Finally, a law in Israel that makes sense

[gdvir of IDF]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3559940,00.html

Forgive my excitement, I've been waiting for something like this for a long time.

My home was broken into two weeks ago, and if I was there at the time, I would have been in jail now.

The strangest thing about this law is who's against it:

1. Ministers of SHAS (religious party claiming to protect the rights of the poor) were quoted as saying "This law will cause hungry children who break into a bakery to be shot by the owner.:rolleyes:

2. Ministers of the Arab parties were quoted as saying "It is a racist law that is meant to allow Jewish homeowners to shoot Arabs with impunity".:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Tracy]

Forgive my excitement, I've been waiting for something like this for a long time.

My home was broken into two weeks ago, and if I was there at the time, I would have been in jail now.

The strangest thing about this law is who's against it:

1. Ministers of SHAS (religious party claiming to protect the rights of the poor) were quoted as saying "This law will cause hungry children who break into a bakery to be shot by the owner.

2. Ministers of the Arab parties were quoted as saying "It is a racist law that is meant to allow Jewish homeowners to shoot Arabs with impunity".

Welcome to our world... :D

[gdvir of IDF]

Yeah, now all that's missing is the right to actually own firearms.;)

But I guess a knife is just as good. or a baseball bat.

[NightLandNav]

"Oh, those poor little bread thieves, whatever will we do?"

What gets me, still, after all these years... is the complete lack of any apparent ability to make a valid dissenting argument.

Always the same, one fallacious Appeal after another.

They intentionally foster ignorance.

For those of you who've been following other threads...the lack of logic is the grease that keeps "de facto" theocratic systems working.

That an example would would be provided by their own mouths soon enough to better make the point...was a safe bet.


And just in case someone wants to assert that Israel is a "de facto" theocratic system... think about it awhile, the differences will come to you.


gdvir, stay sharp over there.

[SOTB]

This law will cause hungry children who break into a bakery to be shot by the owner.Well, there is nothing like teaching children early the importance of "cause and effect" and right and wrong."It is a racist law that is meant to allow Jewish homeowners to shoot Arabs with impunity.Hmm, seems to ME, that it is a law that allows Jewish homeowners to shoot CRIMINALS with impunity. Or does the law require the homeowner to identify the nationality of the intruder before firing? Or are the Arabs stating that only Arabs are thieves?....now all that's missing is the right to actually own firearms.This demonstrates how little I know about Israel, because I was not aware you guys were not allowed to own firearms....

[TPD1280]

However, not all Knesset members shared Katz's view. MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz) said that "burglars are criminals, but citizens cannot execute burglars…it is unthinkable to have property rights surpass the right to life. Israel will become the only country that imposes the death penalty for property offences."

I'm going to stir up a hornets nest here, but I have to agree with this statement.

I am pro-capital punishment, and believe that criminals should be punished, and have seen first hand that rehabilitation is a pipe dream.

The arguments of shooting hungry children and racism are just a bunch of emotional drama.

The real question is are you really going to shoot someone over your television?

I will, without question, confront any burglar in my home with a locked and loaded weapon in my hand aimed at their ten ring. They can drop the shit and run, they can stay right where they are and wait for the police. Either way is fine with me.

Should they choose to arm themselves, brandish a weapon or advance with the intent of disarming me, THEY ARE NO LONGER BURGLARS, THEY ARE ASSAILANTS.

That's the difference.

Washington State law allows the use of deadly force to protect property, but I guarantee you the first time somebody shoots a 16 year old, piece of shit or not, over a car stereo with no articulable threat to their own safety, the shooter is going to be the one on trial.

[Richman]

I'll shoot. Let them prove that I didn't fear for my (or my family's) safety. As far as anybody knows, the perpetrator broke into my home and we were threatened. The only thing is that in today's legal mess, I would probably be sued by the perpetrator for some reason (unless he was dead, then his family might sue). I wish Washington was more like Texas.

[Guy]

The real question is are you really going to shoot someone over your television?YES! That way the next SOB knows what a "DO NOT TRESPASS!" sign means.:cool:

Stay safe.

[Richman]

YES! That way the next SOB knows what a "DO NOT TRESPASS!" sign means.:cool:

Stay safe.

Why the hell do we need a "DO NOT TRESSPASS" sign for? A locked door, locked window, fence, manicured lawn, or gate is "sign" enough that the SOB was not on public property.

[Greenhat]

"Life, Liberty, and Property"

That's what the original said. I agree with it.

Someone wants what is mine? They better be willing to die for it...

[NightLandNav]

Use of deadly force... I will part with more than a few things around here. They can begin with the junk in that back hall closet for starters, just don't track up the carpet.

But if the "burglars" start taking shit like, the flat screen TV...then they are going to assault me, because I'm not reprogramming that damn TV-Cable bullshit again.
...as long as I can keep my wits, not overreact, or over-act... It's plausible that I won't be convicted of a triple-homicide over a flat screen TV.

Man, there's allot to consider once you start thinking about it. When did killin' people get so complicated? :rolleyes:;)


Within the law, it up to each of us to govern ourselves accordingly with the remaining freedoms.

That's why they keep passing new laws...too many people don't comprehend that last part. ...so it whittles away, bit by bit.

[BOFH]

The real question is are you really going to shoot someone over your television?


Absolutely. I work for everything I own, and I WILL defend my property.

[gdvir of IDF]

This demonstrates how little I know about Israel, because I was not aware you guys were not allowed to own firearms.

Guns are allowed, you just have to apply for a license (and I'm not sure you can have more than one).

The catch is, unless you are an active duty soldier (which I am no longer), a member of police/security services (which I am not) or live in settlements that are under a very real terrorist threat (near the border, Gaza, Hebron etc. which I thankfully don't), there is a very small chance that your application will be approved.
The whole concept of the citizen's individual security is viewed through the prism of preventing terrorism ("Do you live in a dangerous area? then what do you need a gun for?").
There are exceptions of course.

So in general, the average citizen would have a very difficult time acquiring a firearm, we don't have a right to bear arms.
The criminals don't seem to share the same problem:(

I'm going to stir up a hornets nest here, but I have to agree with this statement
The point is not what the burglar was planning to do - steal my TV, rape my daughter, murder me and my family, I don't care... when someone breaks into your home it's not for a good cause.
And I certainly don't want to wait until he draws a gun to know that I'm in enough danger to respond.

[Richman]

The point is not what the burglar was planning to do - steal my TV, rape my daughter, murder me and my family, I don't care... when someone breaks into your home it's not for a good cause.
And I certainly don't want to wait until he draws a gun to know that I'm in enough danger to respond.

x1 billion. - - EXACTLY!

[Terminator2]

This demonstrates how little I know about Israel, because I was not aware you guys were not allowed to own firearms....

Same here. I was under the impression it was like Switzerland. What's the actual law there in Israel, gdivr?

[SN]

.
The real question is are you really going to shoot someone over your television?

Yes I will, enter my house, get shot. period.


.Washington State law allows the use of deadly force to protect property, but I guarantee you the first time somebody shoots a 16 year old, piece of shit or not, over a car stereo with no articulable threat to their own safety, the shooter is going to be the one on trial.

Texas has a good Castle Doctrine, and specifically protects the home owner from criminal and civil penalties.

[TPD1280]

Let them prove that I didn't fear for my (or my family's) safety...

That's the hiccup in self defense. It is an affirmative defense, and one that YOU must prove. The burden of proof is on you. You have to be able to articulate why you felt threatened enough to pull the trigger.



I work for everything I own, and I WILL defend my property.

And you will be the one to turn the "they're shooting children" from emotional bullshit into reality. The gun control advocates will love you forever.


And I certainly don't want to wait until he draws a gun to know that I'm in enough danger to respond.

Who said anything about waiting? I'm talking about fire discipline.

Assumptions:

You discover you are being burglarized;
You arm yourself prior to movement to contact;
You then engage a burglar, unarmed, holding your stereo.
(Note: if intruder is armed, he is not a burglar, he is an assailant. Shoot him.)

If you re-read my initial post, I am already locked, cocked, and aimed. If bad guy decides to pull a weapon, he is no longer a burglar, he is an armed assailant. He gets a pair of 230gr hollow points in the chest and a third in the face. And since he has decided to make his move after I am already on target, he is a stupid, former assailant.

I had this very discussion with a used tire shop owner in my patrol district.

Rather than locking things up, or at least moving them into his fenced lot, he wanted to leave things out on display in front of his business. He could not understand that he was creating a crime conducive environment. He could not understand that the denizens of the projects surrounding his shop simply would not leave his displays alone (he had a Mayberry fantasyland going on in his head, but his shop was in Rat City).

He was genuine in his threat to sit on his roof top with a rifle and, "Kill them thieving bastards."

I explained to him that since he made no effort to secure his stuff, and knew that it attracted those who are less than honest, it would be considered by the courts to be baiting human prey. He would go to jail for manslaughter if he was lucky, murder more likely. And if the dead person was under the age of 18, he would have provided the gun control fags with all the ammo they needed to take away hunting rifles too, "Man shoots child with high powered hunting rife over $40 worth of re-treads."

[TPD1280]

Texas has a good Castle Doctrine, and specifically protects the home owner from criminal and civil penalties.

Texas is the exception to the rule. The laws are crafted very well and leave little loophole for the Sara Brady crowd to whine and bitch.

The rest of us have to use some forethought and be selective.

[OldSwabbie]

Castle Doctrine ~ Thank God Florida expanded it to cars finally, Liberals put up billboards warning tourists that they were in danger of being shot! Nothing happened and the billboards came down. Yuk yuk... good laugh on that one.

Common Sense must rule - In the Middle of the night if somone is breaking into my house and its not one of my kids who's forgotten his/her key or is drunk (which has happened, damit)... I'm not going to wait and wonder if they are here to rob or steal or whatever. IF I shine the light in that persons face and I dont know them ~ Jesus will be seeing them shortly... No Regrets... Its Trigger time and they have just made the Last... BIGGEST mistake of their miserable life.

I WILL NOT allow myself or my Wife or kids to become statistics of some of these sadistic bastards we read about every single day in this country. I would imagine these sentiments are echoed by everyone on this board in some fashion or another.

OldSwabbie

[s1chmoe]

I agree with TPD, common sense there, you already have the drop on the guy, you are trained, i don't think someone could draw down on me if i already had them in my sites, BUT, I would have to be sure there wasn't another person in the house (different room etc) with the burglar.

[SOTB]

There are lots of reasons to take a moment to ensure that the person you are shooting NEEDS to be shot. Not the least of which is you never know if the person you are pointing your gun at is a family member or friend who -- for whatever reason -- found it necessary to break in your home at oh-dark-thirty.

Once you have ID'd that the person NEEDS to be shot -- then I cannot imagine a reason why the shooting would not occur.

Whether I can see -- in the dark -- that a person I have clearly identified was not a friend has a weapon in his/her hand is -- IMO -- irrelevant to whether I will shoot that person if they continue to approach me when ordered to not do so. Now whether I will shoot a person, even with my TV in their hands, while they are running to the door to exit my home -- I have a hard time believing that I would find myself capable of shooting. I WILL shoot the fuck out of someone who is clearly ID'd as not a friend, clearly armed, and whom I believe is only moving to seek cover to then turn around and engage me from that cover -- we'll just have to see how that plays out in court, I suppose....

[OldSwabbie]

There are lots of reasons to take a moment to ensure that the person you are shooting NEEDS to be shot. Not the least of which is you never know if the person you are pointing your gun at is a family member or friend who -- for whatever reason -- found it necessary to break in your home at oh-dark-thirty.

Once you have ID'd that the person NEEDS to be shot -- then I cannot imagine a reason why the shooting would not occur.

Whether I can see -- in the dark -- that a person I have clearly identified was not a friend has a weapon in his/her hand is -- IMO -- irrelevant to whether I will shoot that person if they continue to approach me when ordered to not do so. Now whether I will shoot a person, even with my TV in their hands, while they are running to the door to exit my home -- I have a hard time believing that I would find myself capable of shooting. I WILL shoot the fuck out of someone who is clearly ID'd as not a friend, clearly armed, and whom I believe is only moving to seek cover to then turn around and engage me from that cover -- we'll just have to see how that plays out in court, I suppose....

That is what I am saying. After seeing that the person is NOT someone I KNOW should be in my house. Now if they retreat...you cant very well shoot them in the back either (I understand this too).

I posted because ~ just a couple of weeks ago and only 5 miles from my home this home invasion occurred. Where I live is in a VERY Rural South Carolina County ... only a FOOL breaks into homes, you are ASKING to get your Ass shot.. just about everyone up here (rurally) owns guns...these 3 assclowns were just stupid.

http://www.wyff4.com/news/16546248/detail.html


OldSwabbie

[Hoepoe]

This is a good law, BUT there MUST be several "barriers" in place that will help prevent accidental shootings; we have all heard/read about siblings shooting their brothers/sisters thinking it was a burgler, parents shooting kids, same story.

I do not think this law is a green light to shoot anyone in your property, rather a law stating that each case will be assessed on a case per case basis with a chance that you will get away with shooting a burglar.

The Israeli Law of Self Defense states that one may use force, including lethal force (only if defending against potentially lethal force) to defend your life, your fellow citizens life, or your property if the act against the property is accompanies by clear and imminent danger to life (or limb) - so the threat to life is present in all cases. That was up until this new "Drommie Law". Any act of force needs to be justified by means, intent and ability, meaning that if someone has a firearm, they have the means, but if it's holstered, there's no intent to use it etc. In cases where we are not certain of intent, means or ability we are allowed to use non-lethal force or a certain warning methodology that if the act contibues, will leave no doubt of hostile intention.

My point is, anyone using lethal force on a burglar without having seen ,and being able to prove that the perp had means to do harm, intent to do harm, and the ability to do harm and cannot prove that warnings were issued will have a hard time in the dock.

This law is a great breakthrough, but certainly not a free-for-all shoot 'em up law.

To answer the other question, firearms are issued to civilians who:
1) Attained senior officer rank in IDF or Police
2) Currently serve in reserve SF/CT units
3) Live in the West Bank or other "front line towns" within Israel
4) Couriers of diamonds
5) Private Security companies
6) Former government security personnel

New addition

7) Private security personnel can now obtain a "security guard license" issued by the Israel Police that affords them a firearms license once trained. They cannot however own a firearm, but simply get issued a firearm from their employing company and do not need to reapply per company as it was previously. Training has to be by an Israeli Police approved training facility.

Good weekend all

H

[Grey Wolf]

I live in Texas (Thank You, God) and yes thieving ass clowns have been shot for breaking into a business and attempting to steal property. One business owner shot and killed 2 in two weeks. The Grand Jury said good shooting and that was the end of it. I have made My decision to shoot intruders that I find in My home. I'm not going to play 20 questions trying to determine why they are there. I know what My wife and kids look like. The chance of shooting one of them thinking that they are an intruder is zero. I have been hunting armed suspects for over 25 years and have yet to shoot "a brother or friend by accident" nor do I know anyone else who has.

[BOFH]

I live in Texas (Thank You, God) and yes thieving ass clowns have been shot for breaking into a business and attempting to steal property. One business owner shot and killed 2 in two weeks. The Grand Jury said good shooting and that was the end of it. I have made My decision to shoot intruders that I find in My home. I'm not going to play 20 questions trying to determine why they are there. I know what My wife and kids look like. The chance of shooting one of them thinking that they are an intruder is zero. I have been hunting armed suspects for over 25 years and have yet to shoot "a brother or friend by accident" nor do I know anyone else who has.

It's good to live in TX, isn't it?

[NightLandNav]

Hopoe,

I was waiting for you to show up and square this away regarding Israeli law.

As this thread points out, laws are varied here.

The Israeli guidelines you listed are very similar to several States that I am aware of, and I would suspect many others.

Some don't allow it at all, and then are States like TX. Hence the phrases: "Don't mess with Texas" and "Whoa! check your fire Tex". :D

As I stated in my first post, the illogical and deceptive statements made by SHAS and "party ministers" follows the same irrational rhetoric the PLO was known for. As soon as they start talking it's all blah, blah, blah, BS...and they know it. But their people don't, and they know that too.

Stay sharp bro.



I think this thread has established sufficient evidence to designate Texas as our national final fall back position. ;)

The stars at night...

[Massgrunt]

Some don't allow it at all, and then are States like TX. Hence the phrases: "Don't mess with Texas" and "Whoa! check your fire Tex". :D

You forgot: "I think you got him! I think you got him!" :D

[NightLandNav]

You forgot: "I think you got him! I think you got him!" :D

Actually, Texans over the age of 6 only ever say "I think you got him", as they stand looking down at a fella full of holes. It's that dry and rapier cowboy wit at such times that makes wanting to grow up to be one so popular.

The repeated version of the phrase is one deer hunters from Ohio say during hunting season in Michigan and West Virginia.

"Excuse me sir, I think we might have accidentally shot your..." Is what they say when they come to your door. :D


I know I'm being hard on you Buck-eyes, but getting shot can make one a bit ornery. ;)

[Guy]

It's good to live in TX, isn't it?I'm looking for a place as I type!:D

Stay safe.

[iraqgunz]

Here is an excerpt from California's' penal code.

"Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel ..., floating home ..., railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach ..., any house car ..., inhabited camper ..., vehicle ..., when the doors are locked, aircraft .., or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.

Being armed does not change the act itself, but will contribute to charges and sentencing IIRC.

Obviously common sense has to be applied to any situation. But, if you violate the sanctity of anothers mans castle don't be surprised in the outcome. It's too bad that we can't get a bit common sense legislation that states "any person who unlawfully enters the dwelling, property, room, apartment, etc...of another person with the intent to commit any crime may be met with force."


That's the hiccup in self defense. It is an affirmative defense, and one that YOU must prove. The burden of proof is on you. You have to be able to articulate why you felt threatened enough to pull the trigger.





And you will be the one to turn the "they're shooting children" from emotional bullshit into reality. The gun control advocates will love you forever.




Who said anything about waiting? I'm talking about fire discipline.

Assumptions:

You discover you are being burglarized;
You arm yourself prior to movement to contact;
You then engage a burglar, unarmed, holding your stereo.
(Note: if intruder is armed, he is not a burglar, he is an assailant. Shoot him.)

If you re-read my initial post, I am already locked, cocked, and aimed. If bad guy decides to pull a weapon, he is no longer a burglar, he is an armed assailant. He gets a pair of 230gr hollow points in the chest and a third in the face. And since he has decided to make his move after I am already on target, he is a stupid, former assailant.

I had this very discussion with a used tire shop owner in my patrol district.

Rather than locking things up, or at least moving them into his fenced lot, he wanted to leave things out on display in front of his business. He could not understand that he was creating a crime conducive environment. He could not understand that the denizens of the projects surrounding his shop simply would not leave his displays alone (he had a Mayberry fantasyland going on in his head, but his shop was in Rat City).

He was genuine in his threat to sit on his roof top with a rifle and, "Kill them thieving bastards."

I explained to him that since he made no effort to secure his stuff, and knew that it attracted those who are less than honest, it would be considered by the courts to be baiting human prey. He would go to jail for manslaughter if he was lucky, murder more likely. And if the dead person was under the age of 18, he would have provided the gun control fags with all the ammo they needed to take away hunting rifles too, "Man shoots child with high powered hunting rife over $40 worth of re-treads."

[OldSwabbie]

I was Interested in seeing which states actually had the strong laws.

I found the information on Castle Doctrines of each State. Just type in "Castle Doctrine" in Google and go to Wikipedia, its at the bottom. Each state link will take you to the state statues on the laws.


States with a Stand-your-ground Law (No duty to retreat anywhere)

Alabama (http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-3-23.htm)
Arizona (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/laws/0199.htm)
Florida (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM)
Georgia (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/sb396.htm)
Indiana (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html)
Kentucky (http://http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/503-00/080.pdf)
Louisiana (http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338)
Mississippi (http://michie.com/mississippi/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=) (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat")
Oklahoma (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782) §21-1289.25
South Carolina (http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t16c011.htm) (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
Texas (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm)
Tennessee (http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/105/pub/pc0210.pdf) 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
States with a Castle Law (No duty to retreat if in the home)


Alaska (http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter81/Section335.htm)
Colorado (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/2bbc9/2bbf0/2c2f2/2c39d?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0) (Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.)
Connecticut (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap951.htm#Sec53a-20.htm)
Hawaii (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.HTM) (Retreat required ouside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
Maine (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/17-a/title17-asec104.html) (Deadly force justified to teminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
Maryland (http://house.state.md.us/2007RS/fnotes/bil_0001/sb0761.pdf) See Maryland self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_self-defense) (Case-law, not statute, seems to have incorporated the castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law).
Massachusetts (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htm)
Michigan (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-768-21c) (more recent law--Act 309 of 2006--does not relieve duty to retreat "unless [deadly force is] necessary to prevent imminent death;" this represents no change from common law, which does not require retreat unless it can be safely done)
Missouri (http://learntocarry.com/docs/CastleDoctrine.html) (Extends Castle Doctrine to one's vehicle)
Ohio (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_SB_184) (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 8th, 2008. Section 2901.09
North Carolina (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.1.html))
Rhode Island (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE11/11-8/11-8-8.HTM)
West Virginia (http://stmichaelsgate.blogspot.com/2008/05/west-virginias-new-castle-doctrine-law.html)
Wyoming (http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2008/03/14/news/wyoming/07192998f35307cd8725740b007e2e51.txt)
States with weak Castle Law: duty to retreat not removed, but deadly force may be used to end invason of home without presence of immediate lethal threat


Idaho (http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180400009.K) (Homicide is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
Illinois (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+7&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60595&SeqStart=7800000&SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E) (Use of deadly force is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
Kansas (§ 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling. A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his dwelling.)
Minnesota (http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.065&year=2006) (Homicide justified to prevent the commission of a felony in the home)
Montana (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-103.htm) (Deadly force justified to prevent felony in the home).
Utah (http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02_040500.htm)
Washington (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050)
States with no known Castle Law


Iowa (http://nxtsearch.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm) (Law does not require retreat from home, but may require retreat within the home)
Ohio. (However, the 127th Gen Assembly is considering "Castle" legislation under S.B. 184 and H.B. 264. 4/16/2008 - In its sixth (and final!) hearing on Ohio's Castle Doctrine legislation today, the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee on Criminal Justice accepted yet another amended substitute HB184, passed the bill (Committee members Teresa Fedor and Shirley Smith - both Democrats - voted no, Senator Lance Mason, the third Democrat committee member, was absent). Just a few hours later, the full Senate took up consideration of the bill. It received 31 yeas, 0 nays. There are 33 members in the Senate.
Pennsylvania (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/18/00.005..HTM) (Relevant statute not found; "Stand your ground" legislation pending<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-12>[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#cite_note-12)</SUP>
Virginia

[Massgrunt]

I'm glad I'm from Massachusetts and not one of those commie states like Montana. :D

[OldSwabbie]

I'm glad I'm from Massachusetts and not one of those commie states like Montana. :D

What really surprised me... Idaho. There are alot of separationist and isolationist up there. Yea, Montana, whats up with that? You think Big Sky - Cowboys and Colt 45's.. Oh well.. stereotypes huh.

[Longrifle]

I'll shoot.
Twice at least. Maybe the entire mag.

Oh, and did I mention I get really scared when a bad man comes into my home at night.

I fear for my life and the lives of my family.

So I'll shoot several times, then I'll stand over him, trembling, and piss on him.

[iraqgunz]

It would seem that the Peoples' Republik of Kalifornia was not listed above. Here is what I found.

A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent manner intending violence to any person in the home. The amount of force that may be used in resisting such entry is limited to that which would appear necessary to a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances to resist the violent entry. One is not bound to retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made. One may resist force with force, increasing it in proportion to the intruder’s persistence and violence, if the circumstances apparent to the occupant would cause a reasonable person in the same or similar situation to fear for his or her safety.
The occupant may use a firearm when resisting the intruder’s attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime against anyone in the home provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the intruder intends to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there is imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the occupant acts under the belief that use of a firearm is necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or great bodily injury. Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry had occurred. Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. (Penal Code § 198.5.)
NOTE: If the presumption is rebutted by contrary evidence, the occupant may be criminally liable for an unlawful assault or homicide

[TPD1280]

Here is an excerpt from California's' penal code.

"Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel ..., floating home ..., railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach ..., any house car ..., inhabited camper ..., vehicle ..., when the doors are locked, aircraft .., or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.

Being armed does not change the act itself, but will contribute to charges and sentencing IIRC.

Obviously common sense has to be applied to any situation. But, if you violate the sanctity of anothers mans castle don't be surprised in the outcome. It's too bad that we can't get a bit common sense legislation that states "any person who unlawfully enters the dwelling, property, room, apartment, etc...of another person with the intent to commit any crime may be met with force."


The language and title varies from state to state. Washington State does differentiate if the offender is armed, or arms himself whie in the commission of the offense.

The bad actors change from burglar to assailant happens based on the actions he takes once inside the structure. Burglary is only one of the crimes: it is the charge for breaking in. Theft will be added if he takes stuff. Assault, Rape, et cetera will also be added on should he commit a crime against a person while engaged in the burglary.

The other thing people don't know about, but most cops and lawyers do, is called "Filing Guidelines". The law is rarely used in the courtroom as it is written in black and white.

For example: Assault Third Degree http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.031 covers assaulting a police officer, firefighter, or public transportation driver. However, the Prosecuting Attorneys office has issued filing guidelines that says law enforcement personnel are to expect being smacked around as part of the job. Unless the injured cop requires medical attention more than a simple ER visit, they will not file felony assault charges under Assault 3.

The same issue occurs for the use of force in self defense. Unless you can articulate what the threat to your personal safety was, if you shoot an unarmed burglar, you will be charged with Assault 1, with an enhancement for using a firearm.

Sad, but true.

Whether or not you stand convicted of the crime by a jury is another issue entirely, but the person will be charged.

And later they will be sued.


Don't misunderstand my position: Any uninvited visitor to my home will be met by me with a .45 in my hand aimed at their 10 ring. Their immediate response to my commands will determine whether I pull the trigger or not.

Like SOTB said earlier,

There are lots of reasons to take a moment to ensure that the person you are shooting NEEDS to be shot. Not the least of which is you never know if the person you are pointing your gun at is a family member or friend who -- for whatever reason -- found it necessary to break in your home at oh-dark-thirty.

Once you have ID'd that the person NEEDS to be shot -- then I cannot imagine a reason why the shooting would not occur.

Whether I can see -- in the dark -- that a person I have clearly identified was not a friend has a weapon in his/her hand is -- IMO -- irrelevant to whether I will shoot that person if they continue to approach me when ordered to not do so. Now whether I will shoot a person, even with my TV in their hands, while they are running to the door to exit my home -- I have a hard time believing that I would find myself capable of shooting. I WILL shoot the fuck out of someone who is clearly ID'd as not a friend, clearly armed, and whom I believe is only moving to seek cover to then turn around and engage me from that cover -- we'll just have to see how that plays out in court, I suppose....

[Corsair]

I'm going to stir up a hornets nest here, but I have to agree with this statement.

I am pro-capital punishment, and believe that criminals should be punished, and have seen first hand that rehabilitation is a pipe dream.

The arguments of shooting hungry children and racism are just a bunch of emotional drama.

The real question is are you really going to shoot someone over your television?

I will, without question, confront any burglar in my home with a locked and loaded weapon in my hand aimed at their ten ring. They can drop the shit and run, they can stay right where they are and wait for the police. Either way is fine with me.

Should they choose to arm themselves, brandish a weapon or advance with the intent of disarming me, THEY ARE NO LONGER BURGLARS, THEY ARE ASSAILANTS.

That's the difference.

Washington State law allows the use of deadly force to protect property, but I guarantee you the first time somebody shoots a 16 year old, piece of shit or not, over a car stereo with no articulable threat to their own safety, the shooter is going to be the one on trial.

You are absolutely right, it is a real shame that common sense is not a common virtue...

[Darksaga]

You are absolutely right, it is a real shame that common sense is not a common virtue...

As was noted on this site before... "Common Sense: So rare it should be a goddamn Super Power!"

[colmurph]

[QUOTE=TPD1280;1016185]I'm going to stir up a hornets nest here, but I have to agree with this statement.

I am pro-capital punishment, and believe that criminals should be punished, and have seen first hand that rehabilitation is a pipe dream.

The arguments of shooting hungry children and racism are just a bunch of emotional drama.

The real question is are you really going to shoot someone over your television?


Not over the TV, but if somebody screws with my Harley that's a different story.

[iraqgunz]

My TV is a 3 month old 52" plasma. So for the TV, yeah probably. :D

[QUOTE=TPD1280;1016185]I'm going to stir up a hornets nest here, but I have to agree with this statement.

I am pro-capital punishment, and believe that criminals should be punished, and have seen first hand that rehabilitation is a pipe dream.

The arguments of shooting hungry children and racism are just a bunch of emotional drama.

The real question is are you really going to shoot someone over your television?


Not over the TV, but if somebody screws with my Harley that's a different story.

[Greenhat]

Twice at least. Maybe the entire mag.

Oh, and did I mention I get really scared when a bad man comes into my home at night.

I fear for my life and the lives of my family.

So I'll shoot several times, then I'll stand over him, trembling, and piss on him.


Somehow, this post renewed my faith in mankind... ;)

[Camel]

It would seem that the Peoples' Republik of Kalifornia was not listed above. Here is what I found.

A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent manner intending violence to any person in the home. The amount of force that may be used in resisting such entry is limited to that which would appear necessary to a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances to resist the violent entry. One is not bound to retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made. One may resist force with force, increasing it in proportion to the intruder’s persistence and violence, if the circumstances apparent to the occupant would cause a reasonable person in the same or similar situation to fear for his or her safety.
The occupant may use a firearm when resisting the intruder’s attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime against anyone in the home provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the intruder intends to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there is imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the occupant acts under the belief that use of a firearm is necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or great bodily injury. Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry had occurred. Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. (Penal Code § 198.5.)
NOTE: If the presumption is rebutted by contrary evidence, the occupant may be criminally liable for an unlawful assault or homicide

Q: Imminent danger?
Q/A: Is there any other kind of danger?


Problem with the way this is worded, "reasonable person" Just how many reasonable people are left in California?

[WS-G]

Yeah, now all that's missing is the right to actually own firearms.
One reason why I don't live there myself. Air traffic regs and the shortage of reasonably priced real estate are two more....