• bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 month ago

    No, as a vampire still needs to be invited into the home. A judge can make the sun assaulting officers with death rays illegal but theres nothing they can change about nature.

    • Zikeji@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I disagree. The most governments can straight up kick you out of your home, so it seems to me the cosmic laws of the universe that govern whether a vampire has been invited in would recognize the warrant as an invitation by the judge into the home.

      • Nailbar@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        So in essence, all a Vampire would need is someone with the authority to let them into anyone’s home. I wonder how one would define that authority?

        Ooh, what if the judge is the Vampire!

      • Brem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Under this philosophy; citizens residing within states that have the castle doctrine would legally be protected from vampires while in their motor vehicles?

        • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Motor vehicles? Castle doctrine is about overriding the usual limitations (around what’s reasonable use of force) on the right to self defence if you’re in your home. Cars don’t come into it.

          Some places also extend the same protections that castle law provides to your home to your car, but that’s separate from castle doctrine itself.

          • Brem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I didn’t realize the car bit was separate, I assumed it was the difference between stand your ground and castle doctrine.

            • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yeah true “stand your ground” is anywhere, or at least anywhere public. Not sure if it applies in private spaces that aren’t your own.

    • Libb@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      But couldn’t the law be written so that a warrant once seen by the home owner must legally be considered a mandatory invitation, making the cop legally allowed to enter the home?

      • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        A, this is why magic isn’t real

        B, the law can say whatever the fuck it wants it still can’t bend reality. More likely and much simpler, the vampire cop brings a non vampire friend who beats you until you “willingly” invite them both in and they plant drugs all throughout your house.

        • Brem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          “According to officials; the residence was completely drenched in ooey-gooey sticky-blood-bits due to the homeowner’s recent satanic blood orgy. No further investigation will be conducted, as police chief “Brad The Impaler” has concluded that none is required.”

        • Libb@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          A, this is why magic isn’t real

          I don’t think the question is about magic vs reality, we’re talking vampires here, right?, but to know how if vampires were a thing, it would be possible (or not) for a vampire cop to enter a house without being invited by the home owner, even with a warrant.

          B, the law can say whatever the fuck it wants it still can’t bend reality.

          The law doesn’t need to bend any reality, it never does. Law is not about scientific laws, it’s about human behavior. At least modern laws as some older ones may have tried, and maybe some particularly stupid modern ones too, but their ability to bend said reality to their will is still to be demonstrated :p

          The law is a contract, with a sanction of some sort when it is broken. Be it to pay a fine, or to be prevented to do certain activities in the future, or be forced to do some other ones, or to go to jail. Up to the death penalty, in some places.

          The law is about making the citizens bent to its will, not the reality.

          That will is, in theory at least, is the expression of the common will, also known as the agreed upon desire of all the citizens. Citizens don’t define laws of physics (which would deal with ‘reality’) and no matter how hard they may want, the also can’t alter them.

          Speed limit is not about enforcing a certain speed over which the laws of physics would suddenly (and magically) crumble. It’s about punishing people not respecting that agreed upon speed limit. That’s also why it’s very possible to have different speed limits in different places. Physics doesn’t change, our expectations do.

          We will drive faster on a highway than, say, next to a school despite the car being the same, with the same driver and with the same laws of physics applying, why? The place is different and also how we are expected to behave in such a place which, near a school, should obviously be to slow down so we the drivers (aka old/adults enough to have our driving license and act responsibly) can compensate for kids being… kids, aka not always being attentive to what’s going on around them, or being silly.

          A warrant, for example has nothing to do with giving its carrier some magical power to enter a place (say by moving through a closed door or through walls, or by teleporting there) but it has all to do with punishing the owner of the place for not letting the warrant carrier enter their house, even if they don’t want to.

          So, all I was saying is that in that ‘fantasy’ world where vampire cops would be a thing, the law may as well be written so it makes it a ‘mandatory welcoming’ for the home owner to let in the vampire-cop, any refusal to comply to said ‘forced invitation to enter’ being sanctioned by a more or less severe punishment… Which, btw, is not far from what a warrant is supposed to be doing in our (this time, real) world ;)

      • phuntis@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        just because they legally have to doesn’t mean they physically have to though they could still not invite you in

        • badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Invited in by who though? You might say the owner, but then that means that kids or tenants don’t count. So it might be “anyone with authority to do so”, which would include judges following the prescribed process…

          • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            It could also just be “anyone lawfully inside already”, which would allow the owner, kids, tenants, or even guests, but not a judge.

        • Libb@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          I meant: the warrant would equal an invitation to enter one’s home, an invitation decided by the judge to which, as a law abiding citizen, the place owner would be forced to comply with.