politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It may if you feel threatened in your home. There have been rulings both ways. A classic example is drive-by shootings where the other party never leaves city property but still clearly threatens bodily harm.
My main point though is that going to someone's private property puts you at a severe legal disadvantage.
In this case no anyone can come up to the front door and you still have to be in reasonable fear for your safety and admitting strangers at his door make him fearful generally well ruin his image, it's on video too.
The video certainly helps and is likely to be stronger. However, castle doctrine or not, any jury is going to view this instance of going to their home as an aggressive act.
That doesn't mean he can just get away with whatever he wants, but it does make it easier.
Is the mailman aggressive? Girl scouts? Mormons?
Anyone can approach your door and knock, if you're truly that scared you'd probably put up a fence and a no trespass sign. He did neither, he just sprays them and goes inside.
And breaks their phone.
I think the point is that she was there specifically to confront him about it. If you plan on confronting someone, it's safer for you to do so on neutral ground, so the penalty of anyone escalating the confrontation to something physical is the same. No one is protected or at more risk. Although, of course, if the person you want to confront has more money, they will always be at more advantage. But no sense tipping it even more in their favor.
Sure, but what was she supposed to do, stalk him till he was somewhere more neutral then confront him? Send him a letter with a time and place to air her grievances? Like, going up to someone’s door and saying things isn’t unreasonable.
You're right, but there's reasonable and then there's the law.
The law will side with “would a reasonable person be in fear for their life” and “talking to me” isn’t something to be in fear of.
Edit: Actually, to be fair, I don’t think it actually is “would a reasonable person be in fear” but the moment you point out that anyone else coming to the door, from deliveries to Girl Scouts, doesn’t get attacked… it kinda throws out the “I’m afraid of someone coming to the door and talking to me”.
I think the jury would consider a group of little girls differently from a very angry adult. Anyone who knocks on my door makes me wonder if I should grab a gun. I never do though. It's just not the way we do things anymore.
If someone knocks on my door they generally have already told me they were coming over. The only exceptions are my neighbors, who announce themselves through the door. This is usually a situation, sometimes a bit of an emergency, where they need my help.
Yeah that's what people have done since the dawn of the door. Shitty people avoid others because they don't want to deal with their shittiness so you often have to track them down like a goddamn bounty hunter.
Clearly you haven’t met many Girl Scouts or Mormons…