trooper
Member
@pdmoderator
Oops, then I misunderstood what the castle doctrine was all about. BTW over here you are not obliged to retreat first. It might be tactically smarter in some instances but legally you don't have to retreat one millimeter if you are the target of an unlawful attack, no matter if you are in your own home or in public. The idea is that a law-abiding citizen has every right to stand his ground, and that this fundamental right is more important than possible injuries of the attacker that might result from a self-defense action.
What I meant was that you can only assume violent intentions on the attackers part if he makes a definite aggressive move or shows other sure signs that telegraph an immediate attack. A simple case of trespassing is not considered enough.
Oh, and there is no such thing like a civil liability for injuries sustained by a criminal in a self-defense encounter...
@Atticus
I don't find a negative thing about John Wayne But you know what his name stands for in liberal circles... My friend isn't really a typical liberal, he is more of an authoritarian (sp?). In his opinion most people are stupid, self-centered, unpredictable and potentially murderous and therefore need to be protected from themselves by a strong police state. His arguments get a little fuzzy when it comes to why the police is any more trustworthy than "civilians"...
He used to call me Tackleberry when we were in basic training.
Regards,
Trooper
Oops, then I misunderstood what the castle doctrine was all about. BTW over here you are not obliged to retreat first. It might be tactically smarter in some instances but legally you don't have to retreat one millimeter if you are the target of an unlawful attack, no matter if you are in your own home or in public. The idea is that a law-abiding citizen has every right to stand his ground, and that this fundamental right is more important than possible injuries of the attacker that might result from a self-defense action.
What I meant was that you can only assume violent intentions on the attackers part if he makes a definite aggressive move or shows other sure signs that telegraph an immediate attack. A simple case of trespassing is not considered enough.
Oh, and there is no such thing like a civil liability for injuries sustained by a criminal in a self-defense encounter...
@Atticus
I don't find a negative thing about John Wayne
But you know what his name stands for in liberal circles... My friend isn't really a typical liberal, he is more of an authoritarian (sp?). In his opinion most people are stupid, self-centered, unpredictable and potentially murderous and therefore need to be protected from themselves by a strong police state. His arguments get a little fuzzy when it comes to why the police is any more trustworthy than "civilians"...He used to call me Tackleberry when we were in basic training.
Regards,
Trooper
