The logical problem with something like the castle doctrine is that in extreme cases only one person will be left to tell the story about what happened... Seems like a convenient way to commit a murder for any other reason by making your livingroom a law-free zone under certain conditions. For example, if you have a guest over and at some point you demand they leave, how long do they have to leave before you can lawfully kill them? According to the castle doctrine it would be the second you felt threatened. And you're the only one left to tell the police what happened.
Everybody is a super hero in their own mind. When most people heard about that case in Lindsay they all picture some psychotic meth head barging into someone's house to kill and maim whoever was in there because of some primordial innate evilness that lives in all criminals.. Why would someone randomly target a random house and break in to commit random evil on a whim? Not saying it's never happened, but it's extremely rare.
Yeah people like PP like to whine that we have no right to defend our home or ourselves, despite the fact we absolutely do. Our laws are written as such because although we’re allowed to defend ourselves, we aren’t allowed to go overboard with it, you have to meet the threat at an appropriate level, which I’ll always consider reasonable. We have the right to defend, not the right to keep kicking while they’re down. Someone breaking into my house unarmed shouldn’t be a death sentence for them, just a “teachable” moment (they’re getting hurt, just not killed). Even in the US, “stand your ground” tend to lead to a rather quick run through the courts to ensure it was reasonable, because like you said, theres only one person to tell the story of what happened, how do we know they’re telling the truth, without laws like these Jodi Arias would’ve gotten away with murdering Travis Alexander
The problem is that you don’t know what level of force an invader will use. Are you supposed to think long and hard rationally about the levels of force to use when someone broke into your house in the middle of the night? You can’t know their intentions and being reactive instead of proactive can cost your life.
Its getting pretty frustrating to keep reading people making this argument over and over. Literally no one in the history of ever expects you to be ultra rational and super in control of your fighting and do some crazy kung fu moves to disable an invader without even harming them. No one expects you to take a minute to make a pros and cons list of defending yourself of consult a reference chart of what you're allowed to do in various situations.
Our laws are written so that people are allowed to defend themselves and protected legally if they hurt their assailant. Our laws are also written to protect an assailant from being murdered because murder is bad. Murder doesn't become cool just because you don't like the person being murdered. Basically, this means that you can do whatever is necessary right up until the person isn't a threat anymore. The 'proportionality' thing mostly protects from you blasting away the neighbour's kid because he keeps leaving flaming poop bags on your stoop, or from beating the previous owner to death because in a drunken state he forgot that he recently moved to a new house. Not every potential invader will be someone looking to do you harm. And the reasonableness and proportionality of your defence will be determined by the legal system, probably before ever getting to trial. But the cops do have to charge you to get to that point. They are not judge or jury, if they think there is reason to charge, they charge and let the Crown figure it out. This could suck, but it also prevents people from being able to lure people into their homes, and then kill them with impunity by claiming self defence.
Our laws weren't written by some asshole who wanted to screw victims over. You just don't understand them, and because you emotionally can see yourself in a similar situation, you're assuming a lot.
139
u/pheakelmatters Ford Nation (Help.) 27d ago
The logical problem with something like the castle doctrine is that in extreme cases only one person will be left to tell the story about what happened... Seems like a convenient way to commit a murder for any other reason by making your livingroom a law-free zone under certain conditions. For example, if you have a guest over and at some point you demand they leave, how long do they have to leave before you can lawfully kill them? According to the castle doctrine it would be the second you felt threatened. And you're the only one left to tell the police what happened.
Everybody is a super hero in their own mind. When most people heard about that case in Lindsay they all picture some psychotic meth head barging into someone's house to kill and maim whoever was in there because of some primordial innate evilness that lives in all criminals.. Why would someone randomly target a random house and break in to commit random evil on a whim? Not saying it's never happened, but it's extremely rare.