Submitted by LaunderMachine t3_zppgoj in baltimore
DoIt2It t1_j0u3nnm wrote
Reply to comment by guest0112 in Stand your ground vs Duty to retreat by LaunderMachine
Castle doctrine. You’re fine attacking someone in your home.
TopS3cr3t t1_j0ue9tf wrote
> Castle doctrine. You’re fine attacking someone defending yourself in your home.
Fixed that for you.
BaltimoreBadger23 t1_j0u5y63 wrote
Ummm... It doesn't work if you invite them in. (Simpsons reference)
Shonuff8 t1_j0ua5j9 wrote
Hideley-ho!
anne_hollydaye t1_j0uay6j wrote
To clarify this further: ONLY if you feel your life is in danger, and ONLY to protect life. You cannot retaliate if they're trying to steal property. And one can absolutely expect to go to jail if one shoots an assailant in one's own home.
DoIt2It t1_j0ubod6 wrote
That isn’t true. You only have to prove that use of force was reasonable.
CrabEnthusist t1_j0ulmzb wrote
Using deadly force to purely defend property is per se unreasonable, but, there is a default presumption that someone breaking into your house is a threat to your safety.
anne_hollydaye t1_j0ud5sr wrote
This is what I was told by a lawyer who defends folks in this position, but I ABSOLUTELY may be wrong.
saltyjohnson t1_j0wqmw0 wrote
No, your use of force must be reasonable. You can't shoot an unarmed person for trying to take your TV, but maybe you can smack them in the leg with a baseball bat, depending on the circumstances. To say "you cannot retaliate if they're trying to steal property" is technically true, but you can defend property using reasonable force.
But honestly, that's what homeowners' and renters' insurance is for. Keep your priceless things hidden in a safe, but let them take your TV, who cares.
anne_hollydaye t1_j0ynpsf wrote
Since we're sorta talking about shooting people, I assumed folks would understand I meant you can't shoot a guy for stealing your TV...since LOTS of folks assume gun ownership = you can shoot a guy for stealing your TV.
But yes, you're correct on all points. Hell I even carried renters' when I was dating-but-living-with my then-boyfriend, because his homeowners' would not cover my stuff and renters' is cheap as heck.
saltyjohnson t1_j0yuryr wrote
Fair enough!
And yeah, renter's insurance is absurdly cheap. I've even thought about getting it as a homeowner so I could cover theft or other losses without hitting my homeowner's insurance, and I was gonna look into whether I could get coverage without being a renter, and then I forgot, and then years go by 🤷 But now I'm thinking about it again.
anne_hollydaye t1_j0yzxtl wrote
That's an interesting thought.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments