Dan Rather Reports on Castle Doctrine

[camslam]

I saw this on Dish Network HDNet channel last night and it was very interesting. Talked quite a bit about the Castle Doctrine and how it has been used, where it is being used to justify action, and the problems some are having with it.

They hit Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, and it was actually pretty balanced. I couldn't find a link showing the video, but I have attached the transcript if anyone wants to take a gander.

Enjoy.

 

[SsevenN]

RATHER (VOICE OVER)
BUT THERE ARE MANY WHO SAY HAMMER'S CASTLE DOCTRINE DOESN'T
RESTORE OLD RIGHTS, BUT CREATES NEW ONES.
JEANNIE SUK, PROFESSOR AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
Traditionally, in American law, we've had a real careful attitude towards self-defense. We’ve
been very stingy about saying -- "Yeah, you were justified in killing someone in self defense."
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
JEANNIE SUK IS A PROFESSOR AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. SHE RECENTLY
PUBLISHED THE FIRST SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS OF THE CASTLE DOCTRINE
LAWS. SUK CONCLUDED THAT THE LEGAL TREND STARTED BY MARION
HAMMER IN FLORIDA, MARKS A RADICAL SHIFT IN SELF-DEFENSE LAW FROM
THE ORIGINAL CASTLE DOCTRINE, WHICH DATES BACK TO ENGLISH COMMON
LAW.
SUK
If you were attacked, the traditional rule was that you had a duty to retreat before you actually
killed. You had to try in some way- to try and run away before as a last resort killing someone
in self-defense. In the home, however, the rule was different. If you were in your home, and
someone was attacking you, you did not have to try to run away.
RATHER
SUK
We've seen an increasing cultural acceptance of guns. In a way that would have been
unfathomable for much of our history.
RATHER

When you listen to what people say about these laws, that they're connected to an idea that if I
had to rely on the police, I would be killed, right? There does seem to be an idea of loss of faith
in law enforcement. But I can't explain why that would be, at this point in time, given that
we've seen a very, very steady and meaningful decline in violent crime.

No, no you wouldn't understand would you....


WTH is wrong with this lady? I mean I know she went to school in Mass. But jesus, what studies is she looking at? Or is it ALL anecdotal evidence.

 

[CoRoMo]

Not surprising at all.

 

[Jolly Rogers]

I probably could have written the script for this after hearing who was going to be the talking head from the net that was tabbed for the show.
Joe

 

[KBintheSLC]

""If you were attacked, the traditional rule was that you had a duty to retreat before you actually
killed. You had to try in some way- to try and run away before as a last resort killing someone
in self-defense."" aka English common law???

Maybe this is one of the reasons the Founding Fathers hated the English with such passion.

There does seem to be an idea of loss of faith in law enforcement. But I can't explain why that would be

I guess that started when the SCOTUS told us that LE has no duty to protect any of us.

 

[c.latrans]

I havn't believed a word out of Rathers mouth since "The Guns of Autumn" when I was a kid...........and thats been more than a year or two!

 

[2ndAmFan]

I admit I haven't read the law in its entirety but it looks like the Texas "Castle Doctrine" really does little besides get rid of the ridiculous "retreat if possible" property defense law and it allows the use of lethal force in protecting your property outside the actual walls of your home or place of business even if you aren't in imminent danger of physical harm from a BG, or several BGs. Retreat if possible looked to me like it was mostly a loophole allowing lawyers representing BGs to sue a property owner if he/she couldn't prove they tried to run prior to using lethal force. Without witnesses, how do you prove you tried to escape a potential lethal force encounter? It put the burden of proof on the victim of a property crime which escalated to a lethal force encounter rather than on the perpetrator and made $$ for lawyers who cared about nothing but those $$.
I can't say if I would use lethal force in protecting property anyway. I've never had to so I don't know whether I would, but I certainly would to protect my loved ones and myself.
There was a case awhile back, shortly after Texas changed it's law, of a man using lethal force protecting a neighbor's property and he was either no-billed or acquitted.
Prior to Texas changing it's home/property defense laws it was getting increasingly hard for the prosecution to get convictions against home/property owners who used lethal force because juries just wouldn't convict. It was also getting hard for the prosecutors to get home/property owners indicted in the first place, so the law needed changing.
Living where I do, waiting on LE is not an option so I was glad to see the change in the law for personal reasons, as well as it giving us back rights we should never have lost.

 

[Izaak Walton]

I could rant on this retreat if possible bs for days.
Anti gun people don’t get it. Not now, not tomorrow, not next year.
They remain warm and fuzzy as long as someone listens to them.
(and makes donations)

 

[azhunter122]

What time does it come on?

 

[camslam]

What time does it come on?

It varies what time it comes on and he has a number of different reports that he does.

Dish Network has HD Net on channel 362 and you can just search for it or set it up to record all of them.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree the "professor" at Harvard didn't know her front from her back. While she can't figure out why people are buying guns in the numbers they are, it is quite simple to me.

People are starting to wise up!

The cliche that, "when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away", I believe people are starting to see the ugly truth and they are deciding to be responsible for their own safety.

 

[camslam]

One other item that I will never understand.

The bleeding hearts, the anti-gunners, the peace lovers, many liberal Democrats in office, and a host of other crazies believe for some reason that you should have a duty to retreat.

WHY?
I never see these people making the simple connection that if a criminal had not been there assaulting, robbing, mugging, beating, raping, murdering, or committing some other crime, they probably wouldn't have been shot or killed. Why should we have to retreat? Why should our society be more accomodating of criminals? I don't get it.

But heaven help us if personal responsibility was ever considered. The 2 ladies crying and whining about their son and brother being shot, Hello, they were robbing people.

DUH!

 

[NotSoFast]

We've seen an increasing cultural acceptance of guns. In a way that would have been unfathomable for much of our history.
RATHER

Huh? I see it as just the opposite of what he says. (I just remembered why I don't listen to that garbage anymore.) It has only been in the recent past, 40-60 years, that guns have been condemned and that all the prior history of the United States has been that cultural acceptance of guns was the norm. It makes me to read this crap.

 

[2ndAmFan]

NotSoFast: You are correct. What is happening NOW is unfathomable given our history! Americans are, or should be, proud of our heritage and we should own guns with pride instead of slinking around to avoid attention from the antis who are too stupid to realize they are responsible for the declining freedoms in this country. Once they've disarmed the law-abiding citizens, well all be subjects with only the rights they grant us, and we can tell our kids of the good old days when the Constitution was something besides a museum piece!

 

[Dookie]

The ONLY thing I don't like about any of this is the legality of shooting someone in the back. If a person is retreating and they are shot in the back, I don't think they should have the castle doctrine on their side.

 

[PcolaDawg]

Florida has the Castle Doctrine written into law as well. As to shooting someone in the back, it is my understanding - under Florida law - that if the perp is running away, the crime has been stopped and there is no danger to you or others. There are, however, multiple scenarios where shooting a perp in the back is justified. But not when they are running away.

 

[Walkalong]

I havn't believed a word out of Rathers mouth since...

Absolutely. He is the enemy of guns and freedom, smooth, but the enemy, always has been.

 

[D94R]

The ONLY thing I don't like about any of this is the legality of shooting someone in the back. If a person is retreating and they are shot in the back, I don't think they should have the castle doctrine on their side.

I assume you mean the bad guys is retreating, and the good citizen shoots the bad guy in the back?

I have no problem with this. What's to say the bad guy won't round the corner, take cover, and start firing back at the good citizen who is now left exposed?

Just cause someone turns their back, does not mean they are no longer a threat.

 

[chuwee81]

camslam:

+1 on that. I don't know how criminals/ burglars can even sue homeowner for shooting at them.

 

[RangerHAAF]

A very good and introspective report. I'm not surprised at the continued confusion regarding the circumstances that justify invoking the "castle doctrine" but like ol' Potter Stewart said I'm sure the average citizen will know them when he sees them.

 

[AlaskaErik]

I'd Rather not watch Dan. He's been a hatchet man for the extreme left for decades. Don't expect anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity.