greensteelforge
New member
The use of deadly force by civilians should always be restricted to "last resort". Self defense should never be restricted when there is reasonable cause to believe a lethal threat exists. The "castle doctrine" simply makes it easier to shoot first, and avoid the risk of serious consequences. Essentially, what we are talking about here is whether or not civilians should be able to use deadly force offensively on their own property. If that's fine, then there is little to stop someone from killing a person, calling them an intruder, and never facing serious consequence. Who's going to offer a different story? Further, the Texas law has already led to at least one instance in which a man shot two unarmed men who were robbing his neighbor's home as they ran away. The shooter called 911, informed the operator of the burglary in progress next door, and that he was armed, and intended to shoot the perpetrators. After repeated instruction by the operator to remain in his home, he could be heard setting down the phone, stating that he knew his rights, followed by a door opening and two gunshots. Granted, the men were in the wrong (being Dominican immigrants didn't help their cause much either), but if we can kill over a TV set, where do we draw the line, can I put two in your chest and one in your face for trying to short-change me at the grocery store? I do agree that the law can put a person through the wringer for defending themselves, but we can't have it both ways, and I'd rather live in a state that will treat every shooting as a crime until the facts prove otherwise (this is generally the case with law enforcement, so why shouldn't it apply to you and me?).