Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Castle Doctrine can provide legal immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability for individuals who defend their home, shielding them from criminal charges and lawsuits from the intruder or their family. That said, Castle Doctrine doesn’t provide blanket authorization for using deadly force in every conceivable scenario involving a perceived risk. If the threat is outside your home and doesn’t pose a reasonable threat, your actions won’t be protected by the law.

Defendants also can’t use the Castle Doctrine to justify excessive force – their method of self-defense and the level of force utilized must be considered appropriate in the given situation. While the threat doesn’t have to be holding a deadly weapon to pose a threat, residents should be careful to defend themselves with force proportionate to the perceived threat or else risk a homicide charge.

You won’t be eligible for the protections afforded by Castle Doctrine law if the force you used was not considered reasonable, such as using excessive or lethal means to defend yourself when it wasn’t necessary. However, latitude may be given based on the context of the situation and the inability of a homeowner to know exactly what level of risk they face from an intruder.

Moreover, if you employed a weapon that’s outlawed in Arizona, not only will you not be covered by Castle Doctrine law, you may face legal penalties and jail times for gun misconduct.

Under Castle Doctrine, killing an intruder can be classified as a justifiable homicide (which is not prosecutable) as long someone else in your situation would also genuinely and reasonably believe they were at risk of death, suffering devastating injuries or if a more serious felony would occur if no action was taken.

Yeah, uh, I just grabbed whatever was nearby (hammer).

If I don't collapse his head in, and if he has experience enough to be wary of my right hand attacking, that hammer will draw his attention while down below, my left hand plays stabby-stabby-stab-stab with the knife.

Why are you trying to differentiate between European and American slave owners?  What a bizarre point to attempt. 
 

Anyone here shoot someone at any point?

No and I hope never to have to. 

I felt I had no choice. I hope to never have to do it again. It's been 39 years.

It's a complex topic, I agree, discussed at length in the Bible, which was a guide for many back when (more than today).  I know today Lincoln (who I admire generally) is viewed as the "Great Emancipator", but he also was clearly a racist, using terms then we'd not condone at all today.  His solution was basically Liberia.

The first Nazi solution for the Jews was to ship them all to Madagascar.  When that proved impracticable, they went another direction.

It's also notable what prompted the "second secession" of North Carolina and Virginia.

Slavery a big part of why Texas is part of the United States and not Mexico

Not really.  I am just always curious as to why some people think the system we have is so bad.  I mean, really, is it really that bad here?  Turn off the TV, ignore the CNN/Fox News bullshit, think about all the good things in your life.  I think we have it really good. 

Our system is the worst. You know, except for all the others 

I get where OAM is coming from. We have gotten to a point where some of our politics is so acrimonious because the majority of political power is in Congress. If you try to make a one size fits all policy that has to work for people in Southie in Boston, in Macon, GA, in Cheyenne, WY, in San Francisco, CA, and in Juneau, AK, you're going to end up pissing someone [or everyone] off. Even with state decisions, I live in a state where the needs of LA / SF / San Diego / Sacramento are VERY different than the needs of Tulare / Redding / Blythe / Merced, but the policy doesn't reflect that very well. And most of the voters are in the population centers, so which do you think dominate the decisions? Most of the geographical area of CA isn't powerful in our decision-making, because it's not populous in comparison. 

If each of those places could mostly make their own decisions, they wouldn't have to be mad that someone, somewhere else, made different decisions. Because it wouldn't affect them. And even more importantly, the decisions would be tailored to local needs, so governance could probably be made better and more responsive to their needs. 

It's great in theory, until they go the wrong direction and start infringing on peoples' rights with said decision-making. Which tends to be a lot easier to do on a small scale than a national scale. And is incredibly common on all sides.