14 yr old shot from 30 ft away;shooter claims Stand Your Ground (1 Viewer)

[Dr Oadi]

Guys, criminals should have every right to trespass on people's property in the middle of the night with the intent to commit a crime without being subjected to "vigilante justice". If, as a country, we don't protect criminal rights, who will?

There's a big difference between trespassing on someone's property and blowing a hole in someone's head.

Yes. But it is not incumbent on the homeowner to take care of the criminal. If you hop someone's fence in the middle of the night and are prowling around his back door, you are a legitimately perceived threat and should expect to be treated like one. Whatever the criminal's intentions are, the homeowner, in this day and age in a major city, has to assume that the intentions are very, very bad. It's not the homeowner's job to try to be objective and make sure that the criminal isn't that kind of criminal. It's the homeowner's job to protect his or her family.

This is not "hey, someone suspicious is in my neighborhood." It's "there's a criminal who jumped my fence, made his way over by my back door, steps from where my wife and child sleep, and isn't complying when I tell him to hold still."

It's 2AM! You have to assume that the person by your back door is not delivering Girl Scout cookies to your door by mistake.

Doesn't matter the time. It is safe to assume the kid was looking to rob the house. But once the homeowner made himself known, this shouldn't have gone further than the kid running away.

You must not have read the story. According to the shooter, the kid wasn't running away but reached for his waistband. So many people want to act like he was shot for trespassing. He was shot because the shooter was afraid the kid was about to shoot him. The distance was also based on where the shell casing was found, they haven't said how far the shooter was.

I didn't say the kid was running away. I said that this should have been the outcome. This is like the Zimmerman situation where you have only one side of the story. Seems like the 14 y.o. may have contributed to this as he appears have been shot in the front, suggesting he didn't turn to leave the property. I don't however deem it plauable that the kid would turn around and make a movement toward his waist when he wasn't even carrying? What would be the reason for him going to his waist? The only thing I can think of which may make sense would be that the 14 y.o. wanted to scare the 33 y.o. and therefore went to his waist in order to suggest he had a gun. That is possible, but I'd still like to see if more evidence come forward.

The actions of the homeowner to me are excessive and unwarranted in my mind. Everyone has their own view on this of course.

So when an intruder at two oclock in the morning is in your fenced in property reaching at his waist, you should just pray he isnt going to shoot you and invite him in for tea to discuss his occupation choices? So its excessive to ensure your family and yourself live over a criminal?

No. You RETREAT to your home,secure the door,call 911 and wait for the police!

 

[kentric]

Did the homeowner come out of his house from a side door? I'm confused as to how the kid got between the homeowner and his door. If it was a separate entrance, was the door to his home locked? That could have a material bearing on how this is viewed - if he feared for his family's life and the 14 y.o. was by the door, it would definately work against him if the door was locked and the intruder would have to break down the door to enter his home.

Putting aside everything else- I'm not sure why anyone would question this. If somebody jumps into my yard at 2am, I fear for my family's lives- period. It doesn't take anything else. I wouldn't need any more movement or action by the intruder for me to have reached that state of fear- I've already reached it. And I would remain in that state of fear until the threat was removed, one way or another.

Am I being irrational here?

Tim. As far as I can put together from the various posts and news article I've read, the homeowner ("HO") came out the front door and around a corner and was between the 14 y.o. and the back door. If this is the case then whether the back door was locked or not it can have substantive relevance depending on the defense's claim.

In the pic, it was asserted that the camera shot is reflective of where the HO was standing looking toward the back door. If the defense claims that he was fearful of his families lives and the back door was locked, the jury may have a difficult time believing his story as the would be no ability for the 14 y.o. to break into the house while the HO was standing there with a gun in his hand. The HO could argue that the 14 y.o. could have shot the HO and then entered the house, but that's stretching it.

eta: http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-27-at-1.41.26-PM.png

How long do you think it takes to "break in" to a house?

I'd guess longer than it takes to shoot someone. If the HO had brandished his gun and the 14 y.o. saw it, do you think the 14 y.o. is going to try to break into the HO's house? To me, that is not very likely.

eta. even if the HO didn't show his gun, what is the probability that anyone (14 y.o. or otherwise) is going to try to break into a house after he has been confronted? The more I think about it, the more ridiculous this sounds. You've made other "valid" points, but this one is over the top.

 

[[icon]]

Modern self-defense doctrine only allows potentially deadly force to be used to protect innocent life (as opposed to property), and only when there is no reasonable alternative such as escape, and only to the extent reasonably necessary (e.g. 1 or 2 shots rather than emptying your mag and then re-loading).

While I have a lot fewer complaints about the Castle Doctrine (limited to your dwelling) than I do the Stand Your Ground Doctrine, it still troubles me that both seem to gloss over the need for the threat to be against innocent life, and the use of deadly force only as a last alternative.

This is one of the most interesting aspects of this subject, and I've been thinking about it for the past couple of days. I'm pretty sure I'm opposed to SYG. But as to the Castle doctrine...

I already stated that it is quite reasonable, it seems to me, to be in a state of fear for your family the minute you are aware of an intruder at 2 am in the morning on your property, and that it is also quite reasonable to remain in that state of fear until the threat has been removed. That being the case, it follows that placing the same sort of restrictions on justifiable self-defense that we would in a confrontation elsewhere (as I would in the Zimmerman case, for example) seem burdensome here. Simply put, I don't believe a homeowner, who is in a reasonable state of fear for his family's lives, should have to take the time to be responsible to determine whether the danger is real or not. Not at that time of the night.

If that means that ultimately I am arguing for the right of homeowners to execute trespassers, then so be it.

Modern self defense must show:

1) Capacity to do lethal harm (or the perception of such)

2) Desire to do lethal harm (or the perception of such)

This does not include opening the door to executing people for setting foot on your property.

Anyone can perceive anyone of having the capacity to do harm or the desire to do harm and such perceptions could be reasonable even if they are not in any way rooted in reality. This is where I think the law is flawed.

That is your opinion. thankfully lawmakers don't concur and trust juries/judges to interpret the grey area.

The perceptions MUST be rooted in reality, though. And that's where you're wrong.

• 140lb man faces unarmed but violent 220lb man who is beating him or coming at him threatening to kill him. 140lb man is justified in using lethal force.

• 220lb man has 140lb woman hitting him with both fists and threatening to kill him. 220lb man is not justified in using lethal force.

It's not like the jury goes "Oh...well I mean if you THOUGHT the 140lb woman was going to beat you to death with her fists, I guess you're off the hook.

Again, you're either fishing or not very bright. either way, I'm done addressing your idiocy.

 

[jon_mx]

I think it more justified to shoot someone beating me up than someone looking to steal something out of my car in a driveway.

You don't know what he's looking to do. That's the problem. You hear a noise, the dog is barking, you open your door and see a stranger outside in your gated yard at 2 am in the morning. That stranger had to climb your high gate to get into your yard. You point your gun and yell at him to freeze. He appears to reach for something at his waist...Are you telling me that in this scenario, you would not be justified to fire?

Why do you readily accept his story? It is plausible, but it depends on what else the police has. If we accept his story, I would acquit. If there is evidence the kid was fleeing, I would convict him. I accepted Zimmerma's story because Jon backed up critical points if Zimmerman's story. I am not sure here yet.

 

[Drifter]

Modern self-defense doctrine only allows potentially deadly force to be used to protect innocent life (as opposed to property), and only when there is no reasonable alternative such as escape, and only to the extent reasonably necessary (e.g. 1 or 2 shots rather than emptying your mag and then re-loading).

While I have a lot fewer complaints about the Castle Doctrine (limited to your dwelling) than I do the Stand Your Ground Doctrine, it still troubles me that both seem to gloss over the need for the threat to be against innocent life, and the use of deadly force only as a last alternative.

This is one of the most interesting aspects of this subject, and I've been thinking about it for the past couple of days. I'm pretty sure I'm opposed to SYG. But as to the Castle doctrine...

I already stated that it is quite reasonable, it seems to me, to be in a state of fear for your family the minute you are aware of an intruder at 2 am in the morning on your property, and that it is also quite reasonable to remain in that state of fear until the threat has been removed. That being the case, it follows that placing the same sort of restrictions on justifiable self-defense that we would in a confrontation elsewhere (as I would in the Zimmerman case, for example) seem burdensome here. Simply put, I don't believe a homeowner, who is in a reasonable state of fear for his family's lives, should have to take the time to be responsible to determine whether the danger is real or not. Not at that time of the night.

If that means that ultimately I am arguing for the right of homeowners to execute trespassers, then so be it.

Modern self defense must show:

1) Capacity to do lethal harm (or the perception of such)

2) Desire to do lethal harm (or the perception of such)

This does not include opening the door to executing people for setting foot on your property.

Anyone can perceive anyone of having the capacity to do harm or the desire to do harm and such perceptions could be reasonable even if they are not in any way rooted in reality. This is where I think the law is flawed.

That is your opinion. thankfully lawmakers don't concur and trust juries/judges to interpret the grey area.

The perceptions MUST be rooted in reality, though. And that's where you're wrong.

• 140lb man faces unarmed but violent 220lb man who is beating him or coming at him threatening to kill him. 140lb man is justified in using lethal force.

• 220lb man has 140lb woman hitting him with both fists and threatening to kill him. 220lb man is not justified in using lethal force.

It's not like the jury goes "Oh...well I mean if you THOUGHT the 140lb woman was going to beat you to death with her fists, I guess you're off the hook.

Again, you're either fishing or not very bright. either way, I'm done addressing your idiocy.

They key here is Reasonable Man doctrine. It's not whether the accused might have thought there was threat but whether a reasonable person in that position would have.

 

[[icon]]

I think it more justified to shoot someone beating me up than someone looking to steal something out of my car in a driveway.

How you continue to remember to breathe amazes me sometimes.

 

[Henry Ford]

Did the homeowner come out of his house from a side door? I'm confused as to how the kid got between the homeowner and his door. If it was a separate entrance, was the door to his home locked? That could have a material bearing on how this is viewed - if he feared for his family's life and the 14 y.o. was by the door, it would definately work against him if the door was locked and the intruder would have to break down the door to enter his home.

Putting aside everything else- I'm not sure why anyone would question this. If somebody jumps into my yard at 2am, I fear for my family's lives- period. It doesn't take anything else. I wouldn't need any more movement or action by the intruder for me to have reached that state of fear- I've already reached it. And I would remain in that state of fear until the threat was removed, one way or another.

Am I being irrational here?

Tim. As far as I can put together from the various posts and news article I've read, the homeowner ("HO") came out the front door and around a corner and was between the 14 y.o. and the back door. If this is the case then whether the back door was locked or not it can have substantive relevance depending on the defense's claim.

In the pic, it was asserted that the camera shot is reflective of where the HO was standing looking toward the back door. If the defense claims that he was fearful of his families lives and the back door was locked, the jury may have a difficult time believing his story as the would be no ability for the 14 y.o. to break into the house while the HO was standing there with a gun in his hand. The HO could argue that the 14 y.o. could have shot the HO and then entered the house, but that's stretching it.

eta: http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-27-at-1.41.26-PM.png

How long do you think it takes to "break in" to a house?

I'd guess longer than it takes to shoot someone. If the HO had brandished his gun and the 14 y.o. saw it, do you think the 14 y.o. is going to try to break into the HO's house? To me, that is not very likely.

eta. even if the HO didn't show his gun, what is the probability that anyone (14 y.o. or otherwise) is going to try to break into a house after he has been confronted? The more I think about it, the more ridiculous this sounds. You've made other "valid" points, but this one is over the top.

If he doesn't shoot while the guy's moving to do something, I'd say it's pretty likely that someone can break into a house. If he does shoot when the guy makes a move... wait, that's what happened here, right?

 

[timschochet]

I think it more justified to shoot someone beating me up than someone looking to steal something out of my car in a driveway.

You don't know what he's looking to do. That's the problem. You hear a noise, the dog is barking, you open your door and see a stranger outside in your gated yard at 2 am in the morning. That stranger had to climb your high gate to get into your yard. You point your gun and yell at him to freeze. He appears to reach for something at his waist...Are you telling me that in this scenario, you would not be justified to fire?

Why do you readily accept his story? It is plausible, but it depends on what else the police has. If we accept his story, I would acquit. If there is evidence the kid was fleeing, I would convict him. I accepted Zimmerma's story because Jon backed up critical points if Zimmerman's story. I am not sure here yet.

I don't readily accept his story, but I'm highly sympathetic to it, because if some stranger showed up in MY yard at 2 am, I would be terrified.

 

[Rayderr]

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

Right, because there aren't dozens/hundreds of people on Bourbon street or Jackson Square in New Orleans at 2 AM on any of the 365 days a year.

/end of idiotic "option"

As I said: Blast away.

No, you said "shooting a gun in the air at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate". So why would it be stupid to do it on New Years, but perfectly fine and apparently the "option" to take in this case where the homeowner is within 1 mile of what's likely the most heavily populated street in American at that time? I'd love to hear this explanation.

The odds of hitting a person at 2 AM in the morning and causing death are likely de minimis, whereas you have a 14 y.o. who gets shot in the head. Even though the 14 y.o. was up to no good, I'd rather take chances with the shot in the air (even though I don't think it was necessary).

Personally, I'd suspect a smaller, scrawnier burglar of carrying a gun than a larger person as they need something to help even the odds in case they have run into the homeowner.

You're a juror and you see pics of the boy. Which pic do you think would prove more troublesome for the 33 y.o. homeowner's defense?

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoKr_TvlRKWQAMHqJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTFyZTN0bzkwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMwNWUwZDZiNmNlNzExY2RlMWI0N2Q0ZDhjMGQ1ZmRhMQRncG9zAzc1?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dtrayvon%2Bmartin%2Bimages%26n%3D30%26ei%3Dutf-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-900%26ac%3D14%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D75&w=429&h=462&imgurl=gospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FTrayvon_Martin_.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Ftrayvon-martin-case-heats-up-in-florida%2F&size=34.6KB&name=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&p=trayvon+martin+images&oid=05e0d6b6ce711cde1b47d4d8c0d5fda1&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-900&tt=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&b=61∋=192&no=75&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12f7qp6qu&sigb=13nfvo4oj&sigi=12e0hd403&.crumb=xI8I5OIScTF&fr=yfp-t-900

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoKr_TvlRKWQAMHqJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTFyZTN0bzkwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMwNWUwZDZiNmNlNzExY2RlMWI0N2Q0ZDhjMGQ1ZmRhMQRncG9zAzc1?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dtrayvon%2Bmartin%2Bimages%26n%3D30%26ei%3Dutf-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-900%26ac%3D14%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D75&w=429&h=462&imgurl=gospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FTrayvon_Martin_.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Ftrayvon-martin-case-heats-up-in-florida%2F&size=34.6KB&name=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&p=trayvon+martin+images&oid=05e0d6b6ce711cde1b47d4d8c0d5fda1&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-900&tt=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&b=61∋=192&no=75&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12f7qp6qu&sigb=13nfvo4oj&sigi=12e0hd403&.crumb=xI8I5OIScTF&fr=yfp-t-900#

I'm going to say that I find the person in the pic equally threatening. Not quite sure why tho...

 

[jon_mx]

I think it more justified to shoot someone beating me up than someone looking to steal something out of my car in a driveway.

How you continue to remember to breathe amazes me sometimes.

I have had stuff stolen out of my car several times,

never felt in danger. If they were trying to get into my house different story. Being physically attacked is a much bigger threat. There is nothing stupid about that.

 

[[icon]]

I think it more justified to shoot someone beating me up than someone looking to steal something out of my car in a driveway.

How you continue to remember to breathe amazes me sometimes.

I have had stuff stolen out of my car several times,

never felt in danger. If they were trying to get into my house different story. Being physically attacked is a much bigger threat. There is nothing stupid about that.

And this is relevant to this thread, exactly how?

 

[kentric]

Did the homeowner come out of his house from a side door? I'm confused as to how the kid got between the homeowner and his door. If it was a separate entrance, was the door to his home locked? That could have a material bearing on how this is viewed - if he feared for his family's life and the 14 y.o. was by the door, it would definately work against him if the door was locked and the intruder would have to break down the door to enter his home.

Putting aside everything else- I'm not sure why anyone would question this. If somebody jumps into my yard at 2am, I fear for my family's lives- period. It doesn't take anything else. I wouldn't need any more movement or action by the intruder for me to have reached that state of fear- I've already reached it. And I would remain in that state of fear until the threat was removed, one way or another.

Am I being irrational here?

Tim. As far as I can put together from the various posts and news article I've read, the homeowner ("HO") came out the front door and around a corner and was between the 14 y.o. and the back door. If this is the case then whether the back door was locked or not it can have substantive relevance depending on the defense's claim.

In the pic, it was asserted that the camera shot is reflective of where the HO was standing looking toward the back door. If the defense claims that he was fearful of his families lives and the back door was locked, the jury may have a difficult time believing his story as the would be no ability for the 14 y.o. to break into the house while the HO was standing there with a gun in his hand. The HO could argue that the 14 y.o. could have shot the HO and then entered the house, but that's stretching it.

eta: http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-27-at-1.41.26-PM.png

How long do you think it takes to "break in" to a house?

I'd guess longer than it takes to shoot someone. If the HO had brandished his gun and the 14 y.o. saw it, do you think the 14 y.o. is going to try to break into the HO's house? To me, that is not very likely.

eta. even if the HO didn't show his gun, what is the probability that anyone (14 y.o. or otherwise) is going to try to break into a house after he has been confronted? The more I think about it, the more ridiculous this sounds. You've made other "valid" points, but this one is over the top.

If he doesn't shoot while the guy's moving to do something, I'd say it's pretty likely that someone can break into a house. If he does shoot when the guy makes a move... wait, that's what happened here, right?

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I just can't conceive of someone trying to break into a house while he's got someone standing nearby telling him to stop (this is infinitely more unlikely if the perpetrator saw a gun). Even if they did try to break in, its not going to be instantaneous unless the guy built his house out of straw or cardboard. In which case I guess the perp could huff and puff.

 

[[icon]]

So some of you mouth breathers really still think this guy was shot because of an impending break in attempt?

 

[kentric]

I never said it was impossible. Shooting a gun in the air, likely while drunk, at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate. It is also not even remotely the same as the situation we are talking about in this thread.

Right, because there aren't dozens/hundreds of people on Bourbon street or Jackson Square in New Orleans at 2 AM on any of the 365 days a year.

/end of idiotic "option"

As I said: Blast away.

No, you said "shooting a gun in the air at a time where dozens/hundreds of people are also outside requires an incredible degree of stupidity to even contemplate". So why would it be stupid to do it on New Years, but perfectly fine and apparently the "option" to take in this case where the homeowner is within 1 mile of what's likely the most heavily populated street in American at that time? I'd love to hear this explanation.

The odds of hitting a person at 2 AM in the morning and causing death are likely de minimis, whereas you have a 14 y.o. who gets shot in the head. Even though the 14 y.o. was up to no good, I'd rather take chances with the shot in the air (even though I don't think it was necessary).

Personally, I'd suspect a smaller, scrawnier burglar of carrying a gun than a larger person as they need something to help even the odds in case they have run into the homeowner.

You're a juror and you see pics of the boy. Which pic do you think would prove more troublesome for the 33 y.o. homeowner's defense?

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoKr_TvlRKWQAMHqJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTFyZTN0bzkwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMwNWUwZDZiNmNlNzExY2RlMWI0N2Q0ZDhjMGQ1ZmRhMQRncG9zAzc1?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dtrayvon%2Bmartin%2Bimages%26n%3D30%26ei%3Dutf-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-900%26ac%3D14%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D75&w=429&h=462&imgurl=gospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FTrayvon_Martin_.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Ftrayvon-martin-case-heats-up-in-florida%2F&size=34.6KB&name=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&p=trayvon+martin+images&oid=05e0d6b6ce711cde1b47d4d8c0d5fda1&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-900&tt=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&b=61∋=192&no=75&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12f7qp6qu&sigb=13nfvo4oj&sigi=12e0hd403&.crumb=xI8I5OIScTF&fr=yfp-t-900

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoKr_TvlRKWQAMHqJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTFyZTN0bzkwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMwNWUwZDZiNmNlNzExY2RlMWI0N2Q0ZDhjMGQ1ZmRhMQRncG9zAzc1?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dtrayvon%2Bmartin%2Bimages%26n%3D30%26ei%3Dutf-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-900%26ac%3D14%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D75&w=429&h=462&imgurl=gospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FTrayvon_Martin_.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgospelconnoisseur.com%2Fwordpress%2Ftrayvon-martin-case-heats-up-in-florida%2F&size=34.6KB&name=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&p=trayvon+martin+images&oid=05e0d6b6ce711cde1b47d4d8c0d5fda1&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-900&tt=%3Cb%3ETRAYVON+MARTIN+%3C%2Fb%3ECASE+HEATS+UP+IN+FLORIDA&b=61∋=192&no=75&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12f7qp6qu&sigb=13nfvo4oj&sigi=12e0hd403&.crumb=xI8I5OIScTF&fr=yfp-t-900#

I'm going to say that I find the person in the pic equally threatening. Not quite sure why tho...

lol same pic.

Think of the second pic as a 17 y.o. hoodied Trayvon.

 

[Bonzai]

I think it more justified to shoot someone beating me up than someone looking to steal something out of my car in a driveway.

You don't know what he's looking to do. That's the problem. You hear a noise, the dog is barking, you open your door and see a stranger outside in your gated yard at 2 am in the morning. That stranger had to climb your high gate to get into your yard. You point your gun and yell at him to freeze. He appears to reach for something at his waist...Are you telling me that in this scenario, you would not be justified to fire?

Why do you readily accept his story? It is plausible, but it depends on what else the police has. If we accept his story, I would acquit. If there is evidence the kid was fleeing, I would convict him. I accepted Zimmerma's story because Jon backed up critical points if Zimmerman's story. I am not sure here yet.

I don't readily accept his story, but I'm highly sympathetic to it, because if some stranger showed up in MY yard at 2 am, I would be terrified.

So terrified that you'd run outside with a gun to confront the stranger?

 

[T Bell]

I think it more justified to shoot someone beating me up than someone looking to steal something out of my car in a driveway.

You don't know what he's looking to do. That's the problem. You hear a noise, the dog is barking, you open your door and see a stranger outside in your gated yard at 2 am in the morning. That stranger had to climb your high gate to get into your yard. You point your gun and yell at him to freeze. He appears to reach for something at his waist...Are you telling me that in this scenario, you would not be justified to fire?

Why do you readily accept his story? It is plausible, but it depends on what else the police has. If we accept his story, I would acquit. If there is evidence the kid was fleeing, I would convict him. I accepted Zimmerma's story because Jon backed up critical points if Zimmerman's story. I am not sure here yet.

I don't readily accept his story, but I'm highly sympathetic to it, because if some stranger showed up in MY yard at 2 am, I would be terrified.

So terrified that you'd run outside with a gun to confront the stranger?

I'm not sure that the guy in this incident knew what was going on outside when he left the house. Wasn't he just responding to a noise?

 

[Clifford]

Modern self-defense doctrine only allows potentially deadly force to be used to protect innocent life (as opposed to property), and only when there is no reasonable alternative such as escape, and only to the extent reasonably necessary (e.g. 1 or 2 shots rather than emptying your mag and then re-loading).

While I have a lot fewer complaints about the Castle Doctrine (limited to your dwelling) than I do the Stand Your Ground Doctrine, it still troubles me that both seem to gloss over the need for the threat to be against innocent life, and the use of deadly force only as a last alternative.

This is one of the most interesting aspects of this subject, and I've been thinking about it for the past couple of days. I'm pretty sure I'm opposed to SYG. But as to the Castle doctrine...

I already stated that it is quite reasonable, it seems to me, to be in a state of fear for your family the minute you are aware of an intruder at 2 am in the morning on your property, and that it is also quite reasonable to remain in that state of fear until the threat has been removed. That being the case, it follows that placing the same sort of restrictions on justifiable self-defense that we would in a confrontation elsewhere (as I would in the Zimmerman case, for example) seem burdensome here. Simply put, I don't believe a homeowner, who is in a reasonable state of fear for his family's lives, should have to take the time to be responsible to determine whether the danger is real or not. Not at that time of the night.

If that means that ultimately I am arguing for the right of homeowners to execute trespassers, then so be it.

Modern self defense must show:

1) Capacity to do lethal harm (or the perception of such)

2) Desire to do lethal harm (or the perception of such)

This does not include opening the door to executing people for setting foot on your property.

Anyone can perceive anyone of having the capacity to do harm or the desire to do harm and such perceptions could be reasonable even if they are not in any way rooted in reality. This is where I think the law is flawed.

That is your opinion. thankfully lawmakers don't concur and trust juries/judges to interpret the grey area.

The perceptions MUST be rooted in reality, though. And that's where you're wrong.

• 140lb man faces unarmed but violent 220lb man who is beating him or coming at him threatening to kill him. 140lb man is justified in using lethal force.

• 220lb man has 140lb woman hitting him with both fists and threatening to kill him. 220lb man is not justified in using lethal force.

It's not like the jury goes "Oh...well I mean if you THOUGHT the 140lb woman was going to beat you to death with her fists, I guess you're off the hook.

Again, you're either fishing or not very bright. either way, I'm done addressing your idiocy.

Dude, if you don't get that the mixing of reality with perception in direction is confusing to jurors, then you're the idiot. Go read some of the interviews of jurors who have had to decide these cases.

Just look at the case in point. Objective facts "rooted in reality" tell us that an unarmed boy 30 feet away poses no threat at all to a grown man armed with a gun. Yet many feel his actions were reasonable, despite objective proof he wasn't in any real danger. Just like your clear-cut example of a 220lb man getting beaten by a 140lb woman.

No matter how "clear" you think the law is, it's actually not. If, as you say, the perception "must be rooted in reality" then this guy fries because nothing rooted in reality says he was in any kind of danger.

How about you try to understand other points of view instead of hurling insults.

 

[Bonzai]

I think it more justified to shoot someone beating me up than someone looking to steal something out of my car in a driveway.

You don't know what he's looking to do. That's the problem. You hear a noise, the dog is barking, you open your door and see a stranger outside in your gated yard at 2 am in the morning. That stranger had to climb your high gate to get into your yard. You point your gun and yell at him to freeze. He appears to reach for something at his waist...Are you telling me that in this scenario, you would not be justified to fire?

Why do you readily accept his story? It is plausible, but it depends on what else the police has. If we accept his story, I would acquit. If there is evidence the kid was fleeing, I would convict him. I accepted Zimmerma's story because Jon backed up critical points if Zimmerman's story. I am not sure here yet.

I don't readily accept his story, but I'm highly sympathetic to it, because if some stranger showed up in MY yard at 2 am, I would be terrified.

So terrified that you'd run outside with a gun to confront the stranger?

I'm not sure that the guy in this incident knew what was going on outside when he left the house. Wasn't he just responding to a noise?

It just seems weird to me that someone would go outside with a gun to inspect a noise without looking out a window first. My guess is that he knew someone was out there.

 

[Zow]

Modern self-defense doctrine only allows potentially deadly force to be used to protect innocent life (as opposed to property), and only when there is no reasonable alternative such as escape, and only to the extent reasonably necessary (e.g. 1 or 2 shots rather than emptying your mag and then re-loading).

While I have a lot fewer complaints about the Castle Doctrine (limited to your dwelling) than I do the Stand Your Ground Doctrine, it still troubles me that both seem to gloss over the need for the threat to be against innocent life, and the use of deadly force only as a last alternative.

This is one of the most interesting aspects of this subject, and I've been thinking about it for the past couple of days. I'm pretty sure I'm opposed to SYG. But as to the Castle doctrine...

I already stated that it is quite reasonable, it seems to me, to be in a state of fear for your family the minute you are aware of an intruder at 2 am in the morning on your property, and that it is also quite reasonable to remain in that state of fear until the threat has been removed. That being the case, it follows that placing the same sort of restrictions on justifiable self-defense that we would in a confrontation elsewhere (as I would in the Zimmerman case, for example) seem burdensome here. Simply put, I don't believe a homeowner, who is in a reasonable state of fear for his family's lives, should have to take the time to be responsible to determine whether the danger is real or not. Not at that time of the night.

If that means that ultimately I am arguing for the right of homeowners to execute trespassers, then so be it.

Modern self defense must show:

1) Capacity to do lethal harm (or the perception of such)

2) Desire to do lethal harm (or the perception of such)

This does not include opening the door to executing people for setting foot on your property.

Anyone can perceive anyone of having the capacity to do harm or the desire to do harm and such perceptions could be reasonable even if they are not in any way rooted in reality. This is where I think the law is flawed.

That is your opinion. thankfully lawmakers don't concur and trust juries/judges to interpret the grey area.

The perceptions MUST be rooted in reality, though. And that's where you're wrong.

• 140lb man faces unarmed but violent 220lb man who is beating him or coming at him threatening to kill him. 140lb man is justified in using lethal force.

• 220lb man has 140lb woman hitting him with both fists and threatening to kill him. 220lb man is not justified in using lethal force.

It's not like the jury goes "Oh...well I mean if you THOUGHT the 140lb woman was going to beat you to death with her fists, I guess you're off the hook.

Again, you're either fishing or not very bright. either way, I'm done addressing your idiocy.

Dude, if you don't get that the mixing of reality with perception in direction is confusing to jurors, then you're the idiot. Go read some of the interviews of jurors who have had to decide these cases.

Just look at the case in point. Objective facts "rooted in reality" tell us that an unarmed boy 30 feet away poses no threat at all to a grown man armed with a gun. Yet many feel his actions were reasonable, despite objective proof he wasn't in any real danger. Just like your clear-cut example of a 220lb man getting beaten by a 140lb woman.

No matter how "clear" you think the law is, it's actually not. If, as you say, the perception "must be rooted in reality" then this guy fries because nothing rooted in reality says he was in any kind of danger.

How about you try to understand other points of view instead of hurling insults.

Yet you're the perfect example of his complaint that people refuse to acknowledge that, if we assume the shooter's story is true, the kid was just standing there posing no threat but actually reached for his waistband.

 

[Doug B]

Is it known if the kid was shot in the back of the head?

I don't think this is known at all. Is that how this is being reported?

 

[jon_mx]

So some of you mouth breathers really still think this guy was shot because of an impending break in attempt?

And you are inside his head and know for sure why? It is very possible he shot the kid for trying to break into his car and made up the gun story. Right now I am 50-50 on it. We don't know if the facts will hold up his story or not.

 

[jon_mx]

Is it known if the kid was shot in the back of the head?

I don't think this is known at all. Is that how this is being reported?

I am not sure, but it is that kind of information that can make a huge difference.

 

[Chaka]

Should I be surprised at the amount of name calling going on in here?

 

[Clifford]

OK, let's try this.

Forget the shooter's mindset.

At the time the trigger was pulled, and it's a given that the kid was 30-feet away and unarmed, was the shooter in actual danger of great personal bodily harm?

 

[jon_mx]

I think it more justified to shoot someone beating me up than someone looking to steal something out of my car in a driveway.

You don't know what he's looking to do. That's the problem. You hear a noise, the dog is barking, you open your door and see a stranger outside in your gated yard at 2 am in the morning. That stranger had to climb your high gate to get into your yard. You point your gun and yell at him to freeze. He appears to reach for something at his waist...Are you telling me that in this scenario, you would not be justified to fire?

Why do you readily accept his story? It is plausible, but it depends on what else the police has. If we accept his story, I would acquit. If there is evidence the kid was fleeing, I would convict him. I accepted Zimmerma's story because Jon backed up critical points if Zimmerman's story. I am not sure here yet.

I don't readily accept his story, but I'm highly sympathetic to it, because if some stranger showed up in MY yard at 2 am, I would be terrified.

So terrified that you'd run outside with a gun to confront the stranger?

I'm not sure that the guy in this incident knew what was going on outside when he left the house. Wasn't he just responding to a noise?

It just seems weird to me that someone would go outside with a gun to inspect a noise without looking out a window first. My guess is that he knew someone was out there.

Of course he looked. And he saw the kid looking in the car. He opened the door and yelled at the kid who probably then started to flee. There might have been some fear involved, but who knows.

 

[Doug B]

OK, let's try this.

Forget the shooter's mindset.

At the time the trigger was pulled, and it's a given that the kid was 30-feet away and unarmed, was the shooter in actual danger of great personal bodily harm?

I know you asked to forget the shooter's perspective ... but Landry had no way of knowing that Coulter was unarmed.

Personal opinion: I also think it's going to come out at trial that Landry and Coulter were a lot closer to each other than 30 feet. Maybe as little as 10-15 feet. Not sure how important the difference between 30 feet and 15 feet would be in court.

 

[Clifford]

No, just based on "objective facts" after the fact, no consideration whatsoever of anything else.

Only threats "rooted in reality" should be considered, and it has to amount to a threat of great bodily harm or death.

 

[Doug B]

Of course he looked. And he saw the kid looking in the car. He opened the door and yelled at the kid who probably then started to flee. There might have been some fear involved, but who knows.

According to Landry's statement to police (FWIW), he walked out of his front door and then around to the side of his home. He wouldn't have eyeballed Coulter until after rounding the corner to get over to the side of the house ... there was no yelling from the doorway. Landry did state that upon getting a visual, he yelled for Coulter to freeze.

It's been posted several times in this thread that Coulter was fleeing, or was likely fleeing. That's not been reported anywhere as of yet. It was not part of Landry's statement, either (again, FWIW). It should be noted that for Coulter to have fled after Landry walked around to the side and spotted him, Coulter would have had to run toward Landry, pass Landry up, and then re-scale the fence leading to the sidewalk & street.

 

[Doug B]

No, just based on "objective facts" after the fact, no consideration whatsoever of anything else.

Only threats "rooted in reality" should be considered, and it has to amount to a threat of great bodily harm or death.

The bolded is merely personal philosophy, though, isn't it? Anyone should feel free to accept or reject your stance on whatever grounds they feel are appropriate to bring forth.

 

[Bonzai]

Of course he looked. And he saw the kid looking in the car. He opened the door and yelled at the kid who probably then started to flee. There might have been some fear involved, but who knows.

According to Landry's statement to police (FWIW), he walked out of his front door and then around to the side of his home. He wouldn't have eyeballed Coulter until after rounding the corner to get over to the side of the house ... there was no yelling from the doorway. Landry did state that upon getting a visual, he yelled for Coulter to freeze.

It's been posted several times in this thread that Coulter was fleeing, or was likely fleeing. That's not been reported anywhere as of yet. It was not part of Landry's statement, either (again, FWIW). It should be noted that for Coulter to have fled after Landry walked around to the side and spotted him, Coulter would have had to run toward Landry, pass Landry up, and then re-scale the fence leading to the sidewalk & street.

...or he could've run through the neighbor's yard.

 

[Zow]

No, just based on "objective facts" after the fact, no consideration whatsoever of anything else.

Only threats "rooted in reality" should be considered, and it has to amount to a threat of great bodily harm or death.

Whether the kid was reaching for his waistband is an objective fact and if in fact was reaching for his waistband the reality of the shooter's predicament was what to do with an intruder on his property at 2 AM who reached for his waistband.

Whether the shooter is being truthful with what he saw is an issue of credibility and any facts suggesting the credibility of the shooter should be considered. It's here where post-event facts can be looked at (i.e. did shooter flee/hide body/not call cops, was kid armed, did he know kid, etc.).

 

[Doug B]

...or he could've run through the neighbor's yard.

Still fenced in, though. Landry and his neighbor shared a fence.

 

[Rayderr]

No, just based on "objective facts" after the fact, no consideration whatsoever of anything else.

Only threats "rooted in reality" should be considered, and it has to amount to a threat of great bodily harm or death.

Whether the kid was reaching for his waistband is an objective fact and if in fact was reaching for his waistband the reality of the shooter's predicament was what to do with an intruder on his property at 2 AM who reached for his waistband.

Whether the shooter is being truthful with what he saw is an issue of credibility and any facts suggesting the credibility of the shooter should be considered. It's here where post-event facts can be looked at (i.e. did shooter flee/hide body/not call cops, was kid armed, did he know kid, etc.).

We don't have time to waste waiting for those answers. We need to make judgements now that Clifford agrees with.

 

[Clifford]

Icon said that self-defense claims must be "rooted in reality" in regards to the potential for harm, and used an example of how a jury would never grant self-defense in the case of a 220lb man getting beaten by a 140lb woman because there was no basis for a reasonable belief for the woman inflicting great bodily harm. The reality of the woman's weight (objective) at 140lbs vs the man's weight (objective) of 220lbs is enough for the jury to conclude that the man's belief that he was in mortal danger is unreasonable.

The case in point is a grown man claiming self-defense against a 14-y-o child, and the man claiming self defense was armed and the child was not, and the victim was not anywhere near arms reach of the shooter at the time the shooter fired.

So the 220lb man's belief that the woman currently beating him could cause great bodily harm or death is unreasonable, and jury would not grant self-defense. This is according to icon. Yet here we have a grown man, armed, not under physical attack, shooting a much smaller individual, at a distance between 15-30 feet, claiming self-defense, and most on here find that reasonable. Tim suggested it was reasonable because it is reasonable to fear the victim.

 

[T Bell]

No, just based on "objective facts" after the fact, no consideration whatsoever of anything else.

Only threats "rooted in reality" should be considered, and it has to amount to a threat of great bodily harm or death.

Of course, how do you establish that "objective reality" after the fact? Well, in large part you do it based upon the testimony of witnesses relying upon their subjective perception.

It's a problem, isn't it?

 

[Clifford]

Assume ballistics confirmed distance of 30 feet, in accordance with shooter's story, and that no weapon was found on or near the victim.

I am not saying the man did not have reason to think he was in danger. He did. I am saying he was not, at the time he fired the shot, under physical attack, and did not, according to him, actually see anything that would give a reasonable person reason to think that he could have been killed had he not fired that shot at the exact instant that he did.

Icon said all self-defense claims must be "rooted in reality" for the jury to rule self-defense. I disagree. I think there is actually very little connection to reality in these cases, and the subjective mindset of the shooter carries far more weight, because of the ways that the laws have been worded, than the actual danger posed to the person.

Any examination of the unloaded gun scenario bears this out. And this case will probably come down to that type of decision, IE was it reasonable to believe that a trespasser reaching for his hip at 2am caused a reasonable belief in the shooter that it was a kill or be killed moment. I say the jury will say yes, that was reasonable, even though the actual danger to his person was not "rooted in reality."

 

[timschochet]

Icon said that self-defense claims must be "rooted in reality" in regards to the potential for harm, and used an example of how a jury would never grant self-defense in the case of a 220lb man getting beaten by a 140lb woman because there was no basis for a reasonable belief for the woman inflicting great bodily harm. The reality of the woman's weight (objective) at 140lbs vs the man's weight (objective) of 220lbs is enough for the jury to conclude that the man's belief that he was in mortal danger is unreasonable.

The case in point is a grown man claiming self-defense against a 14-y-o child, and the man claiming self defense was armed and the child was not, and the victim was not anywhere near arms reach of the shooter at the time the shooter fired.

So the 220lb man's belief that the woman currently beating him could cause great bodily harm or death is unreasonable, and jury would not grant self-defense. This is according to icon. Yet here we have a grown man, armed, not under physical attack, shooting a much smaller individual, at a distance between 15-30 feet, claiming self-defense, and most on here find that reasonable. Tim suggested it was reasonable because it is reasonable to fear the victim.

I did. And I maintain that it is reasonable to fear the victim in such an instance. You point out that he is unarmed. Landry did not know that. You point out that he was 14. Landry did not know that. What Landry did know is that this stranger had climbed over his gate at 2 am.

 

[Clifford]

Right, which is exactly my point. A fear does not have to be rooted in reality in order to be considered reasonable by a jury.

 

[T Bell]

Right, which is exactly my point. A fear does not have to be rooted in reality in order to be considered reasonable by a jury.

So you're saying that if he's saying at trial that he thought he was shooting at a 5'11" black male who was reaching into his waistband, but the victim is a 6-year old blonde girl in a ballerina costume, that a jury is going to let that fly?

 

[Doug B]

So the 220lb man's belief that the woman currently beating him could cause great bodily harm or death is unreasonable, and jury would not grant self-defense. This is according to icon. Yet here we have a grown man, armed, not under physical attack, shooting a much smaller individual, at a distance between 15-30 feet, claiming self-defense, and most on here find that reasonable. Tim suggested it was reasonable because it is reasonable to fear the victim.

Icon's examples involved physical altercations. Not comparable, as the size differences of Landry and Coulter won't come into play at all during trial.

You can't keep leaving out the "Coulter reaching for the waistband" part without being clear that you categorically reject Landry's statements to police. According to Landry, Coulter was not shot for simply standing there.

EDIT: Posted this after reading post #535, but before reading post #537.

 

[Clifford]

Right, which is exactly my point. A fear does not have to be rooted in reality in order to be considered reasonable by a jury.

So you're saying that if he's saying at trial that he thought he was shooting at a 5'11" black male who was reaching into his waistband, but the victim is a 6-year old blonde girl in a ballerina costume, that a jury is going to let that fly?

Wow, it's like you read my mind...

 

[Doug B]

Right, which is exactly my point. A fear does not have to be rooted in reality in order to be considered reasonable by a jury.

Is that a problem? Why should it be otherwise?

 

[T Bell]

Right, which is exactly my point. A fear does not have to be rooted in reality in order to be considered reasonable by a jury.

So you're saying that if he's saying at trial that he thought he was shooting at a 5'11" black male who was reaching into his waistband, but the victim is a 6-year old blonde girl in a ballerina costume, that a jury is going to let that fly?

Wow, it's like you read my mind...

It's quite an accomplishment. You mind if I brag a little about it?

 

[Politician Spock]

Should I be surprised at the amount of name calling going on in here?

It's a thread started by Timschochet. The answer is no.

 

[jon_mx]

Isn't the presumption of guilt with the white guy?

 

[Doug B]

Isn't the presumption of guilt with the white guy?

You can't mean legally? He is presumed innocent as of now.

 

[timschochet]

Should I be surprised at the amount of name calling going on in here?

It's a thread started by Timschochet. The answer is no.

I don't recall calling anyone names in this thread.

 

[Politician Spock]

Should I be surprised at the amount of name calling going on in here?

It's a thread started by Timschochet. The answer is no.

I don't recall calling anyone names in this thread.

The chef doesn't make the bubbles in his boiling pot.

 

[drummer]

Should I be surprised at the amount of name calling going on in here?

It's a thread started by Timschochet.The answer is no.

I don't recall calling anyone names in this thread.

You should test the STG law by yourself. That way it would really be about you.

 

[Rayderr]

Right, which is exactly my point. A fear does not have to be rooted in reality in order to be considered reasonable by a jury.

You're point is wrong. The fear is rooted in the reality that someone climbed his fence, entered his yard and was apparently attempting to enter the house, and when confronted, made a motion as if he was drawing a weapon.