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

[Politician Spock]

So just to get this straight: if a kid jumps into your gated yard in the middle of the night, you have the right to shoot him? That seems to be the gist of the arguments being made here on behalf of the shooter.

Another strawman argument by Tim.... Shocking.

 

[[icon]]

So just to get this straight: if a kid jumps into your gated yard in the middle of the night, you have the right to shoot him? That seems to be the gist of the arguments being made here on behalf of the shooter.

If a grown individual jumps into your yard and when you confront them they make a gesture that looks like they are reaching for a weapon, yes you are justified in shooting them.

Your use of "Kid" and ignoring the "reaching for a weapon" part shows an willful ignorance of the actual scenario.

 

[[icon]]

So just to get this straight: if a kid jumps into your gated yard in the middle of the night, you have the right to shoot him? That seems to be the gist of the arguments being made here on behalf of the shooter.

I'm not sure you oversimplified this enough.

If a person looks at you on your street you can shoot them right?

 

[Annyong]

i threw a rock at a squirrel today

 

[IC FBGCav]

A 14 year-old who has been in trouble should not be out at 2am. It all starts here. I blame the parents.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I'm glad Tim found a suitable gun shooting case to troll now that he's self banned himself from the Trayvon Martin thread for the 8th time.

 

[Henry Ford]

So just to get this straight: if a kid jumps into your gated yard in the middle of the night, you have the right to shoot him? That seems to be the gist of the arguments being made here on behalf of the shooter.

If a human being jumps my fence and is a few feet from my back door - between me and the door - at 2 am with my wife and child asleep inside and he doesn't hold still enough that a family of pigeons could build a nest on him when I confront him, I'm going to put at least one bullet in him. And I don't expect to be convicted of a crime.

 

[rascal]

So the kid jumped the owner's fence, went to the backyard, was confronted by the home owner and shot...is that the story?

 

[Henry Ford]

So the kid jumped the owner's fence, went to the backyard, was confronted by the home owner and shot...is that the story?

Yes. And the shooter was charged with second degree murder.

 

[[icon]]

So just to get this straight: if a kid jumps into your gated yard in the middle of the night, you have the right to shoot him? That seems to be the gist of the arguments being made here on behalf of the shooter.

If a human being jumps my fence and is a few feet from my back door - between me and the door - at 2 am with my wife and child asleep inside and he doesn't hold still enough that a family of pigeons could build a nest on him when I confront him, I'm going to put at least one bullet in him. And I don't expect to be convicted of a crime.

 

[Henry Ford]

Although, to be fair, this is one of the many houses in New Orleans where the "back door" faces forward - the house is in an L shape. There's only one yard - and the house forms a little courtyard with the open end facing the street/fence.

 

[Witz]

Second verse same as the first.

 

[SofaKings]

I'm glad Tim found a suitable gun shooting case to troll now that he's self banned himself from the Trayvon Martin thread for the 8th time.

 

[Zow]

Details seem a little too sketchy for a definitive conclusion here.

Much like the Martin case though, the initial reports certainly favor a manslaughter case. Of course, we all know how unbiased the media reports this kind of thing.

I don't think you get a jury to convict him, though, not at 2 a.m. in Louisiana, inside the guy's fence and next to his back door.

The key is if he imposed an immediate threat. I don't think he did. From what I gather:

- Kid was standing next to shooters car in his gate driveway after he hopped the fense.

- Kid has history of burglaries and his brother even calls him a professional theif

- Kid did not have a gun

I don't think he had legal justification to shoot the kid, but getting a jury of 12 people to all believe that is a challenge. You break in to people's property and steal stuff, you put yourself at risk. Zimmerman was a slam dunk acquital. This one will be close.

ETA: Seems there is an unidentified witness whose story conflicts with the shooter. Depending on what the witness saw, it may be enough to convict, even deep in the south.

While I do actually applaud your effort, of the three facts you've cited only the first one has some mild relevance to a self-defense claim. The issue, as Ramsay stated earlier, is whether the shooter's action in shooting the kid was reasonable based on the facts known to the shooter at the time of the shoot. Time of day, location of the kid, movement of the kid, distance of the shoot, and the shooter's credibility are pretty much all that's going to come into play. Given that the shooter didn't know the kid had priors and whether the kid actually had a gun should be legally irrelevant.

 

[rascal]

So the kid jumped the owner's fence, went to the backyard, was confronted by the home owner and shot...is that the story?

Yes. And the shooter was charged with second degree murder.

Defense attorney's wet dream.

 

[StrikeS2k]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

 

[Henry Ford]

I should also point out that the "30 feet away" number is based on the police finding the shell casing 30 feet from the body.

Ejected shell casings don't tend to fall down exactly where the gun is fired.

 

[Bonzai]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that's why I'd have stayed inside and called the police. Not sure what's to be gained by going outside and confronting someone.

 

[[icon]]

I should also point out that the "30 feet away" number is based on the police finding the shell casing 30 feet from the body.

Ejected shell casings don't tend to fall down exactly where the gun is fired.

It's NOTHING for a shell casing to eject 10'.

 

[IC FBGCav]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that's why I'd have stayed inside and called the police. Not sure what's to be gained by going outside and confronting someone.

I think this is probably the safest way to handle things for your family.

 

[StrikeS2k]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that's why I'd have stayed inside and called the police. Not sure what's to be gained by going outside and confronting someone.

Protecting your family. Nullifying a threat. I believe that's something a person should be able to do. A person doesn't know how long it will take for the police to get there, and shouldn't have to rely on third parties to protect their property/family.

 

[Henry Ford]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that's why I'd have stayed inside and called the police. Not sure what's to be gained by going outside and confronting someone.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/fed-up_residents_are_challengi.html

The woman beaten earlier this month near the ferry waited roughly 80 minutes for police to arrive

http://www.thinkstream.com/wordpress/electronic-justice/new-orleans-police-department-struggles-with-response-times/

The average response time has reportedly now reached more than 14 minutes.

 

[Clifford]

I am not sure what this has to do with stand your ground if the guy was at home. Are you desperately looking for a better case?

He's claiming SYG- (or the "Castle" law, which is the Louisiana version- you have a right to defend yourself in your castle.) The story made the New York Daily News:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/teen-shot-head-man-thought-burglar-police-article-1.1410613

According to that story, the kid, who was black (the shooter was white) had been charged previously with two robberies (both unarmed.) He wandered onto the dude's property, dude yells at him to "freeze!", the kid appears to reach for something, the shooter shoots him in the head with one bullet.

That's all according to the shooter; there are no witnesses, apparently.

Well, when a cop does this they get off scott free. So probably this guy will to, because it seems that the shooter's mentality matters more than reality (IE the fact that the shooter thought the kid was reaching for a gun matters more than the fact that the kid did not, in fact, have a gun).

If paranoia = self defense then this guy walks. And I think it does in America.

 

[timschochet]

I think you guys misunderstood me. First off, I was not making a straw argument, or ANY kind of argument. Second, I was not oversimplifying- I was simply pointing out that the common thread running through all of the arguments in favor of the shooter was that this is the risk a robber takes if he jumps into someone's gated yard in the middle of the night. Though I'm not completely sure I buy into that, it's not an unreasonable position by any means.

As I wrote earlier, assuming that the shooter is telling the truth, this story raises some interesting questions for me. One of them is exactly how much responsibility does a homeowner have in deciding whether or not it is proper to fire his gun? If he sees a shadow in the middle of the night, his heart is beating fast, the shadow MIGHT be armed, the shadow MIGHT be approaching his back door, is it reasonable for him to fire? And if it is unreasonable for him to fire, then where do we draw the line? I honestly don't know.

 

[IC FBGCav]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that's why I'd have stayed inside and called the police. Not sure what's to be gained by going outside and confronting someone.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/fed-up_residents_are_challengi.html

The woman beaten earlier this month near the ferry waited roughly 80 minutes for police to arrive

http://www.thinkstream.com/wordpress/electronic-justice/new-orleans-police-department-struggles-with-response-times/

The average response time has reportedly now reached more than 14 minutes.

Given all that, if you think you are in grave danger that first thing to do is still call 911 and let people know that you are in danger in case you are the one that gets shot and killed. Your family still has hope.

 

[Henry Ford]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that's why I'd have stayed inside and called the police. Not sure what's to be gained by going outside and confronting someone.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/fed-up_residents_are_challengi.html

The woman beaten earlier this month near the ferry waited roughly 80 minutes for police to arrive

http://www.thinkstream.com/wordpress/electronic-justice/new-orleans-police-department-struggles-with-response-times/

The average response time has reportedly now reached more than 14 minutes.

Given all that, if you think you are in grave danger that first thing to do is still call 911 and let people know that you are in danger in case you are the one that gets shot and killed. Your family still has hope.

Given all that, if you think someone's in your yard but you aren't sure, it's perfectly reasonable to check before you call 911 because you're pulling resources from responding to other 911 calls, which are already slow in response. If you then see someone, it's reasonable to tell them to stay still while you call the police.

Seriously, if you think you hear a noise in your yard, do you check first, or just call 911 immediately?

 

[StrikeS2k]

I think you guys misunderstood me. First off, I was not making a straw argument, or ANY kind of argument. Second, I was not oversimplifying- I was simply pointing out that the common thread running through all of the arguments in favor of the shooter was that this is the risk a robber takes if he jumps into someone's gated yard in the middle of the night. Though I'm not completely sure I buy into that, it's not an unreasonable position by any means.

As I wrote earlier, assuming that the shooter is telling the truth, this story raises some interesting questions for me. One of them is exactly how much responsibility does a homeowner have in deciding whether or not it is proper to fire his gun? If he sees a shadow in the middle of the night, his heart is beating fast, the shadow MIGHT be armed, the shadow MIGHT be approaching his back door, is it reasonable for him to fire? And if it is unreasonable for him to fire, then where do we draw the line? I honestly don't know.

This wasn't a shadow. And, if it was, it wouldn't have hit a person. The last time I checked shadows don't bleed or die.

It's pretty simple really. Take each case on it's own merits. That's why our laws aren't that specific and use words like "reasonable" when describing the circumstances that allow for a self defense claim.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think you guys misunderstood me. First off, I was not making a straw argument, or ANY kind of argument. Second, I was not oversimplifying- I was simply pointing out that the common thread running through all of the arguments in favor of the shooter was that this is the risk a robber takes if he jumps into someone's gated yard in the middle of the night. Though I'm not completely sure I buy into that, it's not an unreasonable position by any means.

As I wrote earlier, assuming that the shooter is telling the truth, this story raises some interesting questions for me. One of them is exactly how much responsibility does a homeowner have in deciding whether or not it is proper to fire his gun? If he sees a shadow in the middle of the night, his heart is beating fast, the shadow MIGHT be armed, the shadow MIGHT be approaching his back door, is it reasonable for him to fire? And if it is unreasonable for him to fire, then where do we draw the line? I honestly don't know.

I'm going to go with "human being intentionally committing a crime on my property at 2 a.m. who won't stay completely still while I compose myself and call the police gets shot." I'll try to get more detailed than that when it happens to me, but that's my starting point.

 

[Politician Spock]

So just to get this straight: if a kid jumps into your gated yard in the middle of the night, you have the right to shoot him? That seems to be the gist of the arguments being made here on behalf of the shooter.

I failed to see the shooting at shadows aspect of this post. Completely missed it. I'm half inclined to hire a timschochet interpreter. What's the going rate for them these days?

 

[otello]

I think you guys misunderstood me. First off, I was not making a straw argument, or ANY kind of argument. Second, I was not oversimplifying- I was simply pointing out that the common thread running through all of the arguments in favor of the shooter was that this is the risk a robber takes if he jumps into someone's gated yard in the middle of the night. Though I'm not completely sure I buy into that, it's not an unreasonable position by any means.

As I wrote earlier, assuming that the shooter is telling the truth, this story raises some interesting questions for me. One of them is exactly how much responsibility does a homeowner have in deciding whether or not it is proper to fire his gun? If he sees a shadow in the middle of the night, his heart is beating fast, the shadow MIGHT be armed, the shadow MIGHT be approaching his back door, is it reasonable for him to fire? And if it is unreasonable for him to fire, then where do we draw the line? I honestly don't know.

This is why we have juries, thankfully.

 

[Da Guru]

30 feet is only 10 yards..a first down. That is pretty close range at 2am. Close enough for the perp to take down the homeowner with ease.

I missed the part as to why the kid was snooping around the house at 2am?

 

[Bonzai]

I dunno, if I see someone outside messing with my car, about the last thing on my mind is running outside with a gun yelling "FREEZE!!". It's crazy to me that people think this way.

 

[timschochet]

I think you guys misunderstood me. First off, I was not making a straw argument, or ANY kind of argument. Second, I was not oversimplifying- I was simply pointing out that the common thread running through all of the arguments in favor of the shooter was that this is the risk a robber takes if he jumps into someone's gated yard in the middle of the night. Though I'm not completely sure I buy into that, it's not an unreasonable position by any means.

As I wrote earlier, assuming that the shooter is telling the truth, this story raises some interesting questions for me. One of them is exactly how much responsibility does a homeowner have in deciding whether or not it is proper to fire his gun? If he sees a shadow in the middle of the night, his heart is beating fast, the shadow MIGHT be armed, the shadow MIGHT be approaching his back door, is it reasonable for him to fire? And if it is unreasonable for him to fire, then where do we draw the line? I honestly don't know.

This wasn't a shadow. And, if it was, it wouldn't have hit a person. The last time I checked shadows don't bleed or die.

It's pretty simple really. Take each case on it's own merits. That's why our laws aren't that specific and use words like "reasonable" when describing the circumstances that allow for a self defense claim.

Given the fact that mistakes in these situations can lead to deaths, would it be proper for us as a society to force gun owners to go through some sort of mandatory training that would instruct when it was reasonable to fire one's weapon, and when it is not?

 

[Henry Ford]

Oh, and the older brother's facebook page is pretty sweet. Great video of him repeatedly firing a gun on New Year's Eve.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think you guys misunderstood me. First off, I was not making a straw argument, or ANY kind of argument. Second, I was not oversimplifying- I was simply pointing out that the common thread running through all of the arguments in favor of the shooter was that this is the risk a robber takes if he jumps into someone's gated yard in the middle of the night. Though I'm not completely sure I buy into that, it's not an unreasonable position by any means.

As I wrote earlier, assuming that the shooter is telling the truth, this story raises some interesting questions for me. One of them is exactly how much responsibility does a homeowner have in deciding whether or not it is proper to fire his gun? If he sees a shadow in the middle of the night, his heart is beating fast, the shadow MIGHT be armed, the shadow MIGHT be approaching his back door, is it reasonable for him to fire? And if it is unreasonable for him to fire, then where do we draw the line? I honestly don't know.

This wasn't a shadow. And, if it was, it wouldn't have hit a person. The last time I checked shadows don't bleed or die.

It's pretty simple really. Take each case on it's own merits. That's why our laws aren't that specific and use words like "reasonable" when describing the circumstances that allow for a self defense claim.

Given the fact that mistakes in these situations can lead to deaths, would it be proper for us as a society to force gun owners to go through some sort of mandatory training that would instruct when it was reasonable to fire one's weapon, and when it is not?

This guy's a concealed carry permit holder. He's been through training.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I think you guys misunderstood me. First off, I was not making a straw argument, or ANY kind of argument. Second, I was not oversimplifying- I was simply pointing out that the common thread running through all of the arguments in favor of the shooter was that this is the risk a robber takes if he jumps into someone's gated yard in the middle of the night. Though I'm not completely sure I buy into that, it's not an unreasonable position by any means.

As I wrote earlier, assuming that the shooter is telling the truth, this story raises some interesting questions for me. One of them is exactly how much responsibility does a homeowner have in deciding whether or not it is proper to fire his gun? If he sees a shadow in the middle of the night, his heart is beating fast, the shadow MIGHT be armed, the shadow MIGHT be approaching his back door, is it reasonable for him to fire? And if it is unreasonable for him to fire, then where do we draw the line? I honestly don't know.

This wasn't a shadow. And, if it was, it wouldn't have hit a person. The last time I checked shadows don't bleed or die.

It's pretty simple really. Take each case on it's own merits. That's why our laws aren't that specific and use words like "reasonable" when describing the circumstances that allow for a self defense claim.

Given the fact that mistakes in these situations can lead to deaths, would it be proper for us as a society to force gun owners to go through some sort of mandatory training that would instruct when it was reasonable to fire one's weapon, and when it is not?

Where was the mistake in this case?

 

[IC FBGCav]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that's why I'd have stayed inside and called the police. Not sure what's to be gained by going outside and confronting someone.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/fed-up_residents_are_challengi.html

The woman beaten earlier this month near the ferry waited roughly 80 minutes for police to arrive

http://www.thinkstream.com/wordpress/electronic-justice/new-orleans-police-department-struggles-with-response-times/

The average response time has reportedly now reached more than 14 minutes.

Given all that, if you think you are in grave danger that first thing to do is still call 911 and let people know that you are in danger in case you are the one that gets shot and killed. Your family still has hope.

Given all that, if you think someone's in your yard but you aren't sure, it's perfectly reasonable to check before you call 911 because you're pulling resources from responding to other 911 calls, which are already slow in response. If you then see someone, it's reasonable to tell them to stay still while you call the police.

Seriously, if you think you hear a noise in your yard, do you check first, or just call 911 immediately?

The first thing I do is look from inside, to see if I see anything. If I see someone breaking in my car I call 911. If I see someone trying to break in the house, I am calling 911 while I am going to get my gun and wake up my wife. I am not strapped at 2am.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I think you guys misunderstood me. First off, I was not making a straw argument, or ANY kind of argument. Second, I was not oversimplifying- I was simply pointing out that the common thread running through all of the arguments in favor of the shooter was that this is the risk a robber takes if he jumps into someone's gated yard in the middle of the night. Though I'm not completely sure I buy into that, it's not an unreasonable position by any means.

As I wrote earlier, assuming that the shooter is telling the truth, this story raises some interesting questions for me. One of them is exactly how much responsibility does a homeowner have in deciding whether or not it is proper to fire his gun? If he sees a shadow in the middle of the night, his heart is beating fast, the shadow MIGHT be armed, the shadow MIGHT be approaching his back door, is it reasonable for him to fire? And if it is unreasonable for him to fire, then where do we draw the line? I honestly don't know.

This wasn't a shadow. And, if it was, it wouldn't have hit a person. The last time I checked shadows don't bleed or die.

It's pretty simple really. Take each case on it's own merits. That's why our laws aren't that specific and use words like "reasonable" when describing the circumstances that allow for a self defense claim.

Given the fact that mistakes in these situations can lead to deaths, would it be proper for us as a society to force gun owners to go through some sort of mandatory training that would instruct when it was reasonable to fire one's weapon, and when it is not?

No. Recommended? sure. Mandatory? no. The shooter takes that responsibility on themselves when they choose to shoot. They'll be held accountable if they judge poorly. Unlike cops like those who killed Doug Zerby.

 

[Henry Ford]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that's why I'd have stayed inside and called the police. Not sure what's to be gained by going outside and confronting someone.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/fed-up_residents_are_challengi.html

The woman beaten earlier this month near the ferry waited roughly 80 minutes for police to arrive

http://www.thinkstream.com/wordpress/electronic-justice/new-orleans-police-department-struggles-with-response-times/

The average response time has reportedly now reached more than 14 minutes.

Given all that, if you think you are in grave danger that first thing to do is still call 911 and let people know that you are in danger in case you are the one that gets shot and killed. Your family still has hope.

Given all that, if you think someone's in your yard but you aren't sure, it's perfectly reasonable to check before you call 911 because you're pulling resources from responding to other 911 calls, which are already slow in response. If you then see someone, it's reasonable to tell them to stay still while you call the police.

Seriously, if you think you hear a noise in your yard, do you check first, or just call 911 immediately?

The first thing I do is look from inside, to see if I see anything. If I see someone breaking in my car I call 9/11. If I see someone trying to break in the house, I am calling 911 while I am going to get my gun and wake up my wife. I am not strapped at 2am.

And if what you see is something moving in the dark, do you check to see whether it's a cat or a person, or just call 911?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that's why I'd have stayed inside and called the police. Not sure what's to be gained by going outside and confronting someone.

I think this is probably the safest way to handle things for your family.

But then you don't get to get off by killing a burglar.

 

[Clifford]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

 

[Clifford]

Oh, and the older brother's facebook page is pretty sweet. Great video of him repeatedly firing a gun on New Year's Eve.

Why did you post this?

 

[Rayderr]

I think you guys misunderstood me. First off, I was not making a straw argument, or ANY kind of argument. Second, I was not oversimplifying- I was simply pointing out that the common thread running through all of the arguments in favor of the shooter was that this is the risk a robber takes if he jumps into someone's gated yard in the middle of the night. Though I'm not completely sure I buy into that, it's not an unreasonable position by any means.

As I wrote earlier, assuming that the shooter is telling the truth, this story raises some interesting questions for me. One of them is exactly how much responsibility does a homeowner have in deciding whether or not it is proper to fire his gun? If he sees a shadow in the middle of the night, his heart is beating fast, the shadow MIGHT be armed, the shadow MIGHT be approaching his back door, is it reasonable for him to fire? And if it is unreasonable for him to fire, then where do we draw the line? I honestly don't know.

This wasn't a shadow. And, if it was, it wouldn't have hit a person. The last time I checked shadows don't bleed or die.

It's pretty simple really. Take each case on it's own merits. That's why our laws aren't that specific and use words like "reasonable" when describing the circumstances that allow for a self defense claim.

Given the fact that mistakes in these situations can lead to deaths, would it be proper for us as a society to force gun owners to go through some sort of mandatory training that would instruct when it was reasonable to fire one's weapon, and when it is not?

I say mandatory training for criminals would be more appropriate. "Lesson 1: If you're going to break in to people's houses, assault, them, trespass on their fenced in property etc, you're probably going to get shot."

 

[Zow]

I should also point out that the "30 feet away" number is based on the police finding the shell casing 30 feet from the body.

Ejected shell casings don't tend to fall down exactly where the gun is fired.

Eh, I don't think the distance issue really hurts the defendant here either way.* If he was relatively far away, then its reasonable his perception of the kid's movement towards his hip may not be perfect so a mistake would be understandable.** If he was close, he testify with good certainty he saw the kid move towards his hip.

*Assuming the guy's pretty credible and can't be impeached with any prior. If that's the case, there's a serious threat a jury may not even buy that the kid made a movement and the defendant's case gets weaker. I think if the defendant is credible though, a jury gives him the benefit of the doubt that the kid at least did something.

**That far away, at not, at your home with your family inside... I think a jury would be pretty lenient on whether the perceived threat and deadly force use was reasonable.

 

[Henry Ford]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

It can if the person shot is in the middle of the commission of a crime. "Well, your honor, sure the guy was robbing a bank, but the gun wasn't loaded! The defendant had no right to shoot him, he was in no danger at all!"

 

[Henry Ford]

Oh, and the older brother's facebook page is pretty sweet. Great video of him repeatedly firing a gun on New Year's Eve.

Why did you post this?

Because I looked at the older brother's facebook page, the brother who's repeatedly quoted in the articles talking about what a sweetheart his brother who was shot is, and it's a pretty sweet page.

 

[Zow]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

 

[Charlie Steiner]

I should also point out that the "30 feet away" number is based on the police finding the shell casing 30 feet from the body.

Ejected shell casings don't tend to fall down exactly where the gun is fired.

It's NOTHING for a shell casing to eject 10'.

So he was more like 40' away?

 

[Chaka]

I should also point out that the "30 feet away" number is based on the police finding the shell casing 30 feet from the body.

Ejected shell casings don't tend to fall down exactly where the gun is fired.

And the "he made a threatening gesture" defense is based solely on the guy who pulled the trigger.

 

[Doug B]

Given the fact that mistakes in these situations can lead to deaths, would it be proper for us as a society to force gun owners to go through some sort of mandatory training that would instruct when it was reasonable to fire one's weapon, and when it is not?

No way to really train for that kind of fight-or-flight situation. Not in a way that would really matter in a situation like this one.