4 ms·

It doesn't worry you that people could misuse the law? For example, shooting someone to death first, then placing them under their car, and that way get away wi

It doesn't worry you that people could misuse the law? For example, shooting someone to death first, then placing them under their car, and that way get away with murder?

sodality2 5y ago
That can happen anyway. Place them in your house and say they broke in
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- capableweb 5y ago
  You're not joking, apparently it's legal to shot people to death if they've entered your home. Learned something new today. I don't understand it all, but certainly puts the new law into perspective and apparently what I was thinking about wouldn't be a problem.
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    Invite them over to your house without anyone knowing about this, then shoot them. Would it work?
    - defen 5y ago
      People keep coming up with these fanciful scenarios because they don't like the idea of being able to shoot intruders, but think about that for a second. You're positing that a person wants to kill a random person they don't know, but also wants to do it in the loudest, messiest way that absolutely guarantees a police investigation. And the outcome, if their brilliant little scheme fails, is the death penalty.
      - 8note 5y ago
        A similar scheme has worked for Rittenhouse
        defen 5y ago
        There's no point in arguing about the facts of the Rittenhouse case, because everyone has seen all the video and decided where they stand on the issue. Arguing about it will only lead to a flamewar. So let's posit that you are 100% correct - Rittenhouse went there with the explicit goal of shooting people, killed multiple people, and was not convicted of any crime. Do you think anyone looks at that scenario and thinks "and it was totally worth it, I want to do that too"? He's going to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He's 18 and effectively has no chance of living a normal life unless he moves to another country and disappears. He very easily could have been killed by skateboard guy, or knocked out by jump kick guy and beaten to death, or shot by Grosskreutz.
        lowkey_ 5y ago
        A jury has found that was not the case with Rittenhouse; reading the Wikipedia page that details the incident will explain why [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting
        robbedpeter 5y ago
        There are still people convinced he killed three unarmed black men during a peaceful protest. The reality dysfunction is surreal.
prepend 5y ago
This seems super unlikely as the framer would need to have specialized saws to plant on the victim. If someone wants to abuse a castle doctrine law there are already easier ways to do that. I’m also not aware of any stories where the existing laws have been abused to kill people legally (eg, shooting someone, planting them in your house or as a carjacker). Although maybe they are just so successful they aren’t caught.
- 8note 5y ago
  Is a battery sawsall very specialized?
  - prepend 5y ago
    In the sense that it’s not commonly carried, then yes.
avalys 5y ago
In most states, you can claim under almost any circumstances that a person came at you with a weapon (a rock?) and you shot them in self-defense. It is up to the criminal justice system to investigate and determine if you are lying. This situation is no different.
- capableweb 5y ago
  > In most states, you can claim under almost any circumstances that a person came at you with a weapon (a rock?) and you shot them in self-defense. Yeah, I realize I'm with water over my head as I don't understand US laws at all, and how it can legal to kill other people like that.
  - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure any country would be fine with you killing someone in self-defense...
    - Viliam1234 5y ago
      For example, Soviet Union made self-defense illegal. This was part of a larger strategy to encourage crime against citizens, because the more the citizens are worrying about criminals, the less they think about the regime they are living in. They will even welcome more police oversight, because it is the only protection against crime they have. (Crimes against the state, on the other hand, were punished extremely.)
      - widespace_ 5y ago
        Congratulations you made me make an account. Do you have any sources for that story? I would be interested in reading them because what you are describing sounds so idiotic that it seems like a parody of anti-communist talking points.
    - foxfluff 5y ago
      You'd be surprised. No, there are many places where you want to think twice about responding to violence with violence, because if your violent response is deemed exaggerated, you end up being the one worse off on day of judgement. Technically I suppose you could get away with killing if it can be shown that your life was in immediate danger, and not in the "old hobo waves a knife so cop shoots him in the back from thirty feet away" way like in the US. In practice that never happens, because it is very difficult to show that the only thing you could've done was to kill. Even if someone had you at gunpoint. Someone waving a rock or a knife? Lol no, unless you emerged out of a struggle with stab wounds or broken bones.
defen 5y ago
Texas also has the death penalty for premeditated murder, which would probably be the case if you're prepared enough to frame the victim for catalytic converter theft. So if you're going to use an affirmative defense ("Yes I did it, but it was justified") then that seems like a pretty big risk, especially if there's no real evidence the victim was a cat thief.
HelixEndeavor 5y ago
That's what investigations and courts of law are for. Your hypothetical of "what if you killed someone and then framed it as self-defense" is an argument as old as time. It is the basis of every justice system humanity has ever created. This idea goes beyond the Bible.

It doesn't worry you that people could misuse the law? For example, shooting someone to death first, then placing them under their car, and that way get away with murder?

sodality2 5y ago

That can happen anyway. Place them in your house and say they broke in

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
capableweb 5y ago
You're not joking, apparently it's legal to shot people to death if they've entered your home. Learned something new today. I don't understand it all, but certainly puts the new law into perspective and apparently what I was thinking about wouldn't be a problem.
- johnisgood 5y ago
  Invite them over to your house without anyone knowing about this, then shoot them. Would it work?
  - defen 5y ago
    People keep coming up with these fanciful scenarios because they don't like the idea of being able to shoot intruders, but think about that for a second. You're positing that a person wants to kill a random person they don't know, but also wants to do it in the loudest, messiest way that absolutely guarantees a police investigation. And the outcome, if their brilliant little scheme fails, is the death penalty.
    - 8note 5y ago
      A similar scheme has worked for Rittenhouse
      - defen 5y ago
        There's no point in arguing about the facts of the Rittenhouse case, because everyone has seen all the video and decided where they stand on the issue. Arguing about it will only lead to a flamewar. So let's posit that you are 100% correct - Rittenhouse went there with the explicit goal of shooting people, killed multiple people, and was not convicted of any crime. Do you think anyone looks at that scenario and thinks "and it was totally worth it, I want to do that too"? He's going to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He's 18 and effectively has no chance of living a normal life unless he moves to another country and disappears. He very easily could have been killed by skateboard guy, or knocked out by jump kick guy and beaten to death, or shot by Grosskreutz.
      - lowkey_ 5y ago
        A jury has found that was not the case with Rittenhouse; reading the Wikipedia page that details the incident will explain why [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting
        robbedpeter 5y ago
        There are still people convinced he killed three unarmed black men during a peaceful protest. The reality dysfunction is surreal.

prepend 5y ago

This seems super unlikely as the framer would need to have specialized saws to plant on the victim. If someone wants to abuse a castle doctrine law there are already easier ways to do that. I’m also not aware of any stories where the existing laws have been abused to kill people legally (eg, shooting someone, planting them in your house or as a carjacker). Although maybe they are just so successful they aren’t caught.

8note 5y ago
Is a battery sawsall very specialized?
- prepend 5y ago
  In the sense that it’s not commonly carried, then yes.

avalys 5y ago

In most states, you can claim under almost any circumstances that a person came at you with a weapon (a rock?) and you shot them in self-defense. It is up to the criminal justice system to investigate and determine if you are lying. This situation is no different.

capableweb 5y ago
> In most states, you can claim under almost any circumstances that a person came at you with a weapon (a rock?) and you shot them in self-defense. Yeah, I realize I'm with water over my head as I don't understand US laws at all, and how it can legal to kill other people like that.
- qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure any country would be fine with you killing someone in self-defense...
  - Viliam1234 5y ago
    For example, Soviet Union made self-defense illegal. This was part of a larger strategy to encourage crime against citizens, because the more the citizens are worrying about criminals, the less they think about the regime they are living in. They will even welcome more police oversight, because it is the only protection against crime they have. (Crimes against the state, on the other hand, were punished extremely.)
    - widespace_ 5y ago
      Congratulations you made me make an account. Do you have any sources for that story? I would be interested in reading them because what you are describing sounds so idiotic that it seems like a parody of anti-communist talking points.
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    You'd be surprised. No, there are many places where you want to think twice about responding to violence with violence, because if your violent response is deemed exaggerated, you end up being the one worse off on day of judgement. Technically I suppose you could get away with killing if it can be shown that your life was in immediate danger, and not in the "old hobo waves a knife so cop shoots him in the back from thirty feet away" way like in the US. In practice that never happens, because it is very difficult to show that the only thing you could've done was to kill. Even if someone had you at gunpoint. Someone waving a rock or a knife? Lol no, unless you emerged out of a struggle with stab wounds or broken bones.

defen 5y ago

Texas also has the death penalty for premeditated murder, which would probably be the case if you're prepared enough to frame the victim for catalytic converter theft. So if you're going to use an affirmative defense ("Yes I did it, but it was justified") then that seems like a pretty big risk, especially if there's no real evidence the victim was a cat thief.

HelixEndeavor 5y ago

That's what investigations and courts of law are for. Your hypothetical of "what if you killed someone and then framed it as self-defense" is an argument as old as time. It is the basis of every justice system humanity has ever created. This idea goes beyond the Bible.