We heard & read this kind of rant before.
Did Martin deserve to die for the crime of residential burglary?
No, she did not.
Under the California penal code, the penalty for that crime is up to six years in prison. It does not call for the death sentence.
Miller and her accomplice allegedly jumped on the homeowner, so the pair was also guilty of simple assault, a misdemeanor in California punishable by a fine up to $2,000 and/or up to six months in jail. Greer never mentioned that either assailant had a weapon and since neither used one, it is unlikely.
Again, there’s no mention of the death penalty for a simple assault.
But this is where it gets complicated.
While the penalty for burglarizing a home could be six months to six years depending on the judge’s ruling, the “castle doctrine” is in effect in California.
Under the state penal code, if someone forcefully or unlawfully enters your residence, it is presumed they are there to do physical harm, KSBY6, an NBC affiliate, reported, adding that it is also presumed the resident has the right to use deadly force against an intruder.
In other words, it’s “stand your ground,” California style.
via California case more reason to outlaw ‘stand your ground’-type defenses.
I will always presume that whomever sides with this asinine argument has never been the victim of a home invasion or any time of violent crime. I figure that they would rather see a family leave the house or be passive or even better: poll the criminals as to what their intentions are before committing to a course of action. But the stupidest of all is to put the burden of responsibility on the victim as if it is his fault that some jackass decided to break into his house and steal their things. Pretty much like blaming rape victims for the actions of the rapist…if she had not worn that dress or even had a vagina…
And maybe the jackass breaking into a home is really not a bad guy but somebody in a bad moment who made a bad decision. But unfortunately we have no way of knowing this and we have way too many of the following to be giving free passes:
They tied the 33-year-old dialysis patient to a chair with cables and extension cords and hog-tied his 27-year-old roommate and threw him naked into the bathtub.
The victims say the men wanted money and kept repeating: “You’re gonna die tonight. You’re gonna meet your maker!”
The two roommates begged for their lives as the robbers ransacked their home looking for money and valuables.
“I really thought that they were gonna kills us,” one said.
I am not willing to gamble my life or the life of my loved ones betting on that I will get the “nice” kind of Home Invaders. That is why the law gives people such a latitude when it comes to defending a home. That is why we have a Castle Doctrine in this country.
So when somebody asks you if you are willing to kill somebody because they want to steal your TV, you can ask in return “Why would anybody risk their lives in order to steal a TV”?
” if someone forcefully or unlawfully enters your residence, it is presumed they are there to do physical harm”
What’s really silly is that they’re acting like this is new or an aberration of some kind. This legal doctrine is really really old, as old as civilization itself. Go back to any point in history and this was how things were. You break into someone’s home, and it’s assumed the occupants are in serious danger.
The first sentence is enough to know that this is a piece written by an ill-informed bleeding-heart that is going to throw every buzz-word in the article to pander to a certain base. It’s starting to be rage inducing when I see “stand your ground” and “Zimmerman” (or “Treyvon”) in the same sentence.
Also, for the old fart who wrote that first piece, get a little training on how to use the web site, the ‘reply’ link is your friend. This isn’t Facebook.
I read a line in a book decades ago that sums up my attitude on B&E. Not a word for word quote, but it went something like this:
A man is shot and killed climbing through a window. Who killed him?
To me that always meant he committed suicide. Intentional or not. It’s just the same as playing Russian Roulette, sooner or later, you’re going to die.
Liberal Ideology 101:
1) The victim is the one who has less power.
2) Victim = good guy.
3) The oppressor is the one with more power.
4) Oppressor = bag guy.
5) INTENTIONS OF EITHER PARTY ARE IRRELEVANT!
Compare this with the liberal take on Israel/Gaza. Hamas wants to exterminate the jews. Hamas launches hundreds of rockets into Israel. Israel gets tired of the attack and responds with the force of one of the finest armies in human history.
Israeli Army = power = oppressors = bad guys
Hamas has some rockets and AK’s = less power = victims = good guys
If 250 lbs man breaks into a home and beats a woman within an inch of her life, she has less power = victim = good guy.
If that woman goes to her closet, gets out the scattergun she now has more power = oppressor = bad guy.
Liberals have entirely done away with the concepts of Mens Rea or moral culpability. It is repugnant.
The video below shows exactly why their argument is BS.
And then the aggressors purposely hide among civilians and the world cries about it when they become collateral damage.
If someone breaks into my home when we’re not there and steals my TV, as reprehensible as those actions are, I’ll admit they just wanted my TV.
If they do it when we ARE there, then I assume they want something else – far more sinister than a TV.
Just sayin’.
I’ve never been subjected to a home invasion, thank God. I have however been the victim of a violent crime. Starting then, I vowed that it wouldn’t happen again. That was Feb. of 1975. 3 days after the attack, I bought a small handgun. It was my constant companion. There have been many different guns over the years and I have never had to shoot anyone. Again, thank God. I did have to draw it once (by then a 38 special) and the miscreant decided he needed to be somewhere else. I hope I go to my grave never having to kill anyone. However, I have the resolve and if some miscreant shows up here to harm me and mine, I will shoot and I will stop the threat. Then I will call the coppers to come and write their report and clean up the mess. Of course since this is Polk County Iowa, I will be arrested because our county asshole er attorney hates the idea of someone defending themselves. We had a man that defended himself spend 113 days in jail and lost everything he owned. The jury took 15 minutes to find him not guilty. And that liberal idiot pisswit county attorney was bragging on how the criminal justice system worked. He ran unopposed in the last election. Jesus wept.
“I am not willing to gamble my life or the life of my loved ones betting on that I will get the “nice” kind of Home Invaders. ” – Miguel G
Amen, man. A-MEN.
when someone forciably enters my home at 3AM, I am forced to assume he isn’t delivering Girl Scout cookies.
It is up to the INTRUDER to justify his presense and assure ME that his intentions are benign. . . and that I can trust him. Since I cannot read his mind, the only way to do that is to ring the damned doorbell and convince me to open it, say, by showing a warrant and a badge. or pointing out the house is on fire.
Otherwise, he’s just here for something nefarious, and by attacking when I’m home (which is pretty much when MOST people would be home), I am forced to assume what he wants is to do harm to some person lawfully in the house. If he was just a simple thief, he’d break in while I’m at work all day.