Castle Doctrine Under Attack in Montana

[hartcreek]

We just had some idiot point an airsoft at a police officer here a few months ago....it was a dark area outside a car wash and the idiot was in a car with tinted widows. The idiot died on scene.

 

[Quiet]

This case, like the Ersland case a few years ago in OK, and the Byron Smith killings more recently, are HORRIBLE examples for "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" laws. They really do give the "antis" very dramatic ammo to use against us.

Sure you've got a right to make an attempt to stop someone who is stealing from your property (sometimes with force, depending on your state's laws). And you clearly have a right to stop -- with lethal force if necessary -- someone from physically hurting or killing you and your loved ones.

You do NOT have carte blanche to bait a trap, lure someone into your snare, box them in so they can't escape, and execute them for petty theft. That's murder, premeditated.

You can't lure someone into behaving badly -- in a relatively minor way, no less -- and then execute them for taking the bait.

No law in this country gives one person the right to decide that another person will die -- and even the state (who ultimately does hold that power) does not execute anyone for minor crimes like burglary.

This should go without saying, but clearly it is a point lost on many -- often willfully so.

I agree.

 

[95XL883]

Feminist Betty Friedan is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in some circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack.

Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was their Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life.

Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense)

With due respect to Ms. Friedan, Mr. Cuomo and Rev Brockway, they have obviously never been the victim of a violent crime with an accompanying death threat if it was disclosed. (I don't want to go into the details. Even 50+ years later, it is immensely painful.)

From my experience, the victim's life, even if they survive, is essentially over. The way the victim interacts with the world is forever, negatively changed. Experiencing joy in the simple of things of life (a child's smile and laugh, a walk with my wife, etc) is haunted by the realization of how quickly things can go bad. (The perniciousness of this is beyond the scope of this forum. Just be open to the concept that it is more severe than you realize.)

And the evil-doers will continue to do those acts to others, especially if they can do so with impunity.

While I live my life mostly in fear of what may happen, I realize my part is to enjoy life as I can and to not have my fear hamper my family's ability to enjoy life. (I do have an excellent doctor who helps me.) Twice since that event, I have been confronted by others with criminal intent. It was my willingness to resort to the force necessary that stopped those approaches from being full-fledged crimes. (A gas pump pointed at somebody trying to close the distance and my hand on my CCW, without drawing, were sufficient in those instances.) The point of self-defense is to protect the life and/or prevent grave bodily injury of the innocent.

From this victim's perspective, those who would weaken or delete the Castle Doctrine and/or SYG elevate the criminal above the victim and do so from the safety of not being the victim themselves. They would empower the criminal and place an additional burden on the victim. They are morally wrong. The victim has a natural right to appropriately protect themselves.

To protect the victim's right of self-protection, I do watch carefully for whom I vote, I do express my concerns at appropriate times to elected representatives and I do civilly discuss and promote gun ownership and the appropriate use thereof. I am open to learning if there is more that I can do for victim's and prevention.

Thank you for starting this discussion.

 

[GEM]

For the scholarly crowd - Killing in Self-defense (Leverick) is an excellent discussion of the issues of what constitutes self-defense and the interaction with defense of property.

A fundamental premise for many is that taking a life is never a good thing and can only be justified, excused or the circumstances mitigated. Leverick analyzes this viewpoints.

Her summary of the rape issue is that lethal force is justified as:
1. It is topic of debate whether the sex act itself is a lethal threat unless one considers other issues.
2. Such issues can be AIDs or other disease. One cannot predict that lethal threat will not follow the sex act.
3. While debatable by some, the psychological consequences of the sex act can be so traumatic as to be equivalent to a physical maiming. The latter might not be lethal but grave bodily harm is acceptable for lethal self-defense. Grave psychological harm is in the same ballpart.

The use of lethal force to deter other later criminals in other domains is not seen as a defense for the user of lethal force in an inappropriate manner. Most jurisdictions agree with this.

The use of lethal force to protect property is not seen a legitimate by many scholars as taking the life of a person is a greater evil than loss of simple property. She analyzes the argument that certain property crimes can lead to such severe consequences (stealing your horse for farming, your insulin, etc.) that such might be considered as a justification. That leads to things like the TX nighttime laws - but note how they specify the importance of the property as regards replacement.

Pleading insanity - now that is a double edged sword. It is rarely done and rarely works. It has the risk of you being placed in an institution for period of time that might exceed a prison sentence. Those places are not fun. You don't necessarily walk out of court if you were found 'insane'.

Also, beside paying the lawyer, you will have to pay the 'expert'.

Your focus must be on actions to prevent death and grievous bodily harm in the best manner as compared to making a statement as the avenger.

 

[armoredman]

Here is Castle Doctrine that saved a woman's life, last Tuesday.

http://www.guns.com/2014/05/09/ariz...me-invasion-fights-back-shoots-burglar-video/

Excerpt from story

An Arizona woman is still shaken up after a violent attack inside her home where she was forced to shoot her assailant in order to defend herself Tuesday morning.

The 20-year-old suspect broke into the 47-year-old woman’s Phoenix house around 7:20 a.m. But she saw the man coming and prepared by grabbing a gun and hiding in the bathroom, AZ Central reports. When the suspect found her, he assaulted her. The victim fought back and fired a single shot. The round found its target and the suspect collapsed on the floor, injured, but still alive...

Everyone is going to want to know - what caliber did she use for that one shot stop?

 

[ares338]

It's pretty simple for me. Anyone in my house at night that I did not invite is going to get shot as many times as I have bullets to shoot with. You cannot accidentally get into my house. That is conditional on their getting past the 3 110 + lbs canines I have in my yard and the 2 slightly yappy poodles I have in the house. Whatever happens after that I cannot control but everything up to that I can.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ares338: Anyone in my house at night that I did not invite is going to get shot as many times as I have bullets to shoot with.

It might not prove very beneficial to a defense of justification to have that statement admitted into evidence after a use of force incident.

Should the forensic evidence indicate that an intruder had been shot while retreating, and/or that some of the shots had been fired after the intruder no longer presented a threat, such a statement could seal the fate of the defender.

 

[patmccoy]

Here is an interesting editorial from Gary Marbut, President of Montana Shooting sports Association, and a leader in Montana gun law changes.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/ar...a-s-self-defense-law-clarified?nclick_check=1

 

[PedalBiker]

Posts: 26,489

Quote:
These people may grudgingly accept that perhaps police officers may be forced to take a life in self defense or defense of others, but they in no way condone the action and deep down, believe such action should be avoided. Yes, it may be that someone will die, but they believe no one has the right to choose who will live or who will die. So if threatened with death, one should do everything possible to avoid that fate without inflicting the same fate upon another.
In truth, this doesn't fall far outside the way that modern morality (as codified by self defense law) sees things. No matter what your circumstances you do not have the right to DECIDE the life or death of another

From my experience, the victim's life, even if they survive, is essentially over. The way the victim interacts with the world is forever, negatively changed. Experiencing joy in the simple of things of life (a child's smile and laugh, a walk with my wife, etc) is haunted by the realization of how quickly things can go bad. (The perniciousness of this is beyond the scope of this forum. Just be open to the concept that it is more severe than you realize.)

The anti self defense folks just don't really get it. The mere fact that they outlaw self defense condemns more people to violent death and life changing events committed by criminals. The number of criminals killed in the US is fairly small, the amount of crime reduced by an armed populace and "castle doctrine" laws is far larger.

I sort of understand their moral arguments the "turn the other cheek" and such, but they are salving their conscience on the backs of others who might just rather live unmolested. That is what I find unforgivable. It's one thing to sacrifice your life for your conscience, it's another item entirely to sacrifice the lives of others for your conscience. In fact, I consider it to be a form of murder.

 

[JRH6856]

It's one thing to sacrifice your life for your conscience, it's another item entirely to sacrifice the lives of others for your conscience. In fact, I consider it to be a form of murder.

Well said!

 

[barnbwt]

"In truth, this doesn't fall far outside the way that modern morality (as codified by self defense law) sees things. No matter what your circumstances you do not have the right to DECIDE the life or death of another"
Which is why you can claim a defender is deciding the life or death of themselves, which is why we shoot to "stop" as opposed to "maim or kill." The goal is not retaliation (let alone justice) but to stay alive, by the only means feasible. Taken further, there is no choice at all, since the survival instinct is just that, an instinct, and separable from human morality. But that argument might be rhetorically weaker with a crowd that believes basic human nature can be modified/controlled through legislation

TCB

 

[JRH6856]

a crowd that believes basic human nature can be modified/controlled through legislation

Sometimes it can be, but not always in the way they anticipate. I'm sure the current administration and certain senators did not expect their proposed legislation to result in a dramatic rise in gun sales and an increase in the number of gun owners. Nor did the Connecticut legislature or governor expect their new registration requirements to be ignored to such an extent. But then again, maybe this is neither a modifucation or a control of human nature, but rather a misreading of it.

 

[barnbwt]

The attempted control is that of the impulse for self preservation; the reaction we are seeing is a response to perceived threats by gunowners, i.e. their self-preservation instinct . Legislation didn't accomplish a darned thing in that regard, just spurred people to find an outlet to express their response. In fact, I'd say the recent bloom of 'survival' culture is the direct result of government/societal attempts to further constrain people during a lean time, ironically out the same fears the survival nuts have (Looterama™).

Every action begets a reaction, the stronger of the two dictating the course of history . The gunnie response to events has been indisputably stronger over the last decade or so.

TCB

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Kaarma case is discussed here. See post 162 for the latest news.