On Apr 5, 1:14*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Bill Kniess" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Castle Doctrine is different from SYG. *Castle Doc is the right to
protect your habitat which, I believe is nationwide.

It's considered common law doctrine but it's not nationwide.

SYG applies to ANYWHERE a person may be - in habitat, on the street,
in churches, in the capital, the govrnor's office, ANYWHERE, which is
significantly different, and is therefore more ambiguous. *By he true
legal definition (from law school) laws should be precise and not
open to interpretation.

That's the part that's going to change, IMHO. *People are all for "a man's
home is his castle" laws. That makes sense. *You shouldn't have to retreat
from your own home.

Extending that right to "wherever you are" was a stretch and the Martin case
might exert enough force to stretch SYG to the breaking point. *It's just
too easy to ambush someone where there are no witnesses, kill them, muss
yourself up a bit and then declare "self-defense" under SYG laws. *Like the
ACA law, SYG laws did get passed in many Statehouses across the US but their
life expectancy does not look good in the face of the nationwide discussion.

--
Bobby G.

One more time for the one here who doesn't get it. Per Z and
THE ONLY EYEWITNESS TO THE ATTACK, it was Martin who was
on top. Z was on the ground, getting beaten and yelling for help.
The eyewitness shouted that he was going to call police. While the
eyewitness was in the house doing that, he heard the shot.
The police stated that Z had a broken nose and injuries to the
back of his head. M had no injuries.
Under those conditions, the shooting would be justified in
all 50 states, SYG law or not. Capiche?

Why is it that you can go conjure up all kinds of crap, links to
garbage that is meaningless, endless rants to no point,
yet you prefer to either remain ignorant of the most basic
facts or ignore them?