Panel clips `castle doctrine` bill

GGReporter · 02-20-2008, 09:32 AM

A Wyoming legislative committee bowed to trial lawyers pressures and heavily amended a self-defense bill Tuesday evening to remove a key provision that had specified homeowners couldn`t be prosecuted if they kill anyone who enters their homes illegally.

More...

Cyrano · 02-20-2008, 08:40 PM

"Panel clips 'castle doctrine' bill?"

Make that "Panel castrates 'castle doctrine' bill!"

The trial lawyers made certain their ox - criminal trials - would not be gored by this bill. The only thing they left in was the rule that homeowners cannot be sued for damages received by a perp in civil court. And that is descended from the English Common Law principle that a criminal may not profit from his crime.

This means that the decision to prosecute a homeowner defending his 'castle' rests with D.A.s and judges. It could be worse. At least this means the prosecutors only get one bite at the apple instead of the two that has become commonplace when the State does not get the verdict they want in criminal court, e.g., the O.J. Simpson Murder Case. This 'try them on both the civil and criminal sides' is a principle in American law that stems exclusively from a law of questionable constitutionality written during the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s to give Federal prosecutors a weapon against the Ku Klux Klan when white criminal-case juries would not return a guilty verdict against a Klansman even in the face of overwhelming evidence. In my opinion, trying somebody on both sides of the house violates the spirit of the double jeopardy clause even while adhering to the letter of it.

I still don't like it. The smart burglar will cut and run when he hears the ti-CHAK of a 12-gauge racking a round into battery or the click-SNAP of a semi-auto pistol's slide traveling forward as it strips a round off the magazine and chambers it. But if he doesn't, the homeowner has to back off from an intruder who may be armed and out to kill him? There is somethign seriously wrong with this picture, boys and girls, and it's not the presence of a firearm in it!

02-20-2008, 09:32 AM	#1
GGReporter Magazine Staff Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 718 Trader Rating: (0)	Panel clips `castle doctrine` bill A Wyoming legislative committee bowed to trial lawyers pressures and heavily amended a self-defense bill Tuesday evening to remove a key provision that had specified homeowners couldn`t be prosecuted if they kill anyone who enters their homes illegally. More...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-20-2008, 08:40 PM	#2
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 1,850 Trader Rating: (0)	"Panel clips 'castle doctrine' bill?" Make that "Panel *castrates* 'castle doctrine' bill!" The trial lawyers made certain their ox - criminal trials - would not be gored by this bill. The only thing they left in was the rule that homeowners cannot be sued for damages received by a perp in civil court. And that is descended from the English Common Law principle that a criminal may not profit from his crime. This means that the decision to prosecute a homeowner defending his 'castle' rests with D.A.s and judges. It could be worse. At least this means the prosecutors only get one bite at the apple instead of the two that has become commonplace when the State does not get the verdict they want in criminal court, e.g., the O.J. Simpson Murder Case. This 'try them on both the civil and criminal sides' is a principle in American law that stems exclusively from a law of questionable constitutionality written during the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s to give Federal prosecutors a weapon against the Ku Klux Klan when white criminal-case juries would not return a guilty verdict against a Klansman even in the face of overwhelming evidence. In my opinion, trying somebody on both sides of the house violates the spirit of the double jeopardy clause even while adhering to the letter of it. I still don't like it. The smart burglar will cut and run when he hears the ti-CHAK of a 12-gauge racking a round into battery or the click-SNAP of a semi-auto pistol's slide traveling forward as it strips a round off the magazine and chambers it. But if he doesn't, the homeowner has to back off from an intruder who may be armed and out to kill him? There is somethign seriously wrong with this picture, boys and girls, and it's not the presence of a firearm in it!