Castle Doctrine means no charges

[oneshooter]

The Castle Doctrine was amended this summer to expand a homeowner's right to use deadly force against intruders, Mr. Spangler said.

The new Castle Doctrine expands a homeowner's "castle" to include porches and eliminates the owner's duty to retreat before attacking an intruder.

Mr. Spangler said the man might not have been charged under the old statute, but the new law "makes it much clearer" that the shooting was justified.



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11361/1199563-100.stm#ixzz1iLbua1K3

Do you believe that the Castle Doctrin should be applied to this crime, or should charges be filed?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. if all is true and the investiagation has satisfied all questions

then I am inclined to agree with the findings.

This sentence:
he threatened the man with a heavy wooden club.

makes me believe that he was defending his life.

Surely, no one would willingly let someone get close enough to them to be hit by a club.

[Oneka]

2. If the article ,as written is the complete truth:

Then the shooting was completely justified. and the Castle law should apply.

"The man told him to leave repeatedly. When Mr. Bittinger attempted to come up the stairs, the man shot him in the chest with an arrow. He died before first responders arrived"

[Simo 1939_1940]

3. What the first two responders said. NT

[SteveW]

8. Same here. nt

[ManiacJoe]

4. Should be "no charges filed" even without the Castle Doctrine

assuming the facts as reported in the article.

[burf]

5. If the story is correct,

no charges should be filed.

[ManiacJoe]

6. Great post title over in GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002106532

[Simo 1939_1940]

7. A classic indeed. NT

[Logical]

9. Hell no he should not be charged! A guy with a club can kill you! End of story.

[slackmaster]

10. Good shooting IMO, but still a tragic waste of life

Brandishing a club conveys a credible threat of imminent injury or death.