4 ms·
I don't agree with the castle doctrine in a modern context but I'm talking about the 1700s, chill. Back then it made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops inste
by aspaceman 7y ago
I don't agree with the castle doctrine in a modern context but I'm talking about the 1700s, chill. Back then it made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead.
I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind warrants back then. They were a lot more important because you had to explain "What the hell are you doing here, and what gives you the right?"
- taxidump 7y ago>Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead. This is not a great strategy for defence. You should defend yourself first if you are not able to get away. Or here in my state you may stand you ground and protect your life and property with deadly force. Anyone who truly feels in danger should not call the cops and wait for them to come shoot a stranger in their home...
- michaelmrose 7y agoThe cops will arrive when they feel like it. It is well established that they have no legal obligation to respond in a timely fashion even where they in theory could do so. Response time in an emergency in major cities ranges from 5-10 minutes. Longer the further out from the city.
- aspaceman 7y agoWhat does any of this have to do with anything I said?
- sokoloff 7y agoIn the context of "Back then [the castle doctrine] made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead", discussing the response time and obligation of the purported replacement seems perfectly relevant to me. In many cases, you could call the cops and then make yourself a hamburger, eat it, and finish up the dishes before they arrived.