nekkidtruth, on 06 December 2012 - 00:14, said:
Right, because that's what's most important here.
God forbid he lose his rights to own a firearm!
I was making a general statement about the situation, your comment is not appreciated. Gun ownership is a paramount right of every human being in today's world, much like the ability to carry and wield a sword in the days before guns were mass produced. Without the right to arm yourself, you are incapable of "really" defending yourself against tyranny in government, much less anything else. Try fighting a bobcat off your chickens with a machete, I dare you, you'll find out real quick a 5.56 round is much faster and safer. I mean really, if the government of the UK decided to enforce a curfew, confiscate privately owned land, and allow the sheriff of every town to rape one female citizen of his choosing every night, under the protection of armed guards, what could you "really" do since the majority of you are not allowed to own a gun? You could organize a little resistance, maybe kill a couple people when they weren't looking, but unless foreign governments started sending stuff to you, you would be totally helpless. What do you think happens to people without guns when they try to stand up to people with guns? Read your history man (generic, no gender specific term, in case you are a woman), this is a very important right that he just forfeited by making a very stupid and potentially lethal decision.
On the castle doctrine, you have to be in fear for your life, I'm fairly certain of that. There's all kinds of things you can do to remove somebody from your property before shooting them becomes a reasonable response. If the bullet struck her in the back, she obviously wasn't facing or attacking him.