Since a major lack in police transparency hiding behind encryption and they took away our transparency with that when they chase dangerous criminals with helicopters in communities and they take away our ability to monitor the radios I would go with Castile Doctrine act if that criminal being chased breaks into an individuals home I would go with Castle Doctrine act homeowners are entitled to “stand their ground,” meaning they can defend themselves without the obligation to retreat to safety, even if retreat is a feasible option. The law recognizes the inherent right to defend against intruders without the expectation of fleeing when feeling threatened.
For example, a robber comes into the home of a person who is sleeping. The person awakens and investigates the noises and is met by the robber holding a gun or a knife. In states with stand your ground laws or Castle Doctrine act, the threatened person could respond with force – including using their own gun, if one is owned – if necessary. A person that defends themselves in such a situation would not have to worry about criminal prosecution.
Castile Doctrine act and Stand Your Ground
Castile Doctrine act and Stand Your Ground
- Attachments
-
- castle_doctrine.gif (8.96 KiB) Viewed 38327 times
Re: Castile Doctrine act and Stand Your Ground
How to legally protect your property.
State law permits you to use “reasonable force” to defend what is known as “real or personal property” from “imminent harm.” There are three essential aspects of this law, all of which must be met to justify the use of violence when defending property:
Reasonable force: The amount of force you can use in these cases is much more limited than when defending yourself or someone else, and deadly force cannot be used in most cases. Lethal force is considered an excessive response to a threat against property, even when there is no other way to stop the theft, as no one’s life is put in danger when someone takes something like a wallet or purse.
Real or personal property: While this is an example of legal jargon that confuses people, these terms are actually simple. Like “real estate,” “real property” refers to land or something on the land. “Personal” property, on the other hand, means other possessions, like a wallet, cell phone, painting, etc. If someone threatens your real or personal property, you have the right to defend it.
Imminent harm: In this case, the immediate threat of theft or damage to your property.
State law permits you to use “reasonable force” to defend what is known as “real or personal property” from “imminent harm.” There are three essential aspects of this law, all of which must be met to justify the use of violence when defending property:
Reasonable force: The amount of force you can use in these cases is much more limited than when defending yourself or someone else, and deadly force cannot be used in most cases. Lethal force is considered an excessive response to a threat against property, even when there is no other way to stop the theft, as no one’s life is put in danger when someone takes something like a wallet or purse.
Real or personal property: While this is an example of legal jargon that confuses people, these terms are actually simple. Like “real estate,” “real property” refers to land or something on the land. “Personal” property, on the other hand, means other possessions, like a wallet, cell phone, painting, etc. If someone threatens your real or personal property, you have the right to defend it.
Imminent harm: In this case, the immediate threat of theft or damage to your property.