No, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to facilitate insurrection

[Cubantripod]

Sure I do....it's even totally legal in most if not all red states and even some more moderate blue ones. With more going constitutional carry/CD/SYG every month it seems lately.

Hell at my spot in Montana I can pop you for trying to steal one of my lawn gnomes.

My sheriff would give me a box of ammo and thank me for saving him the excessive paperwork.


https://www.ballisticink.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BallisticInk_IV8888_RoofKoreanNoLootNoShoot_Women_Tshirt_Black_CloseUp.jpg



Fucking right they weren't....we made sure of it.

What states are those? I am not familiar with any state that allows for the use of deadly force to protect property. You can use deadly force to protect the lives of others.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Self-defense is an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is a legal excuse. You're saying "yes I did it, but I have a good reason" that law accepts. Affirmative defenses also work in civil cases.

Ok, go to Montana, buy some land, place a garden gnome on your land, when someone comes and picks it, and starts to take it away, shoot them.

I want to see the Judge who considers that "self defence".

The above situation, is the exact situation BoBo claimed he could get away with.

WTF you are sticking your nose into the conversation for here, seemingly chastising or attempting to educate me, yet telling BoBo in the previous post to this one, that you don't know of any law that allows for the use of deadly force for property theft????

Is it because I tend to take the opposite stand of you in political conversation, or did you just not follow the conversation????

 

[Cubantripod]

Ok, go to Montana, buy some land, place a garden gnome on your land, when someone comes and picks it, and starts to take it away, shoot them.

I want to see the Judge who considers that "self defence".

The above situation, is the exact situation BoBo claimed he could get away with.

WTF you are sticking your nose into the conversation for here, seemingly chastising or attempting to educate me, yet telling BoBo in the previous post to this one, that you don't know of any law that allows for the use of deadly force for property theft????

Is it because I tend to take the opposite stand of you in political conversation, or did you just not follow the conversation????

Read my next comment. I stated that very same point. I know of no state that allows for deadly force to protect property. On the post you quoted, I responded to the part about "justifiable" self defense.

 

[CornusKousa]

What states are those? I am not familiar with any state that allows for the use of deadly force to protect property. You can use deadly force to protect the lives of others.

Depends on what kind of property and where said property is I suppose.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-da0b43225938aa422262b93d0446d3fb

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Read my next comment. I stated that very same point. I know of no state that allows for deadly force to protect property. On the post you quoted, I responded to the part about "justifiable" self defense.

"Montana does not have any codified protection from liability for justifiable self-defense. That means you could potentially be sued if you shoot someone in self-defense."

The above is a quote from the Lawyer, that was in my post. It was from the link posted not from me.

I am pretty well aware of the legalities as they pertains to "self defence". As well, remember this, once you are in front of a Judge, with no jury. The case now has a 50/50 chance of you winning or losing, all evidence aside.

And in Montana, regardless of being legally able to prove you shot someone in self defence, you could still be sued by the injured party, and if the case has merit, it moves ahead through the system, and the shooter could end up losing the civil case and having an award against them.

 

[Cubantripod]

"Montana does not have any codified protection from liability for justifiable self-defense. That means you could potentially be sued if you shoot someone in self-defense."

The above is a quote from the Lawyer, that was in my post. It was from the link posted not from me.

I am pretty well aware of the legalities as they pertains to "self defence". As well, remember this, once you are in front of a Judge, with no jury. The case now has a 50/50 chance of you winning or losing, all evidence aside.

And in Montana, regardless of being legally able to prove you shot someone in self defence, you could still be sued by the injured party, and if the case has merit, it moves ahead through the system, and the shooter could end up losing the civil case and having an award against them.

Well, before you get to the jury you're before the judge who will rule on your affirmative defenses and if as a matter of law the case can proceed. Not having statutory protections means that there's no immunity from you being civilly liable. However, if your affirmative defense excuses you from criminal prosecution, it's extremely unlikely that it won't work at the civil level either.

I'll take my chances with a judge. Sometimes you just don't know what a jury is thinking. A judge's biggest fear is getting reversed on appeal.

 

[Cubantripod]

Depends on what kind of property and where said property is I suppose.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-da0b43225938aa422262b93d0446d3fb

Stay your ground means that you don't have to retreat. You still have to have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger. The castle doctrine is just stand your ground in your home. You don't have to retreat in your home, but your life must still be in danger. You will have more wiggle room in convincing the cops and a judge, that you or your family's was in danger. If you shoot the burglar in the back, you better make sure you can convince someone that you honestly thought your kids were in the room he was running towards.