Posted on 02/06/2006 11:35:25 AM PST by neverdem
The law says you must act like a coward. In your own home. Even when your life is threatened.
Many states have criminal-friendly "duty to retreat" laws. A victim in his house is mandated to retreat from an attacker until he is cornered. Only then is the prey allowed to use lethal force on the predator. Prosecutors in those states have been known to victimize the victim (such as charging him with manslaughter) who prefers to fire back rather than to back off.
The National Rifle Association has been trying to end the insanity state by state.
Florida came to its senses last year. It enacted a law based on the "Castle Doctrine" -- that one's home is one's castle. A person now is not legally required to be hunted down room by room by an intruder before the victim pulls the trigger. The law allows the victim to shoot back without fear of being prosecuted for being overzealous about protecting his life. And it prohibits criminals from suing their more aggressive victims. All their victims, actually.
"Somebody should not be twice victimized, first by the assailant and then by the legal system trying to destroy his life," says Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, the largest organization representing gun owners after the NRA.
But the Florida law does more.
Car-jackers beware; now one's car is his mobile castle. And better still, if a victim is not in a home or car, now he legally can use deadly force. Sunshine State criminals without a death wish might want to consider career counseling. Or take Horace Greeley's advice to go west. But if they do, they had better hurry.
Wyoming is the latest battleground. The NRA is lobbying there and in 11 other states to repeal duty-to-retreat laws...
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
I draw a different line. If I'm not home, the cretin can take whatever he wishes. I have insurance. If I'm home, he dies...not because he is stealing my junk, but because he poses a threat to the safety of myself and my loved ones.
I'm a terrific snap shot. I grew up hunting quail in the chapparal in Southern California. The little chickens take off with a whir of wings, and you have just about a second to take them before they dive into another bush. I rarely missed.
That's why I arm myself with a shotgun, rather than a pistol. My 870 shoots where I think it to shoot. It hits my shoulder ready to fire at what I'm thinking of hitting. I cannot do that with a pistol.
I guess, I should just go out and kill the guy that speeds and cuts me off on the highway too, because 20 miles down the road, he may run into someone?
Yes, I kill poisonous snakes. Most thieves, if not armed, will do what you tell them, if you have a weapon trained on them.
"Not me. Too cumbersome. Buy a Sig P226 .40 S&W with laser grips. Much more effective at short range."
Not so, by any means. See my message above. I would choose any scattergun for home defense over any handgun. Period.
Maryland is one.
That is ridiculous. Did you read anything I wrote?
you are correct... we are different: I know what money is.
my next TV, when I get around to it, shall cost about $2,000.00USD
call that 250 working hours spent to aquire that sum (minus Uncle's cut).
call that five weeks of my productive life, gone, essentially enslaved to the whim of a thief.
when a man breaks into my home and enslaves me, he becomes a tyrant and loses all claims to a right to my sufferance of his existence.
death to such a tyrant.
so should it ever be for tyrants.
And the part about my .44 trained on him? If there is no threat to life, I won't shoot..as I said, the cost of repair, cleanup, and legal fees, would not be worth what he was stealing.
actually in law school we were taught there is no duty to retreat INSIDE your home. Castle doctrine. You do not surrender your castle.
But when did the law ever hinder the left.
I'm a little sour on thieves.
once upon a time, I had my bike stolen when it was my only means of rapid independent transportation. Made living rather persnickety for a while. I've been sour on thieves ever since.
about the only thief I'm prepared to slightly condone is one who steals food from a grocery store from sheer hunger. all the rest? death.
Why?
"Why?"
A .44" hole is nowhere near as lethal as a 2" hole. That's about the size hole a magnum load of #4 shot makes at a typical range inside a home. Virtually anywhere on the torso is a fatal shot and an immediate knockdown, and I can guarantee placement at the center of the torso.
It's a matter of choice, of course.
So you are going to steam clean and pressure wash floors, walls and ceilings with muriatic acid?
I know a lot of cops, (one of whom is a Chief of Police and personal friend,) and they all carry Glocks or Sigs in .40 S&W or .357 Sig. I wonder why. Maybe they're just stooopid. Eh?
You sound exactly like my economics professor. : )
Yeah, it's a matter of personal choice, I suppose. I could use my 1911, but I've decided on the Remington instead. I'm considering a Mossberg with an 18" barrel, though. They're cheap enough and very reliable shooters. Still, given the layout of my home, it doesn't really matter. It's small, and the setup works just fine with the shotgun I have on hand.
Another factor is my wife. She's not at all comfortable with the 1911, although she can shoot it fairly accurately. The shotgun, on the other hand, doesn't bother her, and she's quite good at stationary targets with it. She does complain about the recoil, but she won't have to fire it too many times, and in that situation, she won't even notice it.
I've run through some tactical drills with her in the house, so she won't be facing an unknown situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.