Candidate for Arizona utility commission wants to cut off utilities of illegals

It's not punishment. It's just a means of stopping the loss of property. Basically, this law says that I can kill a thief to prevent him from getting away with my property. If the thief lets go of my property and then flees, then I cannot gun him down. If the thief persists in attempting to deprive me of my property, then I can use lethal force to secure my property rights.

I'm not "punishing" the thief. It isn't about punishment. It's about what means a property owner can use to stop theft. Texas just has different priorities. In Texas, a person's right to his or her property overrides a thief's right to life.

Do I value my property more than the life of a thief? I do. I will admit this openly. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. Humanity is practically endless. My property, however, is finite. Replacing a piece of stolen property could cost many hours of my time. Keep in mind that if I have to work 40 hours to replace that which a thief has stolen, then the thief has effectively enslaved me for those forty hours. I don't take kindly to being enslaved, and will happily kill to prevent it.

I wouldn't think twice about using lethal force to protect my property rights. I wouldn't even blink at it. Seriously, there are over 6 billion people on this planet. That is far too big a number for us to be concerned with the lives of thieves, brigands, and other criminals. If a few thiefs have to die in order to ensure that citizens are secure in their property, then so be it.

Heck, if I were in charge, the death penalty would be radically expanded and public executions would be the order of the day. The likes of Bernie Madoff would at the very least entertain us in their last moments as they burned at the stake. Here's a tip on burning people at the stake: if you want it to last longer and be more painful, make the people you burn wear water-soaked sackcloth.

I have been accused of having 16th century mentality. Check out my sig.

dkrustyklown

At some point, though, your property stops being in jeopardy. At some point your safety stops being in jeopardy. At some point you're just being an ass and shooting that person for the fun of it. When a burglar has his hands in the air and you have a gun pointed at his head, your property and your life is no longer in danger. So no, don't say you're killing him to protect jack, because that's bull. You're shooting him because you want to, you're shooting him to make a statement, but you're not shooting him for protection.jalexbrown

Why would he have his hands in the air? What makes you think he would even have a chance at communication? I'm not going to point a gun and say, "freeze!". I'm just going to point and shoot. There is no place for communication in my response. I see burglar; I shoot burglar; burglar dies. I'm not interested in anything that the burglar has to say or communicate. There are no negotiations. There is no parley. Why would I hesitate? Hesitation would only provide the burglar with an opportunity to brandish his own weapon. I will take no such chances.

EDIT: This perspective is why I support the use of landmines to secure the border. When we make the border a matter of life and death, people will finally begin to take it seriously.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]At some point, though, your property stops being in jeopardy. At some point your safety stops being in jeopardy. At some point you're just being an ass and shooting that person for the fun of it. When a burglar has his hands in the air and you have a gun pointed at his head, your property and your life is no longer in danger. So no, don't say you're killing him to protect jack, because that's bull. You're shooting him because you want to, you're shooting him to make a statement, but you're not shooting him for protection.dkrustyklown

Why would he have his hands in the air? What makes you think he would even have a chance at communication? I'm not going to point a gun and say, "freeze!". I'm just going to point and shoot. There is no place for communication in my response. I see burglar; I shoot burglar; burglar dies. I'm not interested in anything that the burglar has to say or communicate. There are no negotiations. There is no parley. Why would I hesitate? Hesitation would only provide the burglar with an opportunity to brandish his own weapon. I will take no such chances.

EDIT: This perspective is why I support the use of landmines to secure the border. When we make the border a matter of life and death, people will finally begin to take it seriously.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: landmines

Landmines are a key ingredient to territorial fortification.

Is that a question or a statement? If that's a question, then yes he did.jalexbrown

It's a statement. You said I said it, I didn't and I was pointing that out.

So you would forgo any opportunity for a burglar to surrender?jalexbrown

Correct. An opportunity to surrender is also an opportunity to strike. Why take that chance?

Why?jalexbrown

Why not? It's the option with the least risk to myself. If I am to have a confrontation, and I have the opportunity to stack the deck in my favor by seizing on the element of surprise to achieve a quick and decisive victory, then yes, I'll take it.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]

So you would forgo any opportunity for a burglar to surrender?dkrustyklown

Correct. An opportunity to surrender is also an opportunity to strike. Why take that chance?

Why?jalexbrown

Why not? It's the option with the least risk to myself. If I am to have a confrontation, and I have the opportunity to stack the deck in my favor by seizing on the element of surprise to achieve a quick and decisive victory, then yes, I'll take it.

What I'm focusing on is more your implicit and rather inflammatory assertion that those who disagree with you on that point are effectively in favor of the murder of your wife, or at least would prefer her murder to the criminal's. This sort of accusation and - frankly - demonization of those with whom one disagrees seems fully and wholly unconducive to a productive discussion. Arguing that their assertion lacks experiential grounds or such like, and therefore is unrealistic, is perfectly fine, but I can't see how it helps to basically assert that they would not mind it if your wife was murdered. It seems to me that, given that no one here is a legislator, it is rather more important to keep dialog friendly, above-board, and above the belt than to make any sort of point on a debate that is really basically academic in nature as far as this thread is concerned, insofar as our opinions here don't have any effect on impactful legislation.

GabuEx

None of that was my intention. I was just saying what I thought about the responses. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

I'm of the opinion that any discussion about criminal's rights is a folly. We're far too lenient on them already. Now when the discussion swings towards something I care a great deal about, for reasons that are already known, of course I'm going to be more passionate towards someone who would rather take the criminal's side than that of someone who isn't one. That's how the responses make me feel.

Otherwise it's statistically unlikely that the person in your house is armed.jalexbrown

Are you willing to bet your life on that statistic?

I am not.

I am, however, willing to bet a burglar's life against it :D.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What I'm focusing on is more your implicit and rather inflammatory assertion that those who disagree with you on that point are effectively in favor of the murder of your wife, or at least would prefer her murder to the criminal's. This sort of accusation and - frankly - demonization of those with whom one disagrees seems fully and wholly unconducive to a productive discussion. Arguing that their assertion lacks experiential grounds or such like, and therefore is unrealistic, is perfectly fine, but I can't see how it helps to basically assert that they would not mind it if your wife was murdered. It seems to me that, given that no one here is a legislator, it is rather more important to keep dialog friendly, above-board, and above the belt than to make any sort of point on a debate that is really basically academic in nature as far as this thread is concerned, insofar as our opinions here don't have any effect on impactful legislation.

airshocker

None of that was my intention. I was just saying what I thought about the responses. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

I'm of the opinion that any discussion about criminal's rights is a folly. We're far too lenient on them already. Now when the discussion swings towards something I care a great deal about, for reasons that are already known, of course I'm going to be more passionate towards someone who would rather take the criminal's side than that of someone who isn't one. That's how the responses make me feel.

Why do you assume that people side with the criminals? They're not asking the criminals to get off without punishment.jalexbrown

It seems to me that you side with a criminal when you defend their actions and then put the blame on those that they hurt. Not you specifically, mind, but various organizations and lawyers.

I think we worry far too much on what happens to the criminal than what they did to their victims. That seems a little backwards to me.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]Why do you assume that people side with the criminals? They're not asking the criminals to get off without punishment.airshocker

It seems to me that you side with a criminal when you defend their actions and then put the blame on those that they hurt. Not you specifically, mind, but various organizations and lawyers.

I think we worry far too much on what happens to the criminal than what they did to their victims. That seems a little backwards to me.

I'm of the opinion that any discussion about criminal's rights is a folly.

airshocker

Let's look at the flip side: the castle doctrine also makes it much easier for someone to get away with a crime. You could kill anyone in your house and make it appear as though they broke in. The castle doctrine puts too much power into the hands of the individual on good faith.jalexbrown

Earlier, you argued statistics by saying that it is improbable that a burglar would be armed and therefore there is no need to shoot a burglar. Yet here, you present a most improbable situation to support your position against the Castle Doctrine. Has the scenario that you just proposed actually happened? If so, then where and when?

Let's look at the flip side: the castle doctrine also makes it much easier for someone to get away with a crime. You could kill anyone in your house and make it appear as though they broke in. The castle doctrine puts too much power into the hands of the individual on good faith.jalexbrown

There are some very basic things you just can't regulate. Self-defense is one of them.

Would it be any different if I had tried to frame someone for mugging me on the street?

I can't imagine someone who legitimately defended themselves in their home wouldn't take a polygraph to clear their name of all suspicion. Just like I have to do after any controversial action I take.

Can't forget about forensics, either.

I can't believe there are places in the US where the law places property rights over the right to live. Sure if you have to kill someone in self defence it is justifiable, but for taking your property? If I was getting robbed and my life was not in danger I would let the guy rob the place. It avoids any retaliation that could bring harm to my family, and I have home and contents insurance with new for old replacement, so I'll get all of the property replaced brand new. The only thing I would ask is if he didn't take my hard drive because I have work on it.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] Let's look at the flip side: the castle doctrine also makes it much easier for someone to get away with a crime. You could kill anyone in your house and make it appear as though they broke in. The castle doctrine puts too much power into the hands of the individual on good faith.dkrustyklown

Earlier, you argued statistics by saying that it is improbable that a burglar would be armed and therefore there is no need to shoot a burglar. Yet here, you present a most improbable situation to support your position against the Castle Doctrine. Has the scenario that you just proposed actually happened? If so, then where and when?

I can't believe there are places in the US where the law places property rights over the right to live. Sure if you have to kill someone in self defence it is justifiable, but for taking your property? If I was getting robbed and my life was not in danger I would let the guy rob the place. It avoids any retaliation that could bring harm to my family, and I have home and contents insurance with new for old replacement, so I'll get all of the property replaced brand new. The only thing I would ask is if he didn't take my hard drive because I have work on it.

daqua_99

Well, some of us either cannot afford or are not willing to buy such insurance. For us, our guns are our insurance policy.

You're not going to argue that because I don't have property insurance then I don't have a right to do anything to protect my property, are you?

I can't believe there are places in the US where the law places property rights over the right to live. Sure if you have to kill someone in self defence it is justifiable, but for taking your property? If I was getting robbed and my life was not in danger I would let the guy rob the place. It avoids any retaliation that could bring harm to my family, and I have home and contents insurance with new for old replacement, so I'll get all of the property replaced brand new. The only thing I would ask is if he didn't take my hard drive because I have work on it.

daqua_99

Not all people have property insurance.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]Why do you assume that people side with the criminals? They're not asking the criminals to get off without punishment.airshocker

It seems to me that you side with a criminal when you defend their actions and then put the blame on those that they hurt. Not you specifically, mind, but various organizations and lawyers.

I think we worry far too much on what happens to the criminal than what they did to their victims. That seems a little backwards to me.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]Why do you assume that people side with the criminals? They're not asking the criminals to get off without punishment.Plzhelpmelearn

It seems to me that you side with a criminal when you defend their actions and then put the blame on those that they hurt. Not you specifically, mind, but various organizations and lawyers.

I think we worry far too much on what happens to the criminal than what they did to their victims. That seems a little backwards to me.

I'm playing by your rules here. If statistics don't matter to you with something as important as taking a life, then surely they don't count for squat when disputing a law. How are you going to have it? Are statistics going to be important or not?jalexbrown

Statistics are important, but in a different way than you seem to percieve them. Am I willing to gamble someone else's life with statistics? Maybe. Am I willing to gamble my own life with statistics? No way.

Statistics matter up until the point at which I have to choose whether I stake my life on them. At that point, the statistics fly out the window and I take the most secure and least risky option for myself. Even at 1,000,000 to 1 odds against, I will act on the assumption that a burglar intends to harm me and take my property.

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

I can't believe there are places in the US where the law places property rights over the right to live. Sure if you have to kill someone in self defence it is justifiable, but for taking your property? If I was getting robbed and my life was not in danger I would let the guy rob the place. It avoids any retaliation that could bring harm to my family, and I have home and contents insurance with new for old replacement, so I'll get all of the property replaced brand new. The only thing I would ask is if he didn't take my hard drive because I have work on it.

dkrustyklown

Well, some of us either cannot afford or are not willing to buy such insurance. For us, our guns are our insurance policy.

You're not going to argue that because I don't have property insurance then I don't have a right to do anything to protect my property, are you?

No, but insurance is the best way to protect your property. What happens if you get burgled when you are out? What happens if your house gets caught in a flood, fire or earthquake? What happens when your property is damaged due to lightning? Your gun doesn't cover that, it only covers a small portion. I have no problem in paying $800 a year for more peace of mind than what a gun brings

I think it is more of keeping things in perspective. We are talking about a man's life versus some property. If you just called the cops, the criminal could still be caught. If you shoot him in the back as he runs (obviously in a situation where your life is not threatened) then you have ended a human life over stuff. It is easy to blame the criminal and he or she obviously initiated this specific situation, however it may be wise to consider what has possibly led the criminal to this point in his life. Perhaps the criminal is trying to provide for his or her family out of desperate circumstances? Is this deserving of death especially if the criminal presents no risk to your or your family's life? Plzhelpmelearn

How am I supposed to know he doesn't intend to do my family harm?

If a criminal breaks into my home when I'm around and he doesn't surrender when I challenge him, I'm going to shoot him. I don't care what his life circumstances are.

Do I want to blow him away because he dared break into my home and threaten my family? Absolutely. But I know I can't shoot someone in the back if they run unless I have a very good reason. On the other hand, I don't think someone who isn't trained like I am should be punished for defending themselves if the only way they know how to is with a firearm.

I think it is more of keeping things in perspective. We are talking about a man's life versus some property. If you just called the cops, the criminal could still be caught. If you shoot him in the back as he runs (obviously in a situation where your life is not threatened) then you have ended a human life over stuff. Plzhelpmelearn

Stuff which I had to labor many hours to acquire. Stuff which if a thief steals, then the thief has effectively enslaved me for the amount of time that I had to labor to acquire it. Lets face it, if I had to work 40 hours to buy something, and then someone comes along and steals it from me, then for those 40 hours which I labored to buy the item, I was basically a slave to the thief. I don't take kindly to being enslaved.

It is easy to blame the criminal and he or she obviously initiated this specific situation, however it may be wise to consider what has possibly led the criminal to this point in his life. Perhaps the criminal is trying to provide for his or her family out of desperate circumstances?Plzhelpmelearn

Didn't ask. Don't care. Not my problem.

Is this deserving of death especially if the criminal presents no risk to your or your family's life? Plzhelpmelearn

Well, considering that the thief is effectively trying to enslave me, then the answer is yes.

[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"]I think it is more of keeping things in perspective. We are talking about a man's life versus some property. If you just called the cops, the criminal could still be caught. If you shoot him in the back as he runs (obviously in a situation where your life is not threatened) then you have ended a human life over stuff. It is easy to blame the criminal and he or she obviously initiated this specific situation, however it may be wise to consider what has possibly led the criminal to this point in his life. Perhaps the criminal is trying to provide for his or her family out of desperate circumstances? Is this deserving of death especially if the criminal presents no risk to your or your family's life? airshocker

How am I supposed to know he doesn't intend to risk my family's life?

If a criminal breaks into my home when I'm around and he doesn't surrender when I challenge him, I'm going to shoot him. I don't care what his life circumstances are.

So if he runs out the front door fleeing for his life after you challenge him does that constitute as surrender? I understand that this circumstance would be very sensitive and I could not necessarily blame someone for being jumpy and pulling the trigger out of uncertainty and fear of what the criminal's intentions would be. However, I am getting the vibe from some of you that it would be good sport to shoot a criminal entering into your home, like it was a deer in the woods. I see though that you seem pretty incapable of empathy "I don't care what his life circumstances are...." so there is no point in trying to make you understand that most criminals don't want to steal to make a living, they just have not had the opportunities that a nice middle class homeowner like yourself (in this example) has had to earn a nice living. Plzhelpmelearn

There's nothing sporting about shooting someone. And fleeing does constitute surrender.

I don't have sympathy for what drove a criminal to do his crime because, in the end, it's not my fault. If it was, maybe I'd feel something, who knows. You can't let sympathy get in the way of the law.

No, but insurance is the best way to protect your property. What happens if you get burgled when you are out? What happens if your house gets caught in a flood, fire or earthquake? What happens when your property is damaged due to lightning? Your gun doesn't cover that, it only covers a small portion. I have no problem in paying $800 a year for more peace of mind than what a gun brings

daqua_99

So, you're basically arguing that only those who can afford such insurance deserve peace of mind in security of property, while those that cannot afford the insurance are just out of luck and have to accept that a burglar can kick in a window and take whatever he wants while the legitimate property owners stand by and watch helplessly as they wait for the police. That seems to argue that security is only for the rich, while the rest of us lowly peons can do nothing to secure our property.

Nope. Those aren't the rules that I go by. Thank God they aren't the rules by which my state functions, either.

[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"]

Stuff which I had to labor many hours to acquire. Stuff which if a thief steals, then the thief has effectively enslaved me for the amount of time that I had to labor to acquire it. Lets face it, if I had to work 40 hours to buy something, and then someone comes along and steals it from me, then for those 40 hours which I labored to buy the item, I was basically a slave to the thief. I don't take kindly to being enslaved.

[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"]It is easy to blame the criminal and he or she obviously initiated this specific situation, however it may be wise to consider what has possibly led the criminal to this point in his life. Perhaps the criminal is trying to provide for his or her family out of desperate circumstances?dkrustyklown

Didn't ask. Don't care. Not my problem.

Is this deserving of death especially if the criminal presents no risk to your or your family's life? Plzhelpmelearn

Well, considering that the thief is effectively trying to enslave me, then the answer is yes.

I think people who would kill someone who broke into their house and surrendered are just using the moment as an excuse to induldge in a killing urge. Most people don't want to kill others. It scares me that some people want to be judge jury and executioner of unarmed criminals.

Didn't ask. Don't care. Not my problem.

dkrustyklown

I'd dare say that this attitude is one of the major causes behind America's crime problems. The authorities and civilians alike are too caught up in catching and punishing criminals. They treat the symptoms instead of the desease. If you don't care about problems in your own society and don't try to fix them, then don't whine when they visit your house at 3 in the morning.

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

No, but insurance is the best way to protect your property. What happens if you get burgled when you are out? What happens if your house gets caught in a flood, fire or earthquake? What happens when your property is damaged due to lightning? Your gun doesn't cover that, it only covers a small portion. I have no problem in paying $800 a year for more peace of mind than what a gun brings

dkrustyklown

So, you're basically arguing that only those who can afford such insurance deserve peace of mind in security of property, while those that cannot afford the insurance are just out of luck and have to accept that a burglar can kick in a window and take whatever he wants while the legitimate property owners stand by and watch helplessly as they wait for the police. That seems to argue that security is only for the rich, while the rest of us lowly peons can do nothing to secure our property.

Nope. Those aren't the rules that I go by. Thank God they aren't the rules by which my state functions, either.

See our country has the philosophy of life over property. If someone comes into my place and isn't hurting me, I cannot lay a finger on them.

Also, what are you talking about "security is only for the rich, while the rest of us lowly peons can do nothing to secure our property"? $800 a year for $100,000 worth of insurance is not beyond the reach of people. Heck, it's just one week's worth of work at the minimum wage. And as I said, just by having a gun doesn't mean you have peace of mind. People without insurance are those that complain when their house burns down and can't afford a new one because instead of spending money on insurance they spent it on a flat-screen TV.

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

No, but insurance is the best way to protect your property. What happens if you get burgled when you are out? What happens if your house gets caught in a flood, fire or earthquake? What happens when your property is damaged due to lightning? Your gun doesn't cover that, it only covers a small portion. I have no problem in paying $800 a year for more peace of mind than what a gun brings

dkrustyklown

So, you're basically arguing that only those who can afford such insurance deserve peace of mind in security of property, while those that cannot afford the insurance are just out of luck and have to accept that a burglar can kick in a window and take whatever he wants while the legitimate property owners stand by and watch helplessly as they wait for the police. That seems to argue that security is only for the rich, while the rest of us lowly peons can do nothing to secure our property.

Nope. Those aren't the rules that I go by. Thank God they aren't the rules by which my state functions, either.

See our country has the philosophy of life over property. daqua_99

I refer you to the Texas Penal Codes section 9.41 to refute your point.

If someone comes into my place and isn't hurting me, I cannot lay a finger on them.daqua_99

Once again, I refer you to Texas Penal Code section 9.41 on this point. Also, take a moment to check out sections 9.42 and 9.43. Also, take into account the Castle Doctrine as it is applied in Texas and other states, like Oklahoma. Basically, a homeowner can slay anyone that enters his or her home without authorization, regardless of the circumstances or intent.

Also, what are you talking about "security is only for the rich, while the rest of us lowly peons can do nothing to secure our property"? $800 a year for $100,000 worth of insurance is not beyond the reach of people. Heck, it's just one week's worth of work at the minimum wage. And as I said, just by having a gun doesn't mean you have peace of mind. People without insurance are those that complain when their house burns down and can't afford a new one because instead of spending money on insurance they spent it on a flat-screen TV.

daqua_99

Oh, skip the insurance sales routine. There are many different kinds of insurance at many different rates. Depending on locale, coverage and prices vary greatly.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] I'm playing by your rules here. If statistics don't matter to you with something as important as taking a life, then surely they don't count for squat when disputing a law. How are you going to have it? Are statistics going to be important or not?dkrustyklown

Statistics are important, but in a different way than you seem to percieve them. Am I willing to gamble someone else's life with statistics? Maybe. Am I willing to gamble my own life with statistics? No way.

Statistics matter up until the point at which I have to choose whether I stake my life on them. At that point, the statistics fly out the window and I take the most secure and least risky option for myself. Even at 1,000,000 to 1 odds against, I will act on the assumption that a burglar intends to harm me and take my property.

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

See our country has the philosophy of life over property. dkrustyklown

I refer you to the Texas Penal Codes section 9.41 to refute your point.

How does the fact that Texas has different laws than Australia refute his point?

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

I refer you to the Texas Penal Codes section 9.41 to refute your point.

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]If someone comes into my place and isn't hurting me, I cannot lay a finger on them.dkrustyklown

Once again, I refer you to Texas Penal Code section 9.41 on this point. Also, take a moment to check out sections 9.42 and 9.43. Also, take into account the Castle Doctrine as it is applied in Texas and other states, like Oklahoma. Basically, a homeowner can slay anyone that enters his or her home without authorization, regardless of the circumstances or intent.

Also, what are you talking about "security is only for the rich, while the rest of us lowly peons can do nothing to secure our property"? $800 a year for $100,000 worth of insurance is not beyond the reach of people. Heck, it's just one week's worth of work at the minimum wage. And as I said, just by having a gun doesn't mean you have peace of mind. People without insurance are those that complain when their house burns down and can't afford a new one because instead of spending money on insurance they spent it on a flat-screen TV.

Plzhelpmelearn

Oh, skip the insurance sales routine. There are many different kinds of insurance at many different rates. Depending on locale, coverage and prices vary greatly.

Well then I hope you never go to anyone's house, because the odds are at least 1,000,000 to 1 that someone is abusing the Castle Doctrine.jalexbrown

Can you verify that statistic? Perhaps you can provide some case examples. Texas itself has a population of over 24 million people. By your numbers, there should be at least 20 cases of people abusing the Castle Doctrine to commit murder. Can you provide us with an example?

I bet you cannot, hehe. I can, however, sit here all day providing examples of intruders that commit murder in other people's homes. Shall we compare how many case examples we can each provide?

Oh, skip the insurance sales routine. There are many different kinds of insurance at many different rates. Depending on locale, coverage and prices vary greatly.

dkrustyklown

on a side note: that was not a quote of mePlzhelpmelearn

Fixed. I have no idea how you got in there.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]Well then I hope you never go to anyone's house, because the odds are at least 1,000,000 to 1 that someone is abusing the Castle Doctrine.dkrustyklown

Can you verify that statistic? Perhaps you can provide some case examples. Texas itself has a population of over 24 million people. By your numbers, there should be at least 20 cases of people abusing the Castle Doctrine to commit murder. Can you provide us with an example?

I bet you cannot, hehe. I can, however, sit here all day providing examples of intruders that commit murder in other people's homes. Shall we compare how many case examples we can each provide?

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]Well then I hope you never go to anyone's house, because the odds are at least 1,000,000 to 1 that someone is abusing the Castle Doctrine.jalexbrown

Can you verify that statistic? Perhaps you can provide some case examples. Texas itself has a population of over 24 million people. By your numbers, there should be at least 20 cases of people abusing the Castle Doctrine to commit murder. Can you provide us with an example?

I bet you cannot, hehe. I can, however, sit here all day providing examples of intruders that commit murder in other people's homes. Shall we compare how many case examples we can each provide?

I'm Australian, the first two points you made are invalid to me.

daqua_99

I had no idea. Oh well, that just goes to show how different we are. For me, it's just one more reason I'm glad that we sent the redcoats packing and another reason to celebrate the 4th of July.

How does the fact that Texas has different laws than Australia refute his point?

GabuEx

Excuse me, I thought that he was a fellow American talking about the US. I didn't know that it was a comparative statement. I concede that Australia has different laws that prioritize values differently.

But that's my point: the law would make it easy to get away with, so who would know? If your law is basically allowing them to do so, then it's hard to prove that it's happening.jalexbrown

It would make the news. There would be an investigation. Even on justified homicides, there is still an investigation to make sure that there isn't any foul play involved. There would be something to link to if it happened.

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

I'm Australian, the first two points you made are invalid to me.

dkrustyklown

I had no idea. Oh well, that just goes to show how different we are. For me, it's just one more reason I'm glad that we sent the redcoats packing and another reason to celebrate the 4th of July.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

Didn't ask. Don't care. Not my problem.

Osaka-06

I'd dare say that this attitude is one of the major causes behind America's crime problems. The authorities and civilians alike are too caught up in catching and punishing criminals. They treat the symptoms instead of the disease. If you don't care about problems in your own society and don't try to fix them, then don't whine when they visit your house at 3 in the morning.