Washington State allows the use of deadly force if the arson is attempted against an occupied structure. It isn't quite that cut and dried in the RCWs, but most of the interpretations I've read follow that basic premise.
The law in TN is the same as of now. This seems to include all Arsons like the law in Florida and the way it should be. It is silly to believe a premeditated fire is an easy thing to control and that it may not jump to other structures with people in it.
NH allows deadly force against arson; I see no requirement in the law that limits it to occupied premises. That makes sense; a person seeing an arsonist at work cannot necessarily safely or quickly enough determine whether the building is occupied.
Part of the reason why deadly force against intruders is proper is that you can't tell what the intent of a criminal is, or how far he will go. There are plenty of examples of robbers killing the victim once the robbery is done, perhaps to get rid of a witness, or perhaps just for warped entertainment. So "just give the robber what he wants" is a stupid notion and one that may well cost you your life. I suppose "reasonable fear of death or grave injury" can be applied; I certainly would do so if I were on a jury in such a case.
as far as arson goes here, same. if criminals are breaking into an occupied house the residents have no idea the intention. too bad a buncha pussy liberals don’t get robbed, then you will see this shiite go away.
As written, the bill applies to a farmer culling chickens or a hunter harvesting a deer. It even applies to the pound putting down stray dogs. It makes no mention of defending *your* property or animals.
This just proves how incredibly stupid most politicians are.
As long as a valid test of reasonableness is applied, I am good with it.
When it comes to self defense, I am a bit of an absolutist. The word "self" is paramount. Believe me, I think there will be a LOT less crime if a criminal is risking their life by stealing a TV, but the legal ramifications allowing use of deadly force to stop it are a bit scary to me.
What I would definitely want to see out of this effort is some assurance for the firearm owner that criminals entering their property (with intent to steal or harm) will not be able to charge them with a crime if the homeowner pulls a gun. I am pretty sure that an individual that backs his truck up to my boat trailer and starts hooking it up is not doing so for my benefit. And, if I pull a gun on them to stop the theft, I should not be charged with attempted murder.
As noted, you spend a measurable part of your life to acquire property. Someone taking it is literally stealing that part of your life. And you should be able to stop that theft.
I am just afraid that people who do not know enough about the law will start shooting people for stupid reasons. Which will lead directly to strict restrictive gun control laws.
Well, if society actually punished with intent to instruct (from early age) we wouldn't be in the position of having to defend our property now would we?
Washington State allows the use of deadly force if the arson is attempted against an occupied structure. It isn't quite that cut and dried in the RCWs, but most of the interpretations I've read follow that basic premise.
Strangely enough, so does NYS.
The law in TN is the same as of now. This seems to include all Arsons like the law in Florida and the way it should be. It is silly to believe a premeditated fire is an easy thing to control and that it may not jump to other structures with people in it.
NH allows deadly force against arson; I see no requirement in the law that limits it to occupied premises. That makes sense; a person seeing an arsonist at work cannot necessarily safely or quickly enough determine whether the building is occupied.
Part of the reason why deadly force against intruders is proper is that you can't tell what the intent of a criminal is, or how far he will go. There are plenty of examples of robbers killing the victim once the robbery is done, perhaps to get rid of a witness, or perhaps just for warped entertainment. So "just give the robber what he wants" is a stupid notion and one that may well cost you your life. I suppose "reasonable fear of death or grave injury" can be applied; I certainly would do so if I were on a jury in such a case.
as far as arson goes here, same. if criminals are breaking into an occupied house the residents have no idea the intention. too bad a buncha pussy liberals don’t get robbed, then you will see this shiite go away.
As written, the bill applies to a farmer culling chickens or a hunter harvesting a deer. It even applies to the pound putting down stray dogs. It makes no mention of defending *your* property or animals.
This just proves how incredibly stupid most politicians are.
As long as a valid test of reasonableness is applied, I am good with it.
When it comes to self defense, I am a bit of an absolutist. The word "self" is paramount. Believe me, I think there will be a LOT less crime if a criminal is risking their life by stealing a TV, but the legal ramifications allowing use of deadly force to stop it are a bit scary to me.
What I would definitely want to see out of this effort is some assurance for the firearm owner that criminals entering their property (with intent to steal or harm) will not be able to charge them with a crime if the homeowner pulls a gun. I am pretty sure that an individual that backs his truck up to my boat trailer and starts hooking it up is not doing so for my benefit. And, if I pull a gun on them to stop the theft, I should not be charged with attempted murder.
As noted, you spend a measurable part of your life to acquire property. Someone taking it is literally stealing that part of your life. And you should be able to stop that theft.
I am just afraid that people who do not know enough about the law will start shooting people for stupid reasons. Which will lead directly to strict restrictive gun control laws.
Well, if society actually punished with intent to instruct (from early age) we wouldn't be in the position of having to defend our property now would we?