I can't believe they did it !

[Industrial Toys]

We are in Canada. We can probably be charged with HATE crimes if we aren't polite to criminals.

 

[paulfun9]

We are in Canada. We can probably be charged with HATE crimes if we aren't polite to criminals.

This is what’s wrong with the world.

Boby was such a nice boy, he was the father of my grandchild (born of a teenage pregnancy who is on welfare because he can’t support the child) he doesn’t do drugs (only because he don’t let me see him do them) he never did anything like this before (only because he never got caught before) now what is his life worth because I am going to sue you for killing him.
A smart jury would return with a verdict demanding the mother pay the amount of welfare the teenage mother will need to raise the orphaned child and cover all costs associated with the courts.

 

[goeduck]

We are in Canada. We can probably be charged with HATE crimes if we aren't polite to criminals.

Do you have to make them breakfast if you find them in your house in the middle of the night? Or dinner?

 

[goeduck]

This is why having a castle doctrine is so important. How in the world can someone safely decide in a split second if someone will do you harm or not in the middle of the night when you just woke from a sleep. A castle doctrine simply says if they broke in you can and should automatically assume they are there to do you harm. I don稚 know how much people actually understand timing in attack but even the precious second you might have being wasted trying to decide could prove deadly for you. So not hav8ng to decide is the safest for any homeowner and puts the responsibility where it belongs on the dumb **** who broke in.

We do not have Castle but here is what a gun rights attorney writes in his blog:

One of the most common questions asked by responsible gun owners pertains to the "Castle Doctrine." Although this sounds really technical, Washington law does not technically have a "Castle Doctrine," Instead Washington law talks about the duty to retreat or lack thereof. In reality, what the law states is that people who are lawfully in a place, have no duty to retreat. Without a duty to retreat, one might have the right to protect themselves depending on the amount of force they are threatened with.

One reason deadly force is often justified when encountering home invaders, is that it is reasonable to believe that one is in imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death when your home is invaded. While they may only be there to steal property (which cannot be prevented with deadly force under Washington law) one does not have to wait to see what an intruder's true intentions are before taking defensive action.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Mine used fewer words: You can be right and you can be dead right.




It's always the quiet guys you have to watch closely.




TBS

My own version of that saying is this: "Being right will not always get you where you want to go".

 

[ovrszd]

This is why having a castle doctrine is so important. How in the world can someone safely decide in a split second if someone will do you harm or not in the middle of the night when you just woke from a sleep. A castle doctrine simply says if they broke in you can and should automatically assume they are there to do you harm. I don稚 know how much people actually understand timing in attack but even the precious second you might have being wasted trying to decide could prove deadly for you. So not hav8ng to decide is the safest for any homeowner and puts the responsibility where it belongs on the dumb **** who broke in.

I agree.

 

[paulfun9]

We do not have Castle but here is what a gun rights attorney writes in his blog:

One of the most common questions asked by responsible gun owners pertains to the "Castle Doctrine." Although this sounds really technical, Washington law does not technically have a "Castle Doctrine," Instead Washington law talks about the duty to retreat or lack thereof. In reality, what the law states is that people who are lawfully in a place, have no duty to retreat. Without a duty to retreat, one might have the right to protect themselves depending on the amount of force they are threatened with.

One reason deadly force is often justified when encountering home invaders, is that it is reasonable to believe that one is in imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death when your home is invaded. While they may only be there to steal property (which cannot be prevented with deadly force under Washington law) one does not have to wait to see what an intruder's true intentions are before taking defensive action.

The inbetween of those laws is what makes you so vulnerable to a lawsuit. The castle doctrine spells out the specifics and takes the guess work out of which way the system will look at what happened. It also spells out that the perpetrator gave up any right to sue the moment they broke in.

 

[Sigarms]

"Being right will not always get you where you want to go".

THAT is a good one:thumbsup:

 

[groundcover]

Many years ago my aunt woke up to a burger in her bedroom ( on the beach, Staten Island).
She sat up and screamed “ Get out of my house with those sandy feet !” The guy was so shocked that he jumped out of the 2nd floor window!

Many years after that my Uncle was stabbed to death standing on his steps after answering the doorbell, nobody ever caught or charged.

 

[Industrial Toys]

I had to think of how we grew up with heros, none of which we ever saw run from a conflict. John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson. Hard to think that running away, might be the best option.