This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
TGLS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:56 pm
The argument, if I understand it, is the Castle Doctrine can be applied in this case, if the defendant was mistaken and thought it was her house.
Which is madness. That turns the Castle Doctrine into a licence to murder, which I'm pretty sure isn't what anyone had in mind.
Especially since the more cynical among us might suspect that such an interpretation would never be extended to someone who wasn't a cop.
An irate gamer Swatted someone he lost a bet to and the cops accidentally killed the victim. A facebook thread contained a bunch of people talking about how high pressure a SWAT officer's job is. And it's like, no, innocent people don't just die due to the pressure of the job.
Irate gamer is ahole so I can believe him Swatting some one for petty reason like that.
"In the embrace of the great Nurgle, I am no longer afraid, for with His pestilential favour I have become that which I once most feared: Death.."
- Kulvain Hestarius of the Death Guard
Dude, I'm as pro-gun as they come, but even I think the application of castle doctrine is way off base here. As I said, it's supposed to apply to your own home, the idea being that if someone is coming after you into your own home, you can assume they are trying to kill you or otherwise cause grievous bodily harm, and thus use deadly force to defend yourself without any expectation of further retreat. If anyone should have been able to use castle doctrine, it would be the guy she shot since she was the one in his home. I really hope the jury calls bullshit on this since the judge apparently couldn't.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
Perhaps the judge was thinking to avoid an appeal on the ground of excluding the Castle Doctrine as a defense tactic. Other than that I can't wrap my head around how it would apply. The courts will give the defense a lot of leeway sometimes, but this is really out there.
Admiral X wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:51 am
Dude, I'm as pro-gun as they come, but even I think the application of castle doctrine is way off base here. As I said, it's supposed to apply to your own home, the idea being that if someone is coming after you into your own home, you can assume they are trying to kill you or otherwise cause grievous bodily harm, and thus use deadly force to defend yourself without any expectation of further retreat. If anyone should have been able to use castle doctrine, it would be the guy she shot since she was the one in his home. I really hope the jury calls bullshit on this since the judge apparently couldn't.
Nope, sorry. You gun crowd opened the door on killing people within residences with impunity, now you gotta deal with it.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:15 pmNope, sorry. You gun crowd opened the door on killing people within residences with impunity, now you gotta deal with it.
Yeah, everyone knows Sir Edward Coke was a raving gun lunatic.
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
I think that fits - she showed reckless disregard for human life. I could have seen manslaughter, too, but this was such an extreme degree that I think murder is the better charge to convict on.
