Comments on: The Castle Doctrine v. SCOTUS http://donklephant.com/2006/06/16/the-castle-doctrine-v-scotus/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tony Grogan http://donklephant.com/2006/06/16/the-castle-doctrine-v-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-38138 Tony Grogan Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:40:22 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/06/16/the-castle-doctrine-v-scotus/#comment-38138 I believe the "Castle Doctrine" puts the law abiding citizen in a better position to protect him/herself w/o fear of legal retribution. Overall, it will deter some criminals from violating others civil rights. I believe the “Castle Doctrine” puts the law abiding citizen in a better position to protect him/herself w/o fear of legal retribution. Overall, it will deter some criminals from violating others civil rights.

]]> By: Joshua http://donklephant.com/2006/06/16/the-castle-doctrine-v-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-38026 Joshua Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:22:05 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/06/16/the-castle-doctrine-v-scotus/#comment-38026 Two words: <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/archives/cat_cory_maye.php" rel="nofollow">Cory Maye</a>. Two words: Cory Maye.

]]> By: DosPeros http://donklephant.com/2006/06/16/the-castle-doctrine-v-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-37290 DosPeros Sun, 18 Jun 2006 04:06:50 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/06/16/the-castle-doctrine-v-scotus/#comment-37290 Great post J.G.. The Florida Bill SB-436 identifies the person to be shot as "attacker or intruder." If the cops have a valid search warrant, I doubt they would be defined as either as a matter of law. BUT if they violated the "knock" rule, the exclusionary rule may be replaced by the self-help "castle doctrine." I like this SCOTUS -- they have a Deadwood type jurisprudence that should make life more interesting for the next 100 years. Some how I don't think the local urban crack dealer (by far the most vulnerable to constitutionally-iffy police action) will really modify his behavior. I don't think Pandoras Box has been opened, these decisions will effect the margin of cases, not the vast majority. Those cases will percolate in the trial courts and eventually wind its way in front of SCOTUS. Hopefully the court will have a greater appreciation of the "castle" the next time around. And hopefully, by that time, this nation will have made concession to reality in the War on Drugs. Great post J.G..

The Florida Bill SB-436 identifies the person to be shot as “attacker or intruder.” If the cops have a valid search warrant, I doubt they would be defined as either as a matter of law. BUT if they violated the “knock” rule, the exclusionary rule may be replaced by the self-help “castle doctrine.” I like this SCOTUS — they have a Deadwood type jurisprudence that should make life more interesting for the next 100 years.

Some how I don’t think the local urban crack dealer (by far the most vulnerable to constitutionally-iffy police action) will really modify his behavior. I don’t think Pandoras Box has been opened, these decisions will effect the margin of cases, not the vast majority. Those cases will percolate in the trial courts and eventually wind its way in front of SCOTUS. Hopefully the court will have a greater appreciation of the “castle” the next time around. And hopefully, by that time, this nation will have made concession to reality in the War on Drugs.

]]>