California-style "may issue" self-defense permits.VMI77 wrote:Anonymous123 wrote:Theres more to it.
Homeowner possesed assault rifle of 7.62x39 or 7.62x54 caliber with criminal priors for drug possesions.
AK-47 or Mosin Nagant, possibly any other high calibered rifle.
The projectile entered through suspects chest through collar bone traveling in a sideways path and exited through right arm, blatantly showing that the suspect was standing sideways and did not turn to face the homeowner.
Son is well known drug dealer, extremely violent and dangerous.
IMO Castle law should be reamended to better suit special cases such as these, Criminal on Criminal crimes, no-one is innocent in this case.
Why? I don't see the logic in that. Are you saying if someone is a criminal and another criminal breaks into his home, he should have to let the criminal breaking in kill him, his family members, or visitors? Why should the criminal breaking in have more rights than the criminal living in the home? Furthermore, why should anyone else who happens to be in the home lose their right to self-defense because the resident is a "criminal?" He shouldn't be able to shoot someone who breaks in and may kill his child, or a neighbor? How are neighbors supposed to know the guy is a criminal? Are you saying that if I happen to be visiting a neighbor and I don't know he's a criminal I can be shot with impunity?
If the son is a known drug dealer who is extremely violent, why isn't he in prison? Also, if this guy is a criminal --convicted felon-- he can't legally possess a firearm --is he being charged for this? And if he's not a convicted felon, on what basis are you going to amend Castle Doctrine to exclude "criminals" from the right of self-defense? You going to include misdemeanors, arrests, charges, or suspicion, to define who is a criminal?
