The Castle Doctrine still requires someone to be reasonable. Assuming he isn’t full of shit, he knew his girlfriend wasn’t in bed with him. He went to bed with her. It is completely unreasonable to shoot at an unknown person behind a door when it could very well be your girlfriend.

Different country, different legal system. Secondly, the Castle Doctrine only eliminates the duty to retreat within one’s own home; it does not provide blanket immunity for shooting someone who is lawfully within the home. The state of the mind of the shooter does not matter under the Castle Doctrine, the person…

US law (which I’m using to refer to the laws of the respective states) requires REASONABLE fear for one’s safety. We can argue whether juries and public opinion apply that standard equitably and correctly, but I think it’s worth pointing out that at least in theory that’s what the law is.

Perhaps you are unaware that a home gets a step-up basis at time of death. If the heirs sells it then, there would be no capital gains tax at all. Zero.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that clearly and correctly. I don’t know why PharmaJerk is still stuck on the idea that assault cannot be consented to, even after your explanation, but just wanted to confirm that you’re right on.

Thanks for the informative write-up! I do know that some jurisdictions don’t allow consent as a defense against battery when it comes to BDSM (thus adding another motivation for keeping meet-ups somewhat secret). I would assume that most places with consider porn-filming do allow consent as a defense.

Oh yeah, I mean, I totally broke curfew all the time—I know how it is.