Castle Doctrine Amendment

[meaner gene]

The only reason ya'all don't like this Constitutional Amendment proposal is because ya'all are BLM and ANTIFA types and know you'll have to be PEACEFUL protestors if ya'all don't want to get shot.

You know the castle doctrine doesn't expand into the streets.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

And they did shoot her which is why it should be everyone's Constitutional right to be able to do the same.

Everybody already has the "castle doctrine" under common law.

The common law principle of “castle doctrine” says that individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves against an intruder in their home. This principle has been codified and expanded by state legislatures

And I say it needs to be a Constitutional Amendment that allows castle doctrine, stand your ground, and concealed carry, across this great nation and strikes down unConstitutional gun control laws like the ones in many of the big cities.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Faun]

The only one full of that is you.

Screaming BLM mob surrounds fearful Milwaukee homeowner, he gets arrested after showing a weapon

A Milwaukee homeowner was arrested for the alleged crime of pulling a weapon on local activists who'd trespassed onto his home in the middle of the night.

www.bizpacreview.com

St. Louis couple who brandished guns had right to defend property: attorney

Lawyer for the couple says they acted legally under Missouri's Castle Doctrine.

www.foxnews.com

Teenager charged over killings at Kenosha protest

Arrest comes after three nights of unrest in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man.

www.aljazeera.com

*****SMILE*****

None of those were castle doctrine.

Brandishing (as I already previously mentioned) and gunfights in the streets.

As faun pointed out, why did you lie about people being arrested for defending their castle?

View attachment 510835

Quit lying.

The first two I cited were homeowners on their property.

*****SMILE*****

The liar is you.

The homeowners were on their property but no one was trying to break into their homes. The Castle Doctrine didn't apply to any of those cases.

Maybe the problem is just that you don't know what the Castle Doctrine is?

View attachment 511085

You're right the homeowners were on their property and no one was shot but the homeowners in at least one case were arrested and their firearm confiscated.

*****SMILE*****

So? You cited those cases in a discussion about the Castle Doctrine. Not one of those cases is a Castle Doctrine case.

For your education, the Castle Doctrine allows for someone legally inside a house or business to resort to lethal defense, if needed, to stop an illegal intruder who is attempting to break in.

None of the cases you cited were about illegal intruders attempting to break into the homeowner's property.

 

[Faun]

None of those are cases where someone was arrested for using a firearm to stop a rioter who was breaking into their house.

The first one was a crowd gathered outside the home to annoy the homeowner with loud music and lights. They never even stepped onto the guys property, no less tried to break in. The homeowner was arrested for handling a firearm while intoxicated.

The second one was a crowd passing by a home. They too never even stepped onto the couple's property, no less tried to break in. They were arrested for brandishing a firearm at someone who wasn't threatening them.

View attachment 510836

And the homeowners never fired a shot yet they had repercussions taken against them by law enforcement.

*****SMILE*****

I don't know what you're trying to change your point to?

I already pointed out why they were arrested.

1. Handling a loaded firearm while intoxicated. That's a crime in Milwaukee.

2. Brandishing a firearm against someone not threatening you. That's a crime in Missouri.

3. Shooting people. That's a crime in Wisconsin.

View attachment 511087

I believe the homeowners felt as threatened as our congresspersons felt about Ashli Babbitt so your argument fails.

*****SMILE*****

Your beliefs are irrelevant. As are unreasonable fears by those homeowners given no one was attempting to break into their homes.

Ashli Targetpractice's suicide by cop isn't a Castle Doctrine case either. It's a standard self-defense case where a cop was defending the lives of members of Congress from a violent mob breaking into a restricted area where lawmakers & staff were holed up.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The only one full of that is you.

Screaming BLM mob surrounds fearful Milwaukee homeowner, he gets arrested after showing a weapon

A Milwaukee homeowner was arrested for the alleged crime of pulling a weapon on local activists who'd trespassed onto his home in the middle of the night.

www.bizpacreview.com

St. Louis couple who brandished guns had right to defend property: attorney

Lawyer for the couple says they acted legally under Missouri's Castle Doctrine.

www.foxnews.com

Teenager charged over killings at Kenosha protest

Arrest comes after three nights of unrest in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man.

www.aljazeera.com

*****SMILE*****

None of those were castle doctrine.

Brandishing (as I already previously mentioned) and gunfights in the streets.

As faun pointed out, why did you lie about people being arrested for defending their castle?

View attachment 510835

Quit lying.

The first two I cited were homeowners on their property.

*****SMILE*****

The liar is you.

The homeowners were on their property but no one was trying to break into their homes. The Castle Doctrine didn't apply to any of those cases.

Maybe the problem is just that you don't know what the Castle Doctrine is?

View attachment 511085

You're right the homeowners were on their property and no one was shot but the homeowners in at least one case were arrested and their firearm confiscated.

*****SMILE*****

So? You cited those cases in a discussion about the Castle Doctrine. Not one of those cases is a Castle Doctrine case.

For your education, the Castle Doctrine allows for someone legally inside a house or business to resort to lethal defense, if needed, to stop an illegal intruder who is attempting to break in.

None of the cases you cited were about illegal intruders attempting to break into the homeowner's property.

There's plenty more if you want to look around I'm not going to do the work for you.

I've already gave my reason this needs to be a Constitutional Amendment in the OP and if you don't like it that's really too bad.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Faun]

You're right the homeowners were on their property and no one was shot but the homeowners in at least one case were arrested and their firearm confiscated.

*****SMILE*****

Being on your property is not the same as being inside your castle.

That's why it's not called the "property doctrine"

View attachment 511095

Had a stone wall surrounding the property with ironwork gate that had been broken into as far as I'm concerned they were inside their castle.

Which is why we obviously require this Amendment to the United States Constitution to clarify that it is everyone's right to protect their property.

*****SMILE*****

Your concerns are misguided. That gate led to a private neighborhood and that gate, leading to a sidewalk and street, are not the McClowsky's property. At no time were any of them on the McClowsky's property. Even worse for the McClowsky's case -- one of them drew a firearm before that mob even passed through that gate.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Your beliefs are irrelevant. As are unreasonable fears by those homeowners given no one was attempting to break into their homes.

Ashli Targetpractice's suicide by cop isn't a Castle Doctrine case either. It's a standard self-defense case where a cop was defending the lives of members of Congress from a violent mob breaking into a restricted area where lawmakers & staff were holed up.

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[Faun]

The only one full of that is you.

Screaming BLM mob surrounds fearful Milwaukee homeowner, he gets arrested after showing a weapon

A Milwaukee homeowner was arrested for the alleged crime of pulling a weapon on local activists who'd trespassed onto his home in the middle of the night.

www.bizpacreview.com

St. Louis couple who brandished guns had right to defend property: attorney

Lawyer for the couple says they acted legally under Missouri's Castle Doctrine.

www.foxnews.com

Teenager charged over killings at Kenosha protest

Arrest comes after three nights of unrest in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man.

www.aljazeera.com

*****SMILE*****

None of those were castle doctrine.

Brandishing (as I already previously mentioned) and gunfights in the streets.

As faun pointed out, why did you lie about people being arrested for defending their castle?

View attachment 510835

Quit lying.

The first two I cited were homeowners on their property.

*****SMILE*****

The liar is you.

The homeowners were on their property but no one was trying to break into their homes. The Castle Doctrine didn't apply to any of those cases.

Maybe the problem is just that you don't know what the Castle Doctrine is?

View attachment 511085

You're right the homeowners were on their property and no one was shot but the homeowners in at least one case were arrested and their firearm confiscated.

*****SMILE*****

So? You cited those cases in a discussion about the Castle Doctrine. Not one of those cases is a Castle Doctrine case.

For your education, the Castle Doctrine allows for someone legally inside a house or business to resort to lethal defense, if needed, to stop an illegal intruder who is attempting to break in.

None of the cases you cited were about illegal intruders attempting to break into the homeowner's property.

View attachment 511112

There's plenty more if you want to look around I'm not going to do the work for you.

I've already gave my reason this needs to be a Constitutional Amendment in the OP and if you don't like it that's really too bad.

*****SMILE*****

Nah, you lost this already. You say you're not going to do your work for me as though it's my job to do your work for you.

You made the claim. If you can prove it it's because you're full of shit.

 

[Faun]

Your beliefs are irrelevant. As are unreasonable fears by those homeowners given no one was attempting to break into their homes.

Ashli Targetpractice's suicide by cop isn't a Castle Doctrine case either. It's a standard self-defense case where a cop was defending the lives of members of Congress from a violent mob breaking into a restricted area where lawmakers & staff were holed up.

View attachment 511114

*****ROFLMAO*****

LOL

Deflection noted and laughed at.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You're right the homeowners were on their property and no one was shot but the homeowners in at least one case were arrested and their firearm confiscated.

*****SMILE*****

Being on your property is not the same as being inside your castle.

That's why it's not called the "property doctrine"

View attachment 511095

Had a stone wall surrounding the property with ironwork gate that had been broken into as far as I'm concerned they were inside their castle.

Which is why we obviously require this Amendment to the United States Constitution to clarify that it is everyone's right to protect their property.

*****SMILE*****

Your concerns are misguided. That gate led to a private neighborhood and that gate, leading to a sidewalk and street, are not the McClowsky's property. At no time were any of them on the McClowsky's property. Even worse for the McClowsky's case -- one of them drew a firearm before that mob even passed through that gate.

I have no reason to believe you over what the McClowsky's said.

So I'm more likely to believe them over a liar.

*****SMILE*****

 

[meaner gene]

And I say it needs to be a Constitutional Amendment that allows castle doctrine, stand your ground, and concealed carry, across this great nation and strikes down unConstitutional gun control laws like the ones in many of the big cities.

Everybody already has the castle docrine.

For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry" be careful what you ask for. It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The only one full of that is you.

Screaming BLM mob surrounds fearful Milwaukee homeowner, he gets arrested after showing a weapon

A Milwaukee homeowner was arrested for the alleged crime of pulling a weapon on local activists who'd trespassed onto his home in the middle of the night.

www.bizpacreview.com

St. Louis couple who brandished guns had right to defend property: attorney

Lawyer for the couple says they acted legally under Missouri's Castle Doctrine.

www.foxnews.com

Teenager charged over killings at Kenosha protest

Arrest comes after three nights of unrest in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man.

www.aljazeera.com

*****SMILE*****

None of those were castle doctrine.

Brandishing (as I already previously mentioned) and gunfights in the streets.

As faun pointed out, why did you lie about people being arrested for defending their castle?

View attachment 510835

Quit lying.

The first two I cited were homeowners on their property.

*****SMILE*****

The liar is you.

The homeowners were on their property but no one was trying to break into their homes. The Castle Doctrine didn't apply to any of those cases.

Maybe the problem is just that you don't know what the Castle Doctrine is?

View attachment 511085

You're right the homeowners were on their property and no one was shot but the homeowners in at least one case were arrested and their firearm confiscated.

*****SMILE*****

So? You cited those cases in a discussion about the Castle Doctrine. Not one of those cases is a Castle Doctrine case.

For your education, the Castle Doctrine allows for someone legally inside a house or business to resort to lethal defense, if needed, to stop an illegal intruder who is attempting to break in.

None of the cases you cited were about illegal intruders attempting to break into the homeowner's property.

View attachment 511112

There's plenty more if you want to look around I'm not going to do the work for you.

I've already gave my reason this needs to be a Constitutional Amendment in the OP and if you don't like it that's really too bad.

*****SMILE*****

Nah, you lost this already. You say you're not going to do your work for me as though it's my job to do your work for you.

You made the claim. If you can prove it it's because you're full of shit.

I've already given my justification and there's lots of people I know who agree with me and are writing their congresspersons.

So suck it up.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[meaner gene]

Ashli Targetpractice's suicide by cop isn't a Castle Doctrine case either. It's a standard self-defense case where a cop was defending the lives of members of Congress from a violent mob breaking into a restricted area where lawmakers & staff were holed up.

Actually it's both. The officer was justified under self defense / defense of others. And also justified under the castle doctrine on top of that.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

And I say it needs to be a Constitutional Amendment that allows castle doctrine, stand your ground, and concealed carry, across this great nation and strikes down unConstitutional gun control laws like the ones in many of the big cities.

Everybody already has the castle docrine.

For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry" be careful what you ask for. It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.

They already do that.

So what's your point?

*****SMILE*****

 

[meaner gene]

None of the cases you cited were about illegal intruders attempting to break into the homeowner's property.

There's plenty more if you want to look around I'm not going to do the work for you.

You said there were such cases, and you failed miserably when you tried to find any.

Now you're saying we have to find the non-existent cases of weapons confiscated or owners charged? Because there aren't any.

 

[meaner gene]

For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry" be careful what you ask for. It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.

They already do that.

So what's your point?

My point is under your constitutional wishes, people shooting a police officer that approaches them with his hand on his gun, can be shot in self defense. And get away with it without fear of prosecution.

Is that what you want?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

None of the cases you cited were about illegal intruders attempting to break into the homeowner's property.

There's plenty more if you want to look around I'm not going to do the work for you.

You said there were such cases, and you failed miserably when you tried to find any.

Now you're saying we have to find the non-existent cases of weapons confiscated or owners charged? Because there aren't any.

Your deflection and lies are noted and those cases have nothing to do with the OP.

I've already stated my case for this Constitutional Amendment stick to the subject addressed in the OP.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry" be careful what you ask for. It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.

They already do that.

So what's your point?

My point is under your constitutional wishes, people shooting a police officer that approaches them with his hand on his gun, can be shot in self defense. And get away with it without fear of prosecution.

Is that what you want?

A few posts ago you and your progressive friends were making the argument that those "somewhat peaceful protestors" weren't on the persons property and castle doctrine doesn't apply.

A cop outside your car is not on your property.

So now you're saying you can shoot someone who's standing on a public highway and isn't on your property?

Best get your argument straight.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[meaner gene]

Your deflection and lies are noted and those cases have nothing to do with the OP.

I've already stated my case for this Constitutional Amendment stick to the subject addressed in the OP.

As I said, under your scenario it would be worse than the wild west. Anybody in law enforcement would have to approach suspects with their hands in the air, or be subject to the suspect legally shooting them first in self defense.

 

[meaner gene]

For "stand your ground" and "concealed carry" be careful what you ask for. It would allow a motorist stopped for a traffic violation to shot the cop, if the cop approaches with his hand on his gun.

A few posts ago you and your progressive friends were making the argument that those "somewhat peaceful protestors" weren't on the persons property and castle doctrine doesn't apply.

A cop outside your car is not on your property.

So now you're saying you can shoot someone who's standing on a public highway and isn't on your property?

You granted them the right to self defense. If they can prove the person approaching them had a gun, they would have legal justification to shoot first. In self defense.