1099
Comments (212)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
13
Jon888 13 points ago +14 / -1

You shouldn't have to. But even if there is no castle doctrine you still have a right to defend yourself against an armed intruder with lethal force if a reasonable person would believe his life is in danger. And dead men cannot testify against you. But the cops can, don't talk to the cops, let your lawyer talk to the cops.

5
marishiten 5 points ago +5 / -0

What if the intruder isn't armed but has broken into your home? What if you don't know if they have a weapon? You gonna ask them if they have one? Or are you going to neutralize the threat?

I'm not going to wait and threat asses for 10 minutes before I determine to open fire. I'm going to determine if that person is authorized to be there or not and if not, I'm going to neutralize them.

I'm not going to play 20 questions with a burglar.

1
Yaemz123 1 point ago +2 / -1

The intruder was obviously there to kill my wife and rape my dog. I had to shoot him to prevent animal abuse! Also to keep my wife alive. How else would I ever get sammiches?

1
Jon888 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well the jury would be out on that. It would be a risky shot without the castle doctrine.

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
2
DonJr24 2 points ago +2 / -0

Clearly you have never lived in a blue shithole. Fear for your life is practically non-existant as a defense in those places.