• southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 hours ago

    As always, it depends on the writer/DM

    Assuming standard vampire mythology though, a warrant isn’t an invitation to enter, it’s permission for someone to enter against your will, with the backing of the government.

    So, on a “magical” level, it wouldn’t meet the criteria because the origin of that limitation isn’t about a legal standing. It’s about the space being lived in, and the construction of the space giving boundaries that can be/are present in a non physical way.

    Foundations, doorways, windows, they all have a degree of “mystical” presence beyond their physical purpose, within this context but also in general. There’s some beliefs out there about how a foundation has to be laid to make a space a proper limitation. It’s akin to sanctified ground in a way.

    And, depending on what stuff you dig into reading about this stuff, once that boundary is in place, the actual building/home could be destroyed, and the boundary can remain, a kind of ghost wall that can’t be seen, but still has presence on a spiritual level.

    With all of that in mind, the vampire would be unable to cross the threshold no matter what government agent said they could, unless that government could be said to be the owner. However, most of the mythology on this kind of stuff, ownership is irrelevant. What matters is who lives there, so even that might not work.

    • toynbee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      There’s an Adventure Time episode wherein a vampire won’t enter a “house” - not because they can’t, but because they believe it would be impolite.

      This is reminiscent of that.

  • Rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Nope - the warrant gives them a legal right to be there, with or without your consent, but is absolutely not an invitation.

  • bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 hours 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
      0
      ·
      10 hours 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
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours 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
        0
        ·
        10 hours 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
          0
          ·
          10 hours 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
            0
            ·
            8 hours 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
              0
              ·
              8 hours 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
      0
      ·
      10 hours 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
        0
        ·
        6 hours 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.

      • phuntis@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 hours ago

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

        • Libb@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 hours 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.

        • badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 hours 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
            0
            ·
            10 hours ago

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