I called him a troll for his previous posts.
I called him a dumbass for what he said in here.
People get locked up shooting somebody who had broken in to their house, that was B's point.
GS laughed it off.
Ain't no biggie, I'm not clued up on it. I was just pointing out that people do get sent down for defending themselves.
NO THEY DON'T.
The first link you provided about the guy shooting an intruder in his home was not an arrest because he shot someone in his home. He was protected by Castle Doctrine. He was arrested because he illegally owned a weapon as a convicted felon. He never should have had a gun to begin with, thus he was arrested.
The second link you provided about the guy shooting another guy robbing his neighbor's home also did not induce Castle Doctrine because it was not on his property. He had no right to discharge that firearm. He didn't know that the same burglar broke into his home, and even if he did, he still wasn't on his own property. Look up the Joe Horn incident. Two guys were breaking into his neighbor's home and he was on 911 the entire time. He confronted them WITHOUT FIRING HIS WEAPON until they came on his property. LEGALLY, he was protected.
Now, let's look at the original point, just to appeal to the simpleton in you:
Originally Posted by Boulle
If you shot a burglar who tried to rob your house you'd go to jail no? and then they could maybe claim disability cause your hurt them.
If someone tried to rob your house and you were inside, you could legally shoot and kill them with lethal force. If they are on your property, you can terminate them. That is a LAW. You're not going to defend your home from an intruder and get prosecuted for it. You are providing examples that are getting arrested not for shooting someone in their home or defending their property, but for illegally owning a firearm and recklessly endangering the public by discharging a firearm into the ground on property other than their own. Castle Doctrine clearly states
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution. Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another". The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.
If somebody breaks in to your house and is then stood outside of your garden, you'd think to yourself 'shit, best I just leave him to go'?
I didn't want the pressure of being called the best poster of 2012'ers, but I will accept it since it was thrown upon me.
No, I'd shoot them there, too. They're still on my property. Once they leave my property, I can legally subdue them only I can't use lethal force.
Also, good luck finding troll posts from me. They've been few and far in between, and you'd probably have a hard time convincing many others of your paranoid views. Don't worry, if I got owned like you did, I would initiate name calling and blind insults, too.