911 Tells m-m 'Do What You Have To Do'

Nothing like a nice buckshot for home defense. Just pretty much pull the trigger and you'll fill 'em full of led.

I'm just curious, do they have the Castle Doctrine down there in Oklahoma? Definitely something the 'Red' states have on us 'Blue' states. I'd bet she'd have caught a charge in San Fran or New York for something like that. Good on her. Nothing like women that know how to use a shotty.

castle doctrine exists here in CA.

California California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, ******** entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly ***** against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197 [5]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has ******. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'” The court held that because the defendant had constructed a ***-firing trap, the doctrine did not apply.

i will plug any fucker that comes into my home uninvited. although ill let him run if he hears my shotgun when i rack a round
 
castle doctrine exists here in CA.

California California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, ******** entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly ***** against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197 [5]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has ******. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'” The court held that because the defendant had constructed a ***-firing trap, the doctrine did not apply.

i will plug any fucker that comes into my home uninvited. although ill let him run if he hears my shotgun when i rack a round

So then it must exist pretty much anywhere in America then, although this map here says otherwise:

http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/castle-doctrine-state-by-state-map/

Most definitely I'd use lethal ***** as well, but I'm in the inner city and the house has been robbed a couple times, so I'd already be edgy if some thug tried a home invasion.
 
Yeah you got the right to defend your ****** and yourself if someone is breaking in, who knows what the hell they want or want to do with your property or your ******!

If anyone breaks into my place while i'm at home with my ****** those fuckers will be shot!
 
In previous *** thread....
Originally Posted by Shifty
I'm not preaching to you as a Canadian. I'm giving you my view as a rational person. You cannot stop ******** with ******** - that's the logic. Deal with those people who are 'predisposed' to committing these crimes instead of permitting your population to arm itself..
******** stopped this intruder!

Lock your door and call the police - it works.
lol, no it doesn't.

Suppose an intruder breaks into your home. You shoot him dead. Castle Doctrine won't protect you're out for a walk and his vengeful ******* comes calling.
All is well in her situation now isn't it? She and her baby are safe.

******** is not the answer.
At times, ******** is what's needed.
 

missdannigee

Official Checked Star Member
when i saw this news article on AOL i read it and i was happy i spent time doing so as opposed to reading all the other horrible headlines. 8 yr old ****ed by police, casey anthonys dumbass on youtube, i forget all the others but its really sad whats going on in the world today. happy an 18yr. old doing the right thing shed a little tiny bit of positive light onto all the other dark and grim headlines. if she didn't take action she may have been stabbed to death and gone up with all the other sickening and horrible news. glad she did something about it!
 
So then it must exist pretty much anywhere in America then, although this map here says otherwise:

http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/castle-doctrine-state-by-state-map/

Most definitely I'd use lethal ***** as well, but I'm in the inner city and the house has been robbed a couple times, so I'd already be edgy if some thug tried a home invasion.

that link doesnt make sense to me. a lot of the states that arent highlighted actually do have a castle doctrine, or at least some form of it. im confused
 

Mayhem

Banned
State Law has it's place but let's not be fooled. Many decisions on who gets prosecuted and who doesn't rests in the hands of the prosecutor, whatever judge is going to be involved and whatever future aspirations they may have. In a state where no Castle Doctrine/Law exists, the prosecutor can decide not to pursue, the judge can decide not to hear the case, or any number of variations on the theme. Like it or not, that's the way it is. And it is one area where NRA-ophobes need to take note in the role they play to keep unfair prosecutions to a minimum.
 

Legzman

what the fuck you lookin at?
i will plug any fucker that comes into my home uninvited. although ill let him run if he hears my shotgun when i rack a round


Or you could just blow off his legs! That would be oh so much fun!!!
 
Top