Interesting distribution so far, since AFAIK defense of property is, de jure, not a justification for lethal force anywhere in the US
-
-
Castle doctrine still technically requires concern for one's safety, AFAICT. Not enforced that way, which is why I say "de jure"
-
In castle doctrine, theoretically, you're afraid for yourself because someone is in a place they really shouldn't be. That's the justif.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Beat me to it.
-
Castle doctrine de facto permits defense of the home for safety reasons, which would correspond to point A, but that's not technically same
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.