I am a person who truly believes in doing whatever is necessary to protect yourself and your family but the way things are today many individuals define being threatened in different ways. I do understand that if an intruder enters your home you have to right to protect your house and those inside but when you take that and apply it to your vehicle I think things change. When in your vehicle what can be considered a threat? Lots of people have road rage and when they get upset they do crazy things so if someone cuts you off on the highway is that enough to feel threaten and justify the use of force with the ability to apply the “Castle Doctrine”. As Rep Coleman said “If you look at who’s been harmed, it’s mostly people of color.” Not to make this a racial thing but life has taught us something’s that we are to fear those that do not look like us so if an African American or a Hispanic or any other person of color cuts you off on the highway is ok to perceive that as a threat and shoot them. This law is similar to the Stand Your Ground law in Florida as it is being applied in the case of Trayvon Martin.
I know that material things don’t matter and that they can be replaced were as a human’s life cannot be. I want to say that a person should be able to use deadly force if someone is trying to steal what they are worked hard to get, but that wouldn’t be right. Only GOD decides when someone should die not man, so I feel that the law should be that deadly force could be used if and only if a person is trying to harm you or someone else. Not when someone is trying to steal your property, because they are just material things that can be replaced. I have faith that you reap what you sow, so if a person feels that they have to steal instead of working like other people to get what they want they will get what is coming to them eventually.
Shouldn’t we stop and think before we shoot and kill someone? There has been cases when people shot and asked questions later and it turned out they shot and killed a family member. I believe we have the right to protect ourselves when we are in imminent danger. But before the trigger of a gun is pulled don’t you want to make sure that there is real trouble and you have no other course of action to take? Do you want to live with the knowledge you killed your daughter by mistake, or the neighbor that is drunk and thought he was going into his home? What if it was someone breaking into your home and he didn’t have a gun, but you shot and killed him anyway? I have never been put in this type of situation where I needed to pull a gun to protect myself or my family, thank God! I don’t know how I would feel if I did kill someone but I don’t want to ever be put in that situation to find out! When the language of a law is “too subjective” it needs to be looked at closer and changed where there is no misunderstanding. Color has nothing to do with the language of the law it’s the words. If the law is written in plain English where there is not a question of right or wrong there isn’t a problem as far as I’m concerned.
The Castle Doctrine was created with good intentions, but I do agree that the doctrine is too subjective and should be modified to be specific to just someone’s home. I do believe that an individual should have the right to protect their home and family in the situation that an individual feels threatened. However I believe that the use of force in public or to protect your own vehicle should not be allowed in part of the Castle Doctrine. The reason for this is because of the same reason stated in this news article, each individual sees a threat in a different manner and uses their own thoughts and prejudice in interpreting the law in which they see fit. A good example of prejudice in regards to the stand your ground laws is the Florida case of trayvon martin. Martin was an African American teen who was killed by an individual who thought he looked suspicious because of his skin color, and because the individual interpreted the law as he felt fit for his situation. This Florida case comes to show that the issue is not just a Texas problem but minorities in different states are being affected by the stand your ground laws. Another good example on why the Castle Doctrine should be modified is road rage. An individual could use the excuse of being cut off as a threat and decide it is okay to shoot another driver, since the individual feared for his life.
The Castle Doctrine was created under good intentions in my opinion. I do believe that it should also apply in other areas. When a home is being broken into, I believe you have the right to defend yourself. A burglar may be carrying a weapon, if so you should be entitled to carrying one as well. Also a gun may scare them off. If you see a gun when you’re about to steal someone’s belongings, you may change your mind. This should also apply in a car or a parking lot in my opinion. If a person comes up to your car and tries to take your car or harm you and your family, I believe you should be able to defend yourself. A person losing their life is always a sad tragedy, but they put themselves at risk when they try to obtain things illegally. The hard working Americans have earned their belongings and don’t deserve to have a stranger come and take them because they want the easy way out.
This is in regards to gun control in the state of Texas, which is a state with Castle doctrine implementation and certain stand your-ground-laws, which are under review in Dallas by state lawmakers. Texas is the fourth lowest ranking state in gun control law. During the 2009/2010 fiscal year, The Texas Department of Public Safety issued 123,325 concealed handgun licenses, with only 622 licenses denied. I am definitely an advocate of the background check for the sale of guns, and also for the outlawing of the sale of automatic weapons. In regards to gun control, I am in the camp with those that believe strong gun control laws are effective in reducing gun-related accidents and crime. I do agree with the Castle Doctrine that if a person is threatened in their home, they should be able to use deadly force to repel an aggressor, which justifies a person’s right to own a gun in their home. I do not think that the ordinary citizen should have the right to carry guns in their car, in a parking lot, on the public streets, or in public places. All the school and public killings, and murders through crime and domestic disputes that have recently taken place in Texas clearly indicate the fact that our lawmakers urgently need to review and make changes in the state stand-your-ground laws. Our lawmakers need to file a bill as soon as possible to implement stronger gun laws that will work in Texas for the good of all the citizen’s lives and security in the state.
First off, I am all for ownership of guns. Sometimes guns can come in handy. They help us in hunting; protect us from robberies, etc. However, I can definitely see this law going terribly awry. I am completely on the fence with this one. If this law is passes I am definitely going to be more apt to carry a handgun, in fear of all the nuts. At first I thought this law would be ok, if shots were only to be taken at point blank range due to immediate danger. For instance: someone tries to rob you in your car/on foot, you simply blow them away. After thinking it through I feel this law would only open the door for muggings, robberies, etc. Therefore as good as it sounds; I don’t believe it would work out well. The irresponsible people of Texas would abuse this law. Who’s to stop someone from shooting anyone they want. Even though investigators are good, I believe a lot of people wouldn’t hesitate to test their ability. On a good side, the responsible people may have a fantastic chance to take out bad guys all by themselves. The police would only be called to be a clean-up crew. Perhaps a more responsible person would only shoot to injure, therefore justice would be easier to serve in some cases. If this law is passed either way I think there is bound to be a plethora of brand spanking new civil cases.
If your life is threatened anywhere, I would personally think you would want to protect it at any cost. Not only because you are not at your house when your life is in risk should you not have the right defended yourself. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves anywhere at any time with no questions asked because your life should come first before anything else. If you are not in your castle it should not mean that you should let anyone put your life in risk without doing anything to defend yourself. Also, I think that when you are in your vehicle in a parking lot you should still have the same rights as with the Castle Doctrine because you are still inside your personal property. It might not be exactly the same because is in the public, but being in public should give you even more rights to protect yourself because we all know we have many crazy individuals out there.
I don’t think that the Castle Doctrine should be changed in any way. The reason being is that people already have a right to shoot you if you are trying to break into someone’s house, and if it’s applied to where you can shoot someone on the streets, or in your car, etc just because you feel threatened for any particular reason it will create more chaos and innocent people getting hurt or killed at that.
The castle doctrine is to help keep indiviuals protected. If someone's life is threatened, they should have the right to protect themselves. Why would lawmakers try to change the law? Who are they trying to protect and save? To me it sounds like they have the criminals in mind. If someone has the courage to threaten your life, you should have the right to fight back. If your life is threatened in the parking lot, why is it is okay to die because you are not in your home?
The Castle Doctrine being applied outside of the home is a bit scary. This could be twisted around to the point where all ground is covered by your '”castle.” The fact that deadly force can be used pretty much anywhere can be taken advantage of very easily due to someone feeling threatened. I believe that danger is everywhere, but then again if you're allowed to these things outside of your home, it may stir up more danger. I would love the feeling of protection outside of my home, but if many others are carrying around a gun in their vehicle and such to protect their castle, I do not know how protected I will feel. When it comes to feeling safe, I feel that it is pretty bad that we have to worry so much about it. With all of these shootings and such things happening as of lately, I don't see why more guns should have the potential to be out on the streets so that we could feel protected in our car. Overall, I believe the modification is pretty smart. It will keep down the number of shots fired just when a person supposedly feels threatened.
The castle doctrine is fine the way that it is. it needs no revision. The law was written subjectively because it was suppose to be subjective. Life or death can be a subjective issue outside of the home as well as inside of the home. Car theft is one of the highest rated crimes according the Crime Census and this means that you are more likely to be victimized in your car than in your home. why not be prepared to protect yourself wherever you go? Coleman said the "the majority of victims were black!". Well I feel if your trying to car jack me, you can purple like Barney, but your a** is gettin' blasted!
The castle doctrine should not be changed. Your car is part of your castle. What if some one is trying to car jack you? You should be able to shoot him. These liberals today are getting ridiculous. The castle doctrine is fine just the way it is. So they are saying they want to you to be a victim now. Because you can not protect your self or your property.
There has been some debate on the stand-your-ground laws. They had a couple meetings in Dallas to discuss the stand-your-ground laws. The State Sen. Royce West feels that the laws are fine and do not need any change. On the other hand there is Rep. Garnet Coleman, of Houston feels that these laws need to be changed right now. The Castle Doctrine was intended for citizens to have protection at the comfort in their own home. If you feel threaten you are allowed to take action. Some people mistake the Doctrine and think that they have protection everywhere, and if they think someone is going to cause them harm they can take action under the Castle Doctorine. When the Castle Doctrine states that "a person is justified in using force and in some instances, deadly force to repel an aggressor." The Castle Doctrine implies that you are allowed to take deadly force at an attacker in your house, place of work, or someone's car. It's implied but never says so people can interpret it however they want. I'm going to be honest I like guns and I am a big believer in being able to have them. I believe we should be allowed to carry a gun at anytime for protection. I don't want to be threaten and not have a way for protection.
I think that the Doctrine should not be changed because everyone has the right to protect themselves. Changing the Doctrine sort of seems like they want to make sure someone that is breaking into a innocent persons house can't get hurt. There have been cases where a person has had their house broken into and the owner of the house shot the intruder. The intruder next sued the owner of the house and got off scott free. I think that people should be able to carry a gun at anytime for protection with the right certification. Everyone has the right to be able to protect themselves. People should be able to feel safe in their own homes and changing the Doctrine will not help this.
I believe that a person has the right to use deadly force, if a person crosses their threshold with the intent to harm a person or their family. The Castle Doctrine should be revised, because it leaves an opportunity for people to shoot to kill, and find a justifiable means on why they murdered someone. Although I’m not familiar with the stand your ground laws in Florida, we need to revisit the Travon Martin incident. Also from a research methods perspective, I wonder if a survey was conducted on how many people would indeed use deadly force if someone was attempting to steal from them, but not attempt to inflict any harm on the individual?
The law would not be in need if people would not take what is not theirs. Since that is not going to happen and police cannot be at ever place people live and work and live life. A Person needs to be able to defend oneself and family property. Of more people where caught in the act of doing wrong and were shouting may be the number of violent crimes would drop. Keep the Castle Doctrine a live and strong. If people committing the crimes cared for their own safety more than they would not steal! Far there is a chance they may meet their end at the hands of the owner of the thing they which to steal.
I think that the Castle Doctrine should apply to your person in general no matter where you are. If you are in great danger and your life is at stake, then you should be able to fully defend yourself against any sort of attack. I feel as if this were applied, less people would be likely to try and attack other people. I would automatically assume that everyone had some sort of defensive object on them so why would I go after them? The crime rate might go down from this with more people out there able to defend themselves in any situation
It’s interesting that this discussion has only recently started because there have been several instances where a person uses deadly force and is not necessary. If the doctrine is called the “Castle Doctrine” then it makes sense that it should only apply to the home of the individual. Too many people try to take advantage of what the law says we can and can’t do by the ambiguity of the laws. I think it’s important that in the process of creating new laws, the legislators should define terms that can be ambiguous. It will prevent the individual from creating his/her own interpretation of the law and taking matters into his/her own hands. This is one major issue with the second amendment. There are people on one side of the spectrum saying that we have the right to bear arms, and so some take it to the extreme level where they feel they have the right to own any weapon and anyone that steps on their property should get shot, if they feel threatened. Then there are some who don’t agree with it because it gives discretion to the individual to interpret the law.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Lawmaker-Aims-to-Modify-Texas-Castle-Doctrine--190470571.html
I am a person who truly believes in doing whatever is necessary to protect yourself and your family but the way things are today many individuals define being threatened in different ways. I do understand that if an intruder enters your home you have to right to protect your house and those inside but when you take that and apply it to your vehicle I think things change. When in your vehicle what can be considered a threat? Lots of people have road rage and when they get upset they do crazy things so if someone cuts you off on the highway is that enough to feel threaten and justify the use of force with the ability to apply the “Castle Doctrine”. As Rep Coleman said “If you look at who’s been harmed, it’s mostly people of color.” Not to make this a racial thing but life has taught us something’s that we are to fear those that do not look like us so if an African American or a Hispanic or any other person of color cuts you off on the highway is ok to perceive that as a threat and shoot them. This law is similar to the Stand Your Ground law in Florida as it is being applied in the case of Trayvon Martin.
ReplyDeleteI know that material things don’t matter and that they can be replaced were as a human’s life cannot be. I want to say that a person should be able to use deadly force if someone is trying to steal what they are worked hard to get, but that wouldn’t be right. Only GOD decides when someone should die not man, so I feel that the law should be that deadly force could be used if and only if a person is trying to harm you or someone else. Not when someone is trying to steal your property, because they are just material things that can be replaced. I have faith that you reap what you sow, so if a person feels that they have to steal instead of working like other people to get what they want they will get what is coming to them eventually.
ReplyDeleteShouldn’t we stop and think before we shoot and kill someone? There has been cases when people shot and asked questions later and it turned out they shot and killed a family member. I believe we have the right to protect ourselves when we are in imminent danger. But before the trigger of a gun is pulled don’t you want to make sure that there is real trouble and you have no other course of action to take?
ReplyDeleteDo you want to live with the knowledge you killed your daughter by mistake, or the neighbor that is drunk and thought he was going into his home? What if it was someone breaking into your home and he didn’t have a gun, but you shot and killed him anyway?
I have never been put in this type of situation where I needed to pull a gun to protect myself or my family, thank God! I don’t know how I would feel if I did kill someone but I don’t want to ever be put in that situation to find out!
When the language of a law is “too subjective” it needs to be looked at closer and changed where there is no misunderstanding. Color has nothing to do with the language of the law it’s the words. If the law is written in plain English where there is not a question of right or wrong there isn’t a problem as far as I’m concerned.
The Castle Doctrine was created with good intentions, but I do agree that the doctrine is too subjective and should be modified to be specific to just someone’s home. I do believe that an individual should have the right to protect their home and family in the situation that an individual feels threatened. However I believe that the use of force in public or to protect your own vehicle should not be allowed in part of the Castle Doctrine. The reason for this is because of the same reason stated in this news article, each individual sees a threat in a different manner and uses their own thoughts and prejudice in interpreting the law in which they see fit. A good example of prejudice in regards to the stand your ground laws is the Florida case of trayvon martin. Martin was an African American teen who was killed by an individual who thought he looked suspicious because of his skin color, and because the individual interpreted the law as he felt fit for his situation. This Florida case comes to show that the issue is not just a Texas problem but minorities in different states are being affected by the stand your ground laws. Another good example on why the Castle Doctrine should be modified is road rage. An individual could use the excuse of being cut off as a threat and decide it is okay to shoot another driver, since the individual feared for his life.
ReplyDeleteThe Castle Doctrine was created under good intentions in my opinion. I do believe that it should also apply in other areas. When a home is being broken into, I believe you have the right to defend yourself. A burglar may be carrying a weapon, if so you should be entitled to carrying one as well. Also a gun may scare them off. If you see a gun when you’re about to steal someone’s belongings, you may change your mind. This should also apply in a car or a parking lot in my opinion. If a person comes up to your car and tries to take your car or harm you and your family, I believe you should be able to defend yourself. A person losing their life is always a sad tragedy, but they put themselves at risk when they try to obtain things illegally. The hard working Americans have earned their belongings and don’t deserve to have a stranger come and take them because they want the easy way out.
ReplyDeleteThis is in regards to gun control in the state of Texas, which is a state with Castle doctrine implementation and certain stand your-ground-laws, which are under review in Dallas by state lawmakers. Texas is the fourth lowest ranking state in gun control law. During the 2009/2010 fiscal year, The Texas Department of Public Safety issued 123,325 concealed handgun licenses, with only 622 licenses denied. I am definitely an advocate of the background check for the sale of guns, and also for the outlawing of the sale of automatic weapons. In regards to gun control, I am in the camp with those that believe strong gun control laws are effective in reducing gun-related accidents and crime. I do agree with the Castle Doctrine that if a person is threatened in their home, they should be able to use deadly force to repel an aggressor, which justifies a person’s right to own a gun in their home.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the ordinary citizen should have the right to carry guns in their car, in a parking lot, on the public streets, or in public places. All the school and public killings, and murders through crime and domestic disputes that have recently taken place in Texas clearly indicate the fact that our lawmakers urgently need to review and make changes in the state stand-your-ground laws. Our lawmakers need to file a bill as soon as possible to implement stronger gun laws that will work in Texas for the good of all the citizen’s lives and security in the state.
First off, I am all for ownership of guns. Sometimes guns can come in handy. They help us in hunting; protect us from robberies, etc. However, I can definitely see this law going terribly awry. I am completely on the fence with this one. If this law is passes I am definitely going to be more apt to carry a handgun, in fear of all the nuts. At first I thought this law would be ok, if shots were only to be taken at point blank range due to immediate danger. For instance: someone tries to rob you in your car/on foot, you simply blow them away. After thinking it through I feel this law would only open the door for muggings, robberies, etc. Therefore as good as it sounds; I don’t believe it would work out well. The irresponsible people of Texas would abuse this law. Who’s to stop someone from shooting anyone they want. Even though investigators are good, I believe a lot of people wouldn’t hesitate to test their ability. On a good side, the responsible people may have a fantastic chance to take out bad guys all by themselves. The police would only be called to be a clean-up crew. Perhaps a more responsible person would only shoot to injure, therefore justice would be easier to serve in some cases. If this law is passed either way I think there is bound to be a plethora of brand spanking new civil cases.
ReplyDeleteIf your life is threatened anywhere, I would personally think you would want to protect it at any cost. Not only because you are not at your house when your life is in risk should you not have the right defended yourself. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves anywhere at any time with no questions asked because your life should come first before anything else. If you are not in your castle it should not mean that you should let anyone put your life in risk without doing anything to defend yourself. Also, I think that when you are in your vehicle in a parking lot you should still have the same rights as with the Castle Doctrine because you are still inside your personal property. It might not be exactly the same because is in the public, but being in public should give you even more rights to protect yourself because we all know we have many crazy individuals out there.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that the Castle Doctrine should be changed in any way. The reason being is that people already have a right to shoot you if you are trying to break into someone’s house, and if it’s applied to where you can shoot someone on the streets, or in your car, etc just because you feel threatened for any particular reason it will create more chaos and innocent people getting hurt or killed at that.
ReplyDeleteThe castle doctrine is to help keep indiviuals protected. If someone's life is threatened, they should have the right to protect themselves. Why would lawmakers try to change the law? Who are they trying to protect and save? To me it sounds like they have the criminals in mind. If someone has the courage to threaten your life, you should have the right to fight back. If your life is threatened in the parking lot, why is it is okay to die because you are not in your home?
ReplyDeleteThe Castle Doctrine being applied outside of the home is a bit scary. This could be twisted around to the point where all ground is covered by your '”castle.” The fact that deadly force can be used pretty much anywhere can be taken advantage of very easily due to someone feeling threatened. I believe that danger is everywhere, but then again if you're allowed to these things outside of your home, it may stir up more danger. I would love the feeling of protection outside of my home, but if many others are carrying around a gun in their vehicle and such to protect their castle, I do not know how protected I will feel. When it comes to feeling safe, I feel that it is pretty bad that we have to worry so much about it. With all of these shootings and such things happening as of lately, I don't see why more guns should have the potential to be out on the streets so that we could feel protected in our car. Overall, I believe the modification is pretty smart. It will keep down the number of shots fired just when a person supposedly feels threatened.
ReplyDeleteThe castle doctrine is fine the way that it is. it needs no revision. The law was written subjectively because it was suppose to be subjective. Life or death can be a subjective issue outside of the home as well as inside of the home. Car theft is one of the highest rated crimes according the Crime Census and this means that you are more likely to be victimized in your car than in your home. why not be prepared to protect yourself wherever you go? Coleman said the "the majority of victims were black!". Well I feel if your trying to car jack me, you can purple like Barney, but your a** is gettin' blasted!
ReplyDeleteThe castle doctrine should not be changed. Your car is part of your castle. What if some one is trying to car jack you? You should be able to shoot him. These liberals today are getting ridiculous. The castle doctrine is fine just the way it is. So they are saying they want to you to be a victim now. Because you can not protect your self or your property.
ReplyDeleteThere has been some debate on the stand-your-ground laws. They had a couple meetings in Dallas to discuss the stand-your-ground laws. The State Sen. Royce West feels that the laws are fine and do not need any change. On the other hand there is Rep. Garnet Coleman, of Houston feels that these laws need to be changed right now. The Castle Doctrine was intended for citizens to have protection at the comfort in their own home. If you feel threaten you are allowed to take action. Some people mistake the Doctrine and think that they have protection everywhere, and if they think someone is going to cause them harm they can take action under the Castle Doctorine. When the Castle Doctrine states that "a person is justified in using force and in some instances, deadly force to repel an aggressor." The Castle Doctrine implies that you are allowed to take deadly force at an attacker in your house, place of work, or someone's car. It's implied but never says so people can interpret it however they want. I'm going to be honest I like guns and I am a big believer in being able to have them. I believe we should be allowed to carry a gun at anytime for protection. I don't want to be threaten and not have a way for protection.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Doctrine should not be changed because everyone has the right to protect themselves. Changing the Doctrine sort of seems like they want to make sure someone that is breaking into a innocent persons house can't get hurt. There have been cases where a person has had their house broken into and the owner of the house shot the intruder. The intruder next sued the owner of the house and got off scott free. I think that people should be able to carry a gun at anytime for protection with the right certification. Everyone has the right to be able to protect themselves. People should be able to feel safe in their own homes and changing the Doctrine will not help this.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a person has the right to use deadly force, if a person crosses their threshold with the intent to harm a person or their family. The Castle Doctrine should be revised, because it leaves an opportunity for people to shoot to kill, and find a justifiable means on why they murdered someone. Although I’m not familiar with the stand your ground laws in Florida, we need to revisit the Travon Martin incident. Also from a research methods perspective, I wonder if a survey was conducted on how many people would indeed use deadly force if someone was attempting to steal from them, but not attempt to inflict any harm on the individual?
ReplyDeleteThe law would not be in need if people would not take what is not theirs. Since that is not going to happen and police cannot be at ever place people live and work and live life. A Person needs to be able to defend oneself and family property. Of more people where caught in the act of doing wrong and were shouting may be the number of violent crimes would drop. Keep the Castle Doctrine a live and strong. If people committing the crimes cared for their own safety more than they would not steal! Far there is a chance they may meet their end at the hands of the owner of the thing they which to steal.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Castle Doctrine should apply to your person in general no matter where you are. If you are in great danger and your life is at stake, then you should be able to fully defend yourself against any sort of attack. I feel as if this were applied, less people would be likely to try and attack other people. I would automatically assume that everyone had some sort of defensive object on them so why would I go after them? The crime rate might go down from this with more people out there able to defend themselves in any situation
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting that this discussion has only recently started because there have been several instances where a person uses deadly force and is not necessary. If the doctrine is called the “Castle Doctrine” then it makes sense that it should only apply to the home of the individual. Too many people try to take advantage of what the law says we can and can’t do by the ambiguity of the laws. I think it’s important that in the process of creating new laws, the legislators should define terms that can be ambiguous. It will prevent the individual from creating his/her own interpretation of the law and taking matters into his/her own hands. This is one major issue with the second amendment. There are people on one side of the spectrum saying that we have the right to bear arms, and so some take it to the extreme level where they feel they have the right to own any weapon and anyone that steps on their property should get shot, if they feel threatened. Then there are some who don’t agree with it because it gives discretion to the individual to interpret the law.
ReplyDelete