heard Kaarma say his house had been burglarized and he'd been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder.//snip

    Convicted by his own words ... or 'here-say'
    Be Safe...RR

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by RugarRev View Post
    //snip// Three witnesses testified they heard Kaarma say his house had been burglarized and he'd been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder.//snip

    Convicted by his own words ... or 'here-say'
    Do you really not understand

    1) it is hearsay, not "here-say"? (You need to put a smiley or some note after something that you want to be read as "cutesy" if there is a possibility it will not be recognised as being "cutesy")

    2) the difference between testifying about what a person said to the person giving testimony and what a person testifying says someone else said someone else said?

    And regardless what neighbors might have testified to/about, Kaarma's behavior did not conform to the exceptions stated in the law.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Do you really not understand

    1) it is hearsay, not "here-say"? (You need to put a smiley or some note after something that you want to be read as "cutesy" if there is a possibility it will not be recognised as being "cutesy")

    2) the difference between testifying about what a person said to the person giving testimony and what a person testifying says someone else said someone else said?

    And regardless what neighbors might have testified to/about, Kaarma's behavior did not conform to the exceptions stated in the law.

    stay safe.
    That is, after all is said and done, the bottom line.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Sorry, but that case had nothing to do with castle doctrine. Not the way it was set up and not the way it played out.

    http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-103.htm
    45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.

    (2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:

    (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or

    (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.



    It's that only if clause that folks need to pay attention to. In the case cited the best Kaarma thought was going to take place was a simple burglary.

    While SCOTUS has said that cops do not need to know what the law actually is, we mere mortals are still stuck beind that "ignorance is no excuse" stuff.

    stay safe.
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    And regardless what neighbors might have testified to/about, Kaarma's behavior did not conform to the exceptions stated in the law.

    stay safe.
    How do you know it does not conform? He said he feared for his life. You may not believe him. But your guess about his belief is hardly proof to make a claim that his behavior did not conform.

    All he knew was he had been robbed before. He did not know if he had been robbed by an unarmed student or a gangsta with an Uzi.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  11. #11
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    It did go to trial, and the homeowner, Kaarma, was found guilty.

    Justice perverted.

    Prosecutors argued Kaarma was intent on luring an intruder into his garage and then harming that person. Source.

    The problem I have with the results is they seem to ignore the FACT that the perp, Diren Dede, was STILL trespassing on Kaarma's property, then inside his home (garage), in the early hours of April 27, 2014. That meets the requirements of the Castle Doctrine.

    Link.
    Just because the court says he did that intentionally, does not mean it is so.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Hunting over bait is against the law in most states.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Hunting over bait is against the law in most states.

    Depending on the state and what one is hunting for. Most is a overly broad statement.

    I am sure you would like to provide a cit for each and very states hunting Regulations
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Depending on the state and what one is hunting for. Most is a overly broad statement.

    I am sure you would like to provide a cit for each and very states hunting Regulations
    Can do.....how much an hour are you paying to expand on this this ?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    One could say Wilson 'lured' Brown by his not following procedure, which directly caused the attack that led to the shooting.

    While the guy may have lured the intruder, the intruder still intruded and was a threat. If we hold this man's feet to the fire, we must hold everybody's feet to the fire, including Wilson.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  16. #16
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430

    Rediculous Reasoning

    So now, any homeowner who accidentally leaves his garage door open, or the sensor doesn't let the garage door close, might be suspected or accused of luring a burglar in?

    Ridiculous!

    My friend has stickers warning any potential thief they will be shot if they try to steal anything. The warning goes on to warn that there is nothing inside worth losing your life over.

    I wonder if that would have made a difference? A warning to thieves that they are risking life and limb.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    It's funny how a biased view point in an article can influence even staunch self defense supporters. The truth is whatever his plans and talk may have been, when someone invaded his home, in the darkness of the garage no one knows if he believed his life was in danger. Whatever the bravado was before, in that darkness with someone invading he probably was ******* himself. I imagine I would be.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    So now, any homeowner who accidentally leaves his garage door open, or the sensor doesn't let the garage door close, might be suspected or accused of luring a burglar in?

    Ridiculous!

    My friend has stickers warning any potential thief they will be shot if they try to steal anything. The warning goes on to warn that there is nothing inside worth losing your life over.

    I wonder if that would have made a difference? A warning to thieves that they are risking life and limb.
    You are rapidly earning a negative reputation, of ignoring reported details when you reply and show a lack of knowledge regarding the law.

    The homeowner placed a purse where it could be seen and waited (baiting or luring), state law does not appear to allow deadly force to protect property.

    Such signage likely would be used as an indicator of premeditation.

    You seriously need to consider why you are here - whether to be a provocateur or a positive contributor.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-19-2014 at 08:48 PM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    This is a bad precedent, while the home owner may have baited that is no excuse for burglary. If the burglar was shot in front and not behind I am inclined to believe the burglar was a threat. Really there is no such thing as baiting, criminal behavior cannot be baited only opportunities can. Either they are a criminal or they are not, if they are not you should be able to stack a million dollars in an open garage. A honest person is not going to touch it.

    However the burglar got there the question is "Was he threat at that moment in time?" Maybe USER can weigh in? He has posted in the past that a threat is a threat.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  20. #20
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    This is a bad precedent, while the home owner may have baited that is no excuse for burglary. If the burglar was shot in front and not behind I am inclined to believe the burglar was a threat. Really there is no such thing as baiting, criminal behavior cannot be baited only opportunities can. Either they are a criminal or they are not, if they are not you should be able to stack a million dollars in an open garage. A honest person is not going to touch it.

    However the burglar got there the question is "Was he threat at that moment in time?" Maybe USER can weigh in? He has posted in the past that a threat is a threat.
    Well, there is an individual who shall remain nameless around that can read peoples minds and intents, so maybe the justice system can hire them to determine any future cases.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Can do.....how much an hour are you paying to expand on this this ?
    I do my own research on states I hunt in.

    paying you has no benefit for me maybe you can find some else to pay you
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    I do my own research on states I hunt in.

    paying you has no benefit for me maybe you can find some else to pay you
    Not likely - you of all people must know that there is very little money to be made in this arena.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    Just because the court says he did that intentionally, does not mean it is so.
    The evidence, and this jack-wagon's own pie hole does say it was intentional.

    But the fact he bragged that he was going to set a trap and shoot someone before hand, used a purse full of cash visible through an open garage door as bait, and setup up motion detectors and even a baby monitor to alert him someone was taking the bait makes it clear he did have every intention of shooting someone.

    He got off light with 10 years.
    Last edited by XD40sc; 12-19-2014 at 10:13 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40sc View Post
    The evidence, and this jack-wagon's own pie hole does say it was intentional.

    But the fact he bragged that he was going to set a trap and shoot someone before hand, used a purse full of cash visible through an open garage door as bait, and setup up motion detectors and even a baby monitor to alert him someone was taking the bait makes it clear he did have every intention of shooting someone.

    He got off light with 10 years.
    So you are saying he forced the burglar to burglar? I agree he had every intention on shooting someone who burglarized his home, but that does not mean the burglar was not a threat.

    I OC with every intention of shooting a threat if it is a threat to me or my family, under what you claim I or you could be charged for baiting or luring. With the intention to shoot if threatened.

    Banks and stores have open doors and cash, are they baiting or luring criminals?
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 12-19-2014 at 10:51 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  25. #25
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    So you are saying he forced the burglar to burglar? I agree he had every intention on shooting someone who burglarized his home, but that does not mean the burglar was not a threat.

    I OC with every intention of shooting a threat if it is a threat to me or my family, under what you claim I or you could be charged for baiting or luring. With the intention to shoot if threatened.

    Banks and stores have open doors and cash, are they baiting or luring criminals?
    Go get your hair cut, and brag to everyone in the shop you are going to bait and shoot a criminal, then go stand beside a building and put a $100 bill on the ground. Shoot the first person that bends over to pick it up. That is basically what this jack-wagon did.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •