Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fishythepete t1_j6uacdg wrote

Reply to comment by Dangerous_Public_164 in Man claims self-defense in Providence landlord homicide by Rogue-Island-Pirate

Which is why the opening paragraph specifically outlined that the question I was answering wasn't whether the fact pattern precluded a claim of self defense, but rather whether "there's a good answer in the books on whether or not self-defense here could presumably be lawful under the castle doctrine, even in the face of an illegal self-help eviction.

−1

Dangerous_Public_164 t1_j6ug0er wrote

yup, you were specific. I was also being even more specific because your comment was potentially misleading to a layperson.

good luck with your bad self dude.

2

[deleted] t1_j6uickn wrote

[removed]

0

Dangerous_Public_164 t1_j6xkr85 wrote

I'll tell you what, if you weren't intending to be misleading in your "analysis" you certainly succeeded despite yourself. That's why I chimed in. I'm genuinely unsure what you thought was worthwhile about your limited discussion of RI castle doctrine under ch 8 but, your comment was not expansive enough to provide the context to a layperson reader that it was simply your thoughts on a very, very limited slice of a single defense that could be raised at trial.

I am an attorney, I adequately understood what you were trying to say, which was also clear by my post.

again tho--good luck with your bad self. I won't engage with you again, sir lord of logic.

edited to add, if anyone is reading these posts by this exhausting dumbass i just blocked and is temped to think he knows what he's talking about, try to figure where he pulled the fact pattern he's referencing from and consider whether he evidences any understanding of applied jurisprudence on ri's castle doctrine particularly as it pertains to any duty to retreat. or whether maybe he's just pretending to understand a complex thing because he read a statute. which is sort of like walking into your doctor's office with a mayo clinic diagnosis.

1

fishythepete t1_j6ye0vh wrote

>I'll tell you what, if you weren't intending to be misleading in your "analysis" you certainly succeeded despite yourself.

You've called my post misleading three times now. With literal 0 explanation on what part of it you find misleading. Feel free to flesh out that thought a little bit. Because I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

>I'm genuinely unsure what you thought was worthwhile about your limited discussion of RI castle doctrine under ch 8 but,

And... you're an attorney? Let me spell it out for you.

  1. It's an interesting fact pattern, as most self-defense / castle doctrine defenses arise out of attacks by unknown assailants, vs. a known person with a reasonable (if unlawful) goal.
  2. RI is a duty to retreat state. The shooter breached that duty.
  3. There are few exceptions to that duty. § 11-8-8 outlines the exception provided by the castle doctrine.

>your comment was not expansive enough to provide the context to a layperson reader that it was simply your thoughts on a very, very limited slice of a single defense that could be raised at trial.

Unless the layperson reader read the first paragraph... Again, the opening didn't state that I was undertaking a comprehensive review of defenses available to the shooter. It also wasn't silent on the scope of review. It detailed the exact question I was looking to answer. Are you under the impression that any analysis which doesn't boil the ocean is misleading by design?

It's like you just opened a can of carrots you bought and you're getting all worked up about being misled because the carrots are a slightly different color than those on the tin. And there are no peas. You were sold carrots, you got carrots, and any angst that comes out of the transaction exists entirely within you.

>I am an attorney, I adequately understood what you were trying to say, which was also clear by my post.

Lulz

>again tho--good luck with your bad self. I won't engage with you again, sir lord of logic.

Oh no

2