Do You Support The Castle Doctrine?

View Poll Results: What Are Your Thoughts On The Castle Doctrine?

Voters
138. You may not vote on this poll
  • Do You Support The Castle Doctrine?

    102 73.91%
  • Do You Oppose The Castle Doctrine?

    1 0.72%
  • Do You Agree The Second Amendment IS Your Castle Doctrine?

    73 52.90%
  • Do You Feel You Must Retreat Before DLP (Defense of Life, Property)?

    1 0.72%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Do You Support The Castle Doctrine?

  1. #1

    Do You Support The Castle Doctrine?

    POLL FYI: Multiple Choice Allowed...



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_..._United_States

    The Castle Doctrine is a legal concept that holds that a person's place of residence is a place where a person enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack, and thus, has the legal right to employ the use of deadly force in the event of violent attack by an intruder or an intrusion that may lead to deadly attack or is undertaken with another felonious intent.

    What are your thoughts on the Castle Doctrine? Do you support it or are you opposed to it?

    A map of states that currently have some form of the castle doctrine:



    Props To Related Thread:
    Castle Doctrine

  2.   
  3. #2
    CD Laws are just band aides for greedy people and criminals who like nothing better than to take advantage of others. The courts systems allowing frivolous litigations and over zealous DAs prosecuting victims. That justification that you are protecting your family and yourself has been a pet peeve for a long time.
    Semper Fi

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    North Shore - Mass.
    Posts
    77
    If you can not feel safe in your own home then where? Have you seen who the Home Land Security Sec. is? Your damn right I support it!
    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."
    - SAMUEL ADAMS

  5. I see that NY shows up in RED on your map? I thought that in NY you have an obligation to NOT escalate the situation even if some a$$hat broke into your home. So if I am woken up out of a sound sleep by someone who decided to break into my house and is rummaging through my stuff, I CANT shoot him unless I feel my life is in danger. The courts here have also prosecuted people for shooting intruders who claimed that they felt their lives where threatened, but the assailant did not have a weapon at the time. I think NY should be BLUE. Where can I find specifics of the CD in NY law?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by stresco View Post
    I see that NY shows up in RED on your map? I thought that in NY you have an obligation to NOT escalate the situation even if some a$$hat broke into your home. So if I am woken up out of a sound sleep by someone who decided to break into my house and is rummaging through my stuff, I CANT shoot him unless I feel my life is in danger. The courts here have also prosecuted people for shooting intruders who claimed that they felt their lives where threatened, but the assailant did not have a weapon at the time. I think NY should be BLUE. Where can I find specifics of the CD in NY law?
    I personally am of the view: "The Second Amendment IS my Castle Doctrine" and it is my sincere desire that WE THE PEOPLE disambiguate, repeal and abolish any and all laws, politicians, Judges, Mayors, Governors, Presidents etc., that add conditions to that which is unalienable, preexisting, fundamental and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    I did not create the map, but from what I can see it is accurate in that New York like Kalifornia has a Castle Doctrine, albeit having been made very ambiguous with all their other goofy ass duty to retreat laws and such...
    On a related side note I recently was chatting with a former New York Police officer, whom moved to Nevada, where I live now and he stated not only is it extremely difficult for even a police officer to get a concealed carry permit, but for all intents and purposes "There IS no Second Amendment, if you live in New York"...
    That speaks volumes to me, while it comes as no surprise either, with Chucky Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, Chucky Rangel, Mayor Bloomberg, etc... The People of New York need to WTFU, and fire these maggots...
    There is a election coming up in days where they can bring CHANGE THEY CAN BELIEVE IN TO NEW YORK...
    Doug Hoffman For Congress
    Doug Hoffman is running against a Liberal Democrat and a RINO Republican as a Third Party Candidate, and is surging in the polls, I have said it before, it may be early yet to elect a third party president, but we can increase third party representation in Congress significantly...
    I encourage all to contribute whatever you can (a dollar or more, every little bit helps) to Doug Hoffman's campaign, whether you live in New York or his district or not, because we need to tip this country back to the right, and New York is a great place to start...
    AND IT HAS TO START SOMEWHERE...

    I digress...

    To clarify, Blue States like Nevada have no castle doctrine per se.

    The following link which I previously provided itemized New York as one of several states with a weak Castle Doctrine...
    Castle Doctrine in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Which contains this link:
    New York Penal Law Section 35.20 - Justification; Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Premises And In Defense Of A Person In The Course Of Burglary. - New York Attorney Resources - New York Laws

    Which contains this citation:
    New York Penal Law Section 35.20 - Justification; Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Premises And In Defense Of A Person In The Course Of Burglary.

    35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
    in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
    1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or
    she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate
    what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
    commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.
    Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly
    physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for
    such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably
    believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or
    attempted commission of arson.
    2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
    licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
    upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be
    necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to
    be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a
    criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of
    physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she
    reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly
    physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or
    attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in
    the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in
    subdivision three.
    3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
    be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
    another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
    dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
    person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
    prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
    burglary.
    4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following
    meanings:
    (a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the meanings
    prescribed in section 140.00;
    (b) Persons "licensed or privileged" to be in buildings or upon other
    premises include, but are not limited to:
    (i) police officers or peace officers acting in the performance of
    their duties; and
    (ii) security personnel or employees of nuclear powered electric
    generating facilities located within the state who are employed as part
    of any security plan approved by the federal operating license agencies
    acting in the performance of their duties at such generating facilities.
    For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "nuclear powered electric
    generating facility" shall mean a facility that generates electricity
    using nuclear power for sale, directly or indirectly, to the public,
    including the land upon which the facility is located and the safety and
    security zones as defined under federal regulations.



    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  7. #6
    The 2A is my CD.....i don't have to retreat when my life is on the line
    "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"

  8. #7

    Thumbs down wonder who

    I guess the one that opposes the CD, has never been robbed, burgalerized, threatened, or anything else, or maybe they work for the Home Land security

  9. #8
    If you're up to no good, you enter my home at your own risk. Period.

  10. #9
    In a perfect world the 2nd Amendment is and should be all we need. However as we all know we are not in a perfect world and much of the constitution means very little to the traitors we have in office today. That being said I support every state passing the castle doctrine laws.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    It's hard for me to believe that Nevada has no Castle Doctrine law. Do Nevadans have a duty to retreat? Might a case be made for a mandatory duty to retreat using this part of the NRS?

    ___

    NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

    1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

    2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.


    [1911 C&P 137; RL 6402; NCL 10084]

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast