(/pb)
Is there a benefit (think public optics) to allowing
your enemy to open the front door?
"War-like’ Posture Activated?
Thank you for playing.
Q
CASTLE DOCTRINE?
A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries[which?] invoke comparable principles in their laws.
A person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one's own home. Deadly force may either be justified, the burdens of production and proof for charges impeded, or an affirmative defense against criminal homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in many jurisdictions. Castle doctrines may not provide civil immunity, such as from wrongful death suits, which have a much lower burden of proof.
Justifiable homicide[2] in self-defense which happens to occur inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying a homicide in self-defense. With justifiable homicide in self-defense, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, against all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide in self-defense provision pertaining to one's domicile, it has a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom. The doctrine can be misused as a pretext for extrajudicial punishment in private spaces. The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori and Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Good work! I’ve been wondering about what is meant by “opening the front door” and my best theory is similar to yours. Consider the the difference between
1. Dropping information into the media, knowing it will be ignored/covered-up as much as possible, and
2. Allowing your enemy to set the stage by asking questions that they think incriminate you, only to THEN bring forth your information that devastates their position.
Like the adage “good laywers never as questions in open court they don’t already know the answer to” - which we saw was not followed during Cohen’s testimony, to the embarrassment of the Democrats.
That was small ball- if they “open the right” door, and Q is right that “We have everything”, that could be when the fun really begins.
One difference is, the media is a lot less able to ignore what they initiate. Just like the Covington kids, they now look really bad because they pushed the false narrative to begin with...watch them do it again, because “these people are stupid!”.