Mississippi 'Castle Doctrine' Self-Defense Bill Signed Into Law

[afleitch]

Beside the issue of evidence, it seems like you would be allowed to summarily execute an intruder even after you subdued him on your own.

Quote. Exactly, the perfect crime. Make it look like the man you invited into your home to have done away with was an intruder. BANG. He's dead and you're in the clear, who's going to accuse you otherwise? An awful piece of legislation.

I love it when the subjects of a monarchy (who don't even have any gun rights whatsoever), preach to Americans about our gun laws.

I love it when the subject of a President who thinks he's a monarch (and fails to realise we don't have a concept of gun 'rights' as we don't have a constitution) preaches to Brits about our gun laws

[John Dibble]

Beside the issue of evidence, it seems like you would be allowed to summarily execute an intruder even after you subdued him on your own.

Wrong. If the defender has subdued the perp, then it would be rather difficult to maintain that the defender had good reason to fear imminent bodily harm or other felony commission, as at that point it can be shown that imminent bodily harm or other felony commision is highly unlikely.

[David S]

With regards to waiting until the gun is pulled out, the police are generally required to do this before they can legally kill someone. I wouldn't think it would make sense to allow private citizens more leeway in self-defense then it would the police.

Of course, I would entirely agree: in public areas, one should have to wait until a gun is pulled out. However, different standards should apply when one's own home has been broken into.

In general, when someone breaks into your property, I would think it reasonable for you to assume that he intends to cause harm to you, even though no gun may be in sight.

Especially in the middle of the night. Let me tell you, if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night with my wife and children at risk. I'd open fire, no question about it.

Seems like a logical reaction to me, but some folks would prefer that you get a written statement from the perp indicating that it was his intention to kill you. Then you can kill him, although you might need to have the statement signed by a notary too.

[Sam Spade]

Obviously, I support this legislation.

This also once again proves how difficult it is to beat Emsworth in this forum on legal interpretation.  So much so that I really don't try most of the time. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

However, different standards should apply when one's own home has been broken into.

Why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Breaks into your home when it is quite obvious that you or someone else is there... then yes, I can understand why someone might think that (despite that, it is still wrong to give a homeowner a bit of a blank cheque to blow the brains out of anyone who tresspasses. If the homeowner, or anyone else legally in that house, has a *reasonable* fear that whoever has broken into the house intends to kill them, then I don't actually have a problem with him/her shooting the intruder. But this all goes much further beyond that than is safe or fair).

But breaks into your property? Don't be silly.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Republican - AYE!

[Emsworth]

However, different standards should apply when one's own home has been broken into.

Why?

There are a multitude of reasons. In public, there might be bystanders ready to assist the individual, or to witness and report any crime; in the home, others are probably not present. In public, there is an opportunity to retreat, but it is unreasonable to expect someone to leave a criminal in his own home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Property, meaning home, vehicle, place of employment, etc.--the places covered by the bill.