Senate OKs new home invasion law

Does this bill shield the liability of the homeowner using deadly force in self defense?(as in the right to stand and fight to protect one's "castle") If not, it's just a piece of paper without real teeth. Higher penalties wont help the murdered victims.

It's good the law finally got passed. Too bad it took a rich white family being invaded to make it happen. Whatever it takes.

"If not, it's just a piece of paper without real teeth."

I have to agree. If these criminals knew that this new law existed, do you really thought they would have hesitated to still invade this home? "Gee, we were going to kidnap, rob, rape, and murder these people, but hey! I really don't want to be charged with 'home invasion', so let's forget all about it".

However, if criminals knew that CT citizens had the unequivocal right to possess weapons in their homes specifically for the purpose of blowing them away, they might think twice. Considering how long police delayed to intervene in Cheshire while that family was being burned to death, it would be a law that would have some real application. When that doc escaped, he could have gone for his 357 instead of the phone.

You can't count on the goverment to do everything for you.

Nemesys wrote:

.
However, if criminals knew that CT citizens had the unequivocal right to possess weapons in their homes specifically for the purpose of blowing them away, they might think twice.

I might have agreed with you at one point, nems...but when the Supremes decided the police are not accountable for "wrong door raids" (which effectively killed the last right-to-privacy we possessed), such a scenario would lead to more incidents of cops and homeowners facing off with weapons regularly.

"...the Supremes decided the police are not accountable for "wrong door raids"

They may not be accountible legally, but even the cops might think twice about checking they're in the right home if they knew that homeowners had the legal right to defend themselves in their homes. The accountibility would simply take the form of running the risk of confronting armed homeowners vs. confronting lawyers.

I think you're correct that there might be a learning curve as the cops discovered that it's a really good idea for them to be very careful whose door they busted down, but in the long run, wouldn't that be a good thing? I don't think that either one of us like the idea of the police (the government) being the only ones entitled to use deadly force while protecting themselves.

Nemesys wrote:

I don't think that either one of us like the idea of the police (the government) being the only ones entitled to use deadly force while protecting themselves.

in theory I agree with you again, but I have to take regional and cultural differences into account when it comes to seeing citizens armed.

then how are you suppose to protect your family? Wait for the police to arrive that takes about 5-10 mintues wait for the police to do something who knows how long that will take . All that I am saying is I think that citizens should be able to use deadly force when they are robbed and fear for you life.

ugh ugh ugh meow

i come home to find a animal control woman had entered my home an taken my dog this woman had entered the property three times prior to this an had taken my dog of his chain without any legal reason. the last time saying my dog was not registered this was not true, once again. the council then told me i was a lier after they had already tresspassed her from before an said the dog was roaming yet already had my name. is this classed as home invasion.

LAME