The one good thing to be gleaned from this discourse is that I am not AB's friend and have no desire to befriend the likes that would execute a helpless person. Don't give me this nonsense that AB didn't mean that he would shoot the guy who was passed out on his couch. I made those facts quite clear in the hypthetical and if that isn't what he meant he should say so for himself. As for the fool that thinks I want to make it easier to sue homeowners, how does that work when the law I am complaining of is Florida's and I am in California? As for the stand your ground law, AB is the one that is changing the parmeters I made it abundantly clear that I was taliking about Castle Doctrine law and I even cited Florida's statute as well as Califonia's in post #1. The Floridian statute entitled "Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm".
Regardless, I see that AB has stooped to dragging religion into a discussion of legal rights. Open your eyes, AB. Everything you highlighed concerns taking the life of the agressor; NOT THE INNOCENT BYSTANDER.
As for having amplified the facts of the hypothetical, I just wanted to make sure that you thought that you had a right to execute an intruder even though they no longer posed any kind of a threat.
I also see that he is treating the reckless killing of a bystander as an accident. Depending on the degree of recklessness, for instnace if the defendant acts with a complete and utter disregard for human life, such a shooting is generally not treated as an acdident but intentional homcide.
Anyway, I see no purpose in futher spending time on this thread.
Last edited by TheKlawMan; December 29, 2011 at 03:30 AM.