YOu have to be told you're trespassing before you're trespassing. You have to be given the opportunity to leave, especially if you haven't entered their home. Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground is clear on that. And those acts don't allow you to actually kill someone that's on your property. They have to present themselves as a clear threat to you/your family and even then, you can only 'maim' them. If they're inside your house, you can kill them.
And you have to make every attempt to get them to leave without using a firearm, including calling 911, etc.
If the person charged at them with like a knife or something, then yeah, you could make the case that it was a justified shooting, but if they were just taking a sign, it's not really a good excuse to kill someone.
Well, that all depends on where you are. Unfortunately, Washington doesn't have a castle doctrine law which is sad because I believe you have every right to defend yourself and your property using any means necessary. We have a 2A for that reason. In either case, if you read the article in full as I did, it clearly states that the owner of the sign got into an argument with the perpetrator, and when the police arrive the person was found dead on their driveway. That right away tells you that the person trying to take the sign was given ample opportunity to leave but instead refused to. I'm guessing instead got into a fight (yes fight was mentioned several times) with the owner.
Look, we have a few dynamics going on here:
First off, this article is clearly from an MSM source and I already see it's brainwashing a few people on here. The headline of it alone reflects an Anti-2A agenda by making it seem that someone got shot over just a sign. Now I'm no lawyer but I'm looking at the bigger picture here and the bigger picture I see is there's trespassing, theft, and now that I read the article again attempted assault from the perpetrator.
Second: As I said before...There have people who (mainly from the left) have been way overstepping their boundaries. They haven't been held accountable for any of their actions and have had DA's and other organizations bailing them out of jail every time they do something wrong. So they built up this ideology that they have the right to destroy anything they don't agree with (Especially in places like Washington). I feel functional individuals should just drive by and ignore the sign if they don't agree with it. Hell, you can bitch about it to your friend in the car or go and post something online if you like, but know your limits.
That's not entirely true.
YOu have to be told you're trespassing before you're trespassing. You have to be given the opportunity to leave, especially if you haven't entered their home. Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground is clear on that. And those acts don't allow you to actually kill someone that's on your property. They have to present themselves as a clear threat to you/your family and even then, you can only 'maim' them. If they're inside your house, you can kill them.
And you have to make every attempt to get them to leave without using a firearm, including calling 911, etc.
If the person charged at them with like a knife or something, then yeah, you could make the case that it was a justified shooting, but if they were just taking a sign, it's not really a good excuse to kill someone.
Well, that all depends on where you are. Unfortunately, Washington doesn't have a castle doctrine law which is sad because I believe you have every right to defend yourself and your property using any means necessary. We have a 2A for that reason. In either case, if you read the article in full as I did, it clearly states that the owner of the sign got into an argument with the perpetrator, and when the police arrive the person was found dead on their driveway. That right away tells you that the person trying to take the sign was given ample opportunity to leave but instead refused to. I'm guessing instead got into a fight (yes fight was mentioned several times) with the owner. Look, we have a few dynamics going on here: First off, this article is clearly from an MSM source and I already see it's brainwashing a few people on here. The headline of it alone reflects an Anti-2A agenda by making it seem that someone got shot over just a sign. Now I'm no lawyer but I'm looking at the bigger picture here and the bigger picture I see is there's trespassing, theft, and now that I read the article again attempted assault from the perpetrator. Second: As I said before...There have people who (mainly from the left) have been way overstepping their boundaries. They haven't been held accountable for any of their actions and have had DA's and other organizations bailing them out of jail every time they do something wrong. So they built up this ideology that they have the right to destroy anything they don't agree with (Especially in places like Washington). I feel functional individuals should just drive by and ignore the sign if they don't agree with it. Hell, you can bitch about it to your friend in the car or go and post something online if you like, but know your limits.