View Single Post
Old April 25, 2012, 09:28 PM   #81
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Quote:
confusing "stand your ground" with "castle doctrine." Castle doctrine applies IN your home - Aguila Blanca -
Well it's harder to keep things straight when even politicians get it confused - like the SC legislature.

They specifically wrote the words "Castle Doctrine" into their laws and then added provisions that had nothing to do with being in or protecting your home, vehicle or place of business.

I personally believe that the core idea of "Castle Doctrine" is that the presumption that the resident was in fear of grave bodily harm. In a confrontation in the street - there has to be a determination if the use of deadly force was justifed. The person has to show that they were in fear for their life or grave bidily harm etc etc... But in a home invasion, the resident doesn't have to show any of that. it's presumed. After something like the SC legislation is passed, it's hard for me to keep preaching that because they've applied the words "Castle Doctrine" to be any place where you have a right to be. I guess I can state my position with the caveat that SC was wrong to use Castle Doctrine in the context they did. Someone else could argue that once SC used those words and passed their law - they officially defined Castle Doctrine by codifying it and my opinion of it is well... just an opinion.

Illinois has a very decent law concerning these issues and thankfully they didn't use any verbiage like "Stand your ground", or anything like that. It's mostly flown under the radar and resisted those types of characterizations. It's just old fashioned justifiable homocide.

Beleive it or not, despite how well the law works for armed citizens, we routinely get someone who comes on the Illinois Carry forum and starts a thread on how Illinois needs a "Castle Doctrine" law or a "Stand Your Ground" law and the argument goes for 30 or 40 posts before it dies out. And this brings up another idea for me. Maybe there are some zealots or idealouges who are REALLY REALLY invested in the terms and unreasonably demand certain verbiage and maybe politicians give in and insert the popular verbiage to score points with those voters.
C0untZer0 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02113 seconds with 8 queries