Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Crompsin
Correct me if I'm stupid, but that's the whole intent of the Castle Doctrine legislation and the whole home invasion issue: DON'T DO IT. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. YOU MIGHT DIE. Why do we feel like people that violate the rights of others to such a huge degree need such outlandish protections from the rather natural consequences of this type of crime? I'm all for the "guilty until proven innocent" bit in court, but if somebody I don't know just smashed my garage window and is in my living room holding something that could be a lethal weapon... I figure his rights just evaporated until the circumstances change. I won't go down stairs with guns blazing but I won't feel any remorse for killing him should I have to shoot. Nobody shoots a gun to wound an attacker. A firearm is a lethal weapon and should be treated and used as such. If I have to shoot somebody? They're going to die. Do I like this? Not at all. Am I okay with this in self-defense? Certainly.
Remember now: With everything in the legal world (and life in general), these Castle Doctrines have to be applied to the least common denominator of those who would have to use them. Most women and the elderly aren't inclined to wrestle young male intruders. It's cool to be all bravado-balls and talk about home invasions where you'll Jackie Chan some guy in the dark... but let's be realistic here. American Gladiators we are not. You and I aren't the only type of person on the planet... combative males. Home invading bad guys would be wise to target the single moms and lonely grandmas of the world and the law has to work for the defense option that these type of people can exercise...
i.e.: Chock-chock-BANG.
Don't get me wrong: I really do believe in the supreme value of human life. I don't want to hurt anybody. I also believe, however, said value fluctuates based on choices. |
Lots of good points there.
I understand completely that castle doctrine is intended to have a deterrant effect, and I suspect that the primary results of castle doctrine, after a couple of well publicized court cases, will be to 1) Increase the number of firearms in private homes, and 2) lower the instances of buglary and home invasion. The secondary results are going to be 1) a spike in accidental shootings in the home as people who have absolutely no idea how to use a gun or keep one well or safely come into frequent contact with them (Which, incidentally, I am fine with - ignorance of one's limitations is Darwin's favorite trait), and 2) and increase in the deadliness of burglaries and home invasions. If you might get shot, then there's no reason not to kill everyone in the house and then take all their stuff, oh, and the girl's cute, so we might as well have some fun before we shoot her - that sort of thing. That's the kind of unintended consequence that could bite you in the ass. And there is at least one more that I don't feel like putting the brainpower into finding.
Now, don't get me wrong; I am all in favor of castle doctrine. I just prefer to look at it from all sides.
If I come across as internet tough guy, by the way, it is in the nature of making sure that I have the right mind set to be a 10 cent Jackie Chan if the occasion arises. If you don't think about what do do ahead of time, then you have to think about it when there is no time.
Point taken about the least common denominator, though. Small women and little old people. And there's unintended consequence #3 - consider the armed with Alzheimers. The folks who make a drive through produce marked with the biggest hand cannon available. You want from amusing? Consider - burglar breaks in. Granny Hudgins with her brand spanking new Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 magnum lifts and fires, killing the burglar, but because of bone loss the kickback takes off both her hands and knocks the gun into her chest cracking her sternum and killing her. Now that's comedy. (I know, she probably wouldn't be able to lift, let alone aim, but I'm shooting for absurd here.)
On the whole, though, you are very much right.