284

Teenager Ralph Yarl was shot without warning through a door after going to the wrong house to collect his brothers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BubblyMango@lemmy.wtf 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What im wandering is this: is this one of those houses where you have to enter the yard in order to ring the bell/knock on the door? If so, this is an actual death trap - you dont know if this is the right house, and in order to verify you have to step into the property where you may be legally shot.

How do you protect yourself when you have to visit a house but are not sure which is the correct one?

[-] Stuka@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago

You can't legally shoot someone for entering your yard...thats why he's on trial.

[-] BubblyMango@lemmy.wtf 2 points 1 year ago

I think there is a low in the US that if someone infiltrates your property you can legally shoot to kill. Not sure about the specifics. I assume this case was either too extreme or that there are more specifics to this law.

[-] Stuka@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

No, specifics depend on the state but in none are you allowed to shoot someone for entering your yard.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

You're talking about "Stand Your Ground" laws. They allow you to shoot in self-defense when someone enters your home or otherwise threatens you. This is why George Zimmerman got off after murdering a child. Don't forget, kids, George Zimmerman killed a child.

Being on your property probably doesn't count in most states, but I say "probably" because some states are fucking insane, so who knows.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

George Zimmerman killed a child.

Hey now, that's not fair. Zimmerman stalked a child through the night after police told him not to, started a fistfight with that child, and only murdered the child after it became evident that he was losing the fight he started.

That's what stand your ground is for, shooting your way out of fights you start. Ask Marissa Alexander, it's certainly not for firing warning shots at your abusive ex husband when he's on your property in violation of a restraining order and threatening your kids.

[-] zimmernan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I know How could this monster

Have really killed this totally innocent angel of a child,

His social media post were so innocent!

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

BuT hIs SoCiAl MeDia

Get fucked

[-] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

These laws, castle doctrine, are not anywhere near that crazy. They're the same idea as self defense... however, normally you have a "duty to retreat", what castle doctrine says is if you're in your own home you no longer have that obligation.

You still have to meet the bar for self defense, i.e., they need to be a threat... someone walking in your yard or knocking on your door that's not brandishing a weapon is not going to meet that bar.

Edit: Wikipedia disagrees with me ... though I'm not sure if that's a factual disagreement or an editorial disagreement.

Justifiable homicide[2] in self-defense which happens to occur inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine. The burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying homicide in self-defense. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide in self-defense provision pertaining to one's domicile, it has a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.

There's a lack of citation here which honestly should probably be raised on the wiki. The cited source does not support that text (I've added the appropriate citation requests on the wikipedia side -- if anyone can prove these claims, we should contribute the reference there as well).

[-] BubblyMango@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah i remembered seeing something similar to this somewhere. Either way US laws are completely irrelevant to me so this is pure mild interest.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

The laws on self-defense are extremely state specific. Your understanding of self defense laws is highly sensationalized and I recommend in the strongest possible terms you do some research before they become relevant to you personally one way or the other.

[-] BubblyMango@lemmy.wtf 2 points 1 year ago

I dont live in the US and dont plan on visiting there in the near future. I am aware of the laws in my country.

[-] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

But you had no qualms opining about those laws on the internet.

[-] BubblyMango@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 year ago

My posts here were full of "i think" and "not sure". Also not sure which part here was an opinion.

And this is the internet. Not an academic paper. This IS the place to ask/discuss topics you are not sure about. Just dont go around claiming to be an expert in something you are not.

this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
284 points (100.0% liked)

News

23296 readers
2777 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS