>Then you should be able to cite multiple cases

Not really, if it's clear that something is legal it isn't very likely to ever be a criminal case. For instance, can you find a single case where someone picked their nose and wasn't convicted for it?

The law (have you actually read it?) is absolutely clear that it is legal to kill an unarmed intruder in your home, so there are obviously almost no cases in which a homeowner that does so enters the justice system.

You're choice, but I'm telling you the law doesn't automatically provide you with a free ride.

Just like hunting, you don't shoot at moving bushes, or shadows in your home. You must identify your target first. Failure to do so constitutes negligence on your part. Once you see the person, and they are unarmed and making no aggressive action towards them, then you cannot legally shoot them.

I think the disagreement here is I'm telling you what's right and wrong and you are telling me what you could get away with in court

>You're choice, but I'm telling you the law doesn't automatically provide you with a free ride.

Yes, it does. A person legally inside a dwelling has a presumption holding a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary if confronted by a person who is not lawfully inside a dwelling (or car or place of business).

>I'm telling you what's right and wrong and you are telling me what you could get away with in court

I'm telling you what the law explicitly states. You're making incorrect statements about a topic of which you obviously have little knowledge. Google is a terrible legal research tool.

As for negligence, that was the criminal breaking into my house.

As for the court, history has shown if you have the money, a great lawyer, and a judge that plays golf with your lawyer,,, you pretty much have it made.


Screw the criminals, when he entered my has illegally, he gave up all his rights. Let the ACLU get raped, pillaged, and murdered... not me!

I tried it once, I'll try it again..

HB 1097 is the companion bill to HB 89 (also by Representative LaFleur), the NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” bill which created presumptions in law for the use of force against intruders in your home, car or place of business and explicitly states in law that you have no “duty to retreat” from criminal attack if you are in a place where you have a legal right to be.


Castle Doctrine refers to a legal concept derived from English Common Law as it is presently applied in sections of the United States of America. It designates one's home (or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protections from both prying and violent attack. In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.


The opposite of a "castle" principle is the "Duty to Retreat", which is the case in most U.S. Northeastern states, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts[1] (where Castle Doctrine takes effect only within the confines of the 'dwelling'). Castle Doctrine laws in the U.S. are sometimes referred to as the "use of deadly force" [2] or "no retreat" laws, and originate in the home, but are sometimes (depending on the state) extended to the automobile or the business or any place where one has a legal right to be (a campground or park, for example).

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE:

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords, bombs, rockets, and grenades?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you NOT understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.

15 Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their job safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun CRIME control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..." TOTAL BULL ****!!

No I quoted the law, you have done no such thing.

The ACLU won't be going to the slammer (you know why the call the slammer) if you kill an unarmed man.

You are absolutely correct, except a breaking and entering doesn't constitute an attack. Nice of you to highlight where you went wrong in order to save me the trouble.

A big part of the Castle Doctrine and this bill is that it prevents potential victims of having to SECOND guess whether or not an intruder has a gun or a knife.

Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.

Yes, you have every right to defend yourself, but the presence of another person in your home DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY constitute a threat of physical harm against you or your family.

Yes, it does. Please cite one case where it did not.

Now I'm not suggesting you risk your life second guessing by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying you aren't automatically given a free ride just because the shooting victim was in your home.

I have to ask again, have you ever actually read the law you are pretending to know about? it doesn't seem like it.

If so, how do you ever interpret:

"...there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred."

...to mean anything remotely like what you're saying it does?