14 yr old shot from 30 ft away;shooter claims Stand Your Ground (2 Viewers)

[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.

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

Of course. Which is why the shooter's credibility will be a hotly contested issue.

 

[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.

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!"

Why change it to a gun being loaded? I said make sure someone has a gun. Having a gun, loaded or not, and reaching for it and then raising it is obviously grounds for using self-defense.

 

[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?

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.

No what point are you trying to make? Thought that was obvious...

 

[cstu]

Oh, and obviously I won't post the guy's address here, but I found it and google street-viewed the house. It's got about a 5-5.5' wrought iron fence around it.

So, based on this and your previous comment, you are stating that the shooter was justified in shooting this kid in the head?

I am stating that he was justified in shooting him. I have a hard time believing that he's a good enough shot to have intentionally shot the kid in the head from 30 feet with a handgun. More likely he was aiming center mass - which is why that's where you aim, because if you miss you still hit something important.

The way he was positioned based on the warrant, the layout of the house and yard, and his description, he was between the kid and the fence. There's no wiggle room to "let the guy run away." Either he's willing to freeze in place and give up, or Landry has to be prepared to shoot.

Are you kidding me? Even police aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people when they run away.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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!"

Why change it to a gun being loaded? I said make sure someone has a gun. Having a gun, loaded or not, and reaching for it and then raising it is obviously grounds for using self-defense.

So wait until there is a gun pointed at you? Seems like a solid plan.

 

[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.

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

So he was more like 40' away?

Where did you find a gun that ejects casings forward?

 

[Doug B]

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger.

Only clear after the fact, though.

 

[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.

No what point are you trying to make? Thought that was obvious...

That his facebook page is a train wreck and if anyone's interested in seeing a train wreck facebook page, it should be checked out. That happens all the time in this forum. "Hey, look at this ######'s facebook page."

 

[cstu]

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.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

 

[Henry Ford]

Oh, and obviously I won't post the guy's address here, but I found it and google street-viewed the house. It's got about a 5-5.5' wrought iron fence around it.

So, based on this and your previous comment, you are stating that the shooter was justified in shooting this kid in the head?

I am stating that he was justified in shooting him. I have a hard time believing that he's a good enough shot to have intentionally shot the kid in the head from 30 feet with a handgun. More likely he was aiming center mass - which is why that's where you aim, because if you miss you still hit something important.

The way he was positioned based on the warrant, the layout of the house and yard, and his description, he was between the kid and the fence. There's no wiggle room to "let the guy run away." Either he's willing to freeze in place and give up, or Landry has to be prepared to shoot.

Are you kidding me? Even police aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people when they run away.

Re-read. Run away where? House blocks the left and rear exits, next door house blocks the right, and he's standing between the guy and the fence. There's nowhere to run away to. That's my point.

 

[Witz]

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!"

Why change it to a gun being loaded? I said make sure someone has a gun. Having a gun, loaded or not, and reaching for it and then raising it is obviously grounds for using self-defense.

Because guns are the only weapons out there. Clearly.

 

[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.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

Well, sorry, honey, that guy and his buddies who are assaulting you don't have guns. I'll just let them do what they want with us.

 

[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.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

 

[cstu]

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.

It's apparently a big rush to kill someone.

 

[humpback]

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

So if they are trying to kill you via other means, you can't use a gun?

 

[Clifford]

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger.

Only clear after the fact, though.

Which is why it should be an objective standard. Having a momentary lapse of reason where you believe your life is in danger when it actually isn't should not give you license to shoot people and successfully claim self-defense in a court of law.

 

[cstu]

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.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

Well, sorry, honey, that guy and his buddies who are assaulting you don't have guns. I'll just let them do what they want with us.

You know I'm talking about this specific case where no one is being attacked.

 

[Henry Ford]

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

So if they are trying to kill you via other means, you can't use a gun?

Nope. Guy breaks into your house with a crowbar and starts beating your kid with it, you'd better be a better crowbar-fighter. Or have ninja stars in the house.

 

[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.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

Well, sorry, honey, that guy and his buddies who are assaulting you don't have guns. I'll just let them do what they want with us.

You know I'm talking about this specific case where no one is being attacked.

Then try using words like "Landry shouldn't have been allowed to shoot Coulter unless he was 100% certain he had a gun" instead of idiotic generalizations.

 

[Witz]

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.

It's apparently a big rush to kill someone.

Are folks really arguing the point that he went outside, in his own yard, because he heard a noise as opposed to just calling the police right away?

 

[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.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

I'm in the camp that thinks that guns are incredibly stupid and useless and cause more problems than they solve. I also despise seeing someone innocently harmed over a mistake (which is why I work defense and not prosecution) and the thought of someone being shot for simply being in the wrong place and their actions being misunderstood sickens me.

But 100 percent certainty? In the heat of the moment where you're standing on your own property in the middle of the night with your family inside and a stranger is making a move toward his hip? You're not going to know with 100 percent certainty until the intruder has already shot at you. I think a "reasonableness" standard is plenty here.

 

[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.

It's apparently a big rush to kill someone.

Are folks really arguing the point that he went outside, in his own yard, because he heard a noise as opposed to just calling the police right away?

After dark, you should only be allowed out of your own home with a police escort. That way, no innocent teenagers get hurt.

 

[cstu]

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

So if they are trying to kill you via other means, you can't use a gun?

Way to miss the point guys. Obviously if someone is being attacked it's a different story. Remember, I sided with Zimmerman so I completely support self defense but this wasn't.

 

[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.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

Well, sorry, honey, that guy and his buddies who are assaulting you don't have guns. I'll just let them do what they want with us.

Before we go full bore stupid on this, can you just be reasonable and realize I was talking about the specifics of this case, which are:

no physical confrontation

no movement made to run towards the shooter

no projectile weapons on the victim than could have harmed the shooter from a distance

so my statement concerned those conditions. not if your girlfriend is getting gangraped or someone is stabbing you or shooting you with a bow and arrow or throwing chinese shuriken or throwing knives or firing crossbows or any other stupid crap we can dream up.

Show some sort of comprehension and reason.

 

[Rayderr]

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.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

determining if a person poses a threat after the fact <> determining if a person poses a threat at the time of the incident.

 

[humpback]

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

So if they are trying to kill you via other means, you can't use a gun?

Way to miss the point guys. Obviously if someone is being attacked it's a different story. Remember, I sided with Zimmerman so I completely support self defense but this wasn't.

Just reading what you wrote. You weren't referencing this case specifically, you said "people" and "they".

 

[cstu]

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.

It's apparently a big rush to kill someone.

Are folks really arguing the point that he went outside, in his own yard, because he heard a noise as opposed to just calling the police right away?

You have a right to defend your home but this kid was trying to run away. If a cop isn't allowed to shoot someone in this circumstance why should regular people be allowed to?

 

[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.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

:facepalm:

No, it will not be decided on one specific and semi-irrelevant factual issue.

What will happen though is that there will be a burden put on the defense to show that the shooter's actions were justified. That likely includes testimony from the defendant, where his credibility will be attacked and a jury will need to determine whether they believe him and whether he acted reasonably. It'll be up the to jury to determine if they believe his account of what happened and, if they do, to determine if they were in the shooter's shoes that they would have acted the same because that action was reasonable.

The defense will have to meet a burden and the jury will objectively analyze whether they met that burden. Just because you think it's only reasonable to shoot when you know for 100% certainty doesn't mean that the legal standards you're demanding cannot be met with a factual account less than what you myopically demand.

 

[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.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

Well, sorry, honey, that guy and his buddies who are assaulting you don't have guns. I'll just let them do what they want with us.

Before we go full bore stupid on this, can you just be reasonable and realize I was talking about the specifics of this case, which are:

no physical confrontation

no movement made to run towards the shooter

no projectile weapons on the victim than could have harmed the shooter from a distance

so my statement concerned those conditions. not if your girlfriend is getting gangraped or someone is stabbing you or shooting you with a bow and arrow or throwing chinese shuriken or throwing knives or firing crossbows or any other stupid crap we can dream up.

Show some sort of comprehension and reason.

Speaking of comprehension, maybe you should look and see who I'm replying to before you try to turn this into a conversation between the two of us.

 

[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.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

Well, sorry, honey, that guy and his buddies who are assaulting you don't have guns. I'll just let them do what they want with us.

Before we go full bore stupid on this, can you just be reasonable and realize I was talking about the specifics of this case, which are:

no physical confrontation

no movement made to run towards the shooter

no projectile weapons on the victim than could have harmed the shooter from a distance

so my statement concerned those conditions. not if your girlfriend is getting gangraped or someone is stabbing you or shooting you with a bow and arrow or throwing chinese shuriken or throwing knives or firing crossbows or any other stupid crap we can dream up.

Show some sort of comprehension and reason.

Dude you're the one way off-base here.

 

[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.

It's apparently a big rush to kill someone.

Are folks really arguing the point that he went outside, in his own yard, because he heard a noise as opposed to just calling the police right away?

You have a right to defend your home but this kid was trying to run away. If a cop isn't allowed to shoot someone in this circumstance why should regular people be allowed to?

Run away where? There's nowhere this kid could have run except right through the homeowner or through the back door. If he was running away, then Landry absolutely had the right to shoot, because it would have had to be directly at Landry.

 

[Witz]

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.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

Well, sorry, honey, that guy and his buddies who are assaulting you don't have guns. I'll just let them do what they want with us.

Before we go full bore stupid on this, can you just be reasonable and realize I was talking about the specifics of this case, which are:

no physical confrontation

no movement made to run towards the shooter

no projectile weapons on the victim than could have harmed the shooter from a distance

so my statement concerned those conditions. not if your girlfriend is getting gangraped or someone is stabbing you or shooting you with a bow and arrow or throwing chinese shuriken or throwing knives or firing crossbows or any other stupid crap we can dream up.

Show some sort of comprehension and reason.

It goes both ways though, doesn't it? You can't make this statement : Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger.

You, me and everyone else on the planet aside from the two individuals involved with this know the answer to that. You could qualify your statement but to make a definitive statement such as that is just as bad from a discussion standpoint.

 

[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.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

determining if a person poses a threat after the fact <> determining if a person poses a threat at the time of the incident.

So you disagree with Zow, that self-defense in LA is determined by the shooter's subjective mindset and not by objective evidence of the reality of the event?

 

[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.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

determining if a person poses a threat after the fact <> determining if a person poses a threat at the time of the incident.

So you disagree with Zow, that self-defense in LA is determined by the shooter's subjective mindset and not by objective evidence of the reality of the event?

I never said that. You just didn't comprehend what I said.

 

[Rayderr]

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.

It's apparently a big rush to kill someone.

Are folks really arguing the point that he went outside, in his own yard, because he heard a noise as opposed to just calling the police right away?

You have a right to defend your home but this kid was trying to run away. If a cop isn't allowed to shoot someone in this circumstance why should regular people be allowed to?

He was shot in the back of the head?

 

[Witz]

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.

It's apparently a big rush to kill someone.

Are folks really arguing the point that he went outside, in his own yard, because he heard a noise as opposed to just calling the police right away?

You have a right to defend your home but this kid was trying to run away. If a cop isn't allowed to shoot someone in this circumstance why should regular people be allowed to?

Let's not talk about two different things here - my comment was based on earlier comments in this thread (even in this nest) about the individual going outside his own home as opposed to just calling the police.

As for your statement that the individual killed was running away - is that correct? I re-read the OP and it seemed like he was fleeing but turned around to face the shooter and that's when he was shot. Is there any other updated information on this?

 

[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.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

:facepalm:

No, it will not be decided on one specific and semi-irrelevant factual issue.

What will happen though is that there will be a burden put on the defense to show that the shooter's actions were justified. That likely includes testimony from the defendant, where his credibility will be attacked and a jury will need to determine whether they believe him and whether he acted reasonably. It'll be up the to jury to determine if they believe his account of what happened and, if they do, to determine if they were in the shooter's shoes that they would have acted the same because that action was reasonable.

The defense will have to meet a burden and the jury will objectively analyze whether they met that burden. Just because you think it's only reasonable to shoot when you know for 100% certainty doesn't mean that the legal standards you're demanding cannot be met with a factual account less than what you myopically demand.

I think it's reasonable to determine these cases based on facts and not the mindset of the shooter. Sorry you think that is myopic. I am asking what matters. You highlighted a paragraph I wrote expressing an opinion that establishing self-defense (the burden on the defense) should be decided by objective facts not the shooter's mindset. You said that was already the case.

If what you wrote is true the shooter's mindset would not be admissable evidence in determining whether or not it was self-defense, because it would all hinge on the facts that show whether the shooter's life was in actual immediate danger from this individual at the moment the shot was fired.

So which is it?

 

[bigbottom]

If this had happened in Texas, the shooter wouldn't have even been charged.

 

[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.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

determining if a person poses a threat after the fact <> determining if a person poses a threat at the time of the incident.

So you disagree with Zow, that self-defense in LA is determined by the shooter's subjective mindset and not by objective evidence of the reality of the event?

I never said that. You just didn't comprehend what I said.

I said jury's definition of whether his life was in danger, not jury's definition of whether the action was reasonable or whether they would do the same in their shoes. Two different things. The first would rely solely on objective evidence (IE was the victim armed, proximity to shooter at time shot was fired, was there a physical confrontation, was it physically possible for victim to kill shooter from where he was shot, etc), while the second would take into account the shooter's mindset and the jury would decide if they think the shooter actually believed their life to be in danger.

See the difference? Very important one IMO.

 

[Witz]

If Coulter was shot in the back of the head, the shooter has no case imo. If not, that's a different story (as to whether he has a case or not).

 

[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.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

determining if a person poses a threat after the fact <> determining if a person poses a threat at the time of the incident.

So you disagree with Zow, that self-defense in LA is determined by the shooter's subjective mindset and not by objective evidence of the reality of the event?

I never said that. You just didn't comprehend what I said.

I said jury's definition of whether his life was in danger, not jury's definition of whether the action was reasonable or whether they would do the same in their shoes. Two different things. The first would rely solely on objective evidence (IE was the victim armed, proximity to shooter at time shot was fired, was there a physical confrontation, was it physically possible for victim to kill shooter from where he was shot, etc), while the second would take into account the shooter's mindset and the jury would decide if they think the shooter actually believed their life to be in danger.

See the difference? Very important one IMO.

The objective standard here is whether he reasonably believed that there was danger. Reasonably is where the objective standard comes in. Reasonably means that the jury has to believe not only that he believed it, but that a reasonable person would.

 

[bigbottom]

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.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

:facepalm:

No, it will not be decided on one specific and semi-irrelevant factual issue.

What will happen though is that there will be a burden put on the defense to show that the shooter's actions were justified. That likely includes testimony from the defendant, where his credibility will be attacked and a jury will need to determine whether they believe him and whether he acted reasonably. It'll be up the to jury to determine if they believe his account of what happened and, if they do, to determine if they were in the shooter's shoes that they would have acted the same because that action was reasonable.

The defense will have to meet a burden and the jury will objectively analyze whether they met that burden. Just because you think it's only reasonable to shoot when you know for 100% certainty doesn't mean that the legal standards you're demanding cannot be met with a factual account less than what you myopically demand.

I think it's reasonable to determine these cases based on facts and not the mindset of the shooter. Sorry you think that is myopic. I am asking what matters. You highlighted a paragraph I wrote expressing an opinion that establishing self-defense (the burden on the defense) should be decided by objective facts not the shooter's mindset. You said that was already the case.

If what you wrote is true the shooter's mindset would not be admissable evidence in determining whether or not it was self-defense, because it would all hinge on the facts that show whether the shooter's life was in actual immediate danger from this individual at the moment the shot was fired.

So which is it?

You two are talking past each other. Zow's point is that the shooter's subjective belief is not sufficient to make a case for self-defense, which appears to be what you are suggesting. The shooter's subjective belief is subject to a reasonabless standard, meaning that his belief must have been reasonable under the circumstances. That is a form of objective test that is layered on top of the subjective test. But it's not the objective test you are referencing, which is that the shooter must actually be in danger to the extent necessary for self-defense to apply.

 

[Clifford]

Let me ask in another way:

Which is more important to the defense's establishment of self-defense

Establishing that the victim could have killed shooter from where he was shot and convincing the jury of that.

Establishing that the shooter truly believed, in his own mind, that his life was in immediate danger and convincing the jury of that.

 

[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.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

determining if a person poses a threat after the fact <> determining if a person poses a threat at the time of the incident.

So you disagree with Zow, that self-defense in LA is determined by the shooter's subjective mindset and not by objective evidence of the reality of the event?

I never said that. You just didn't comprehend what I said.

I said jury's definition of whether his life was in danger, not jury's definition of whether the action was reasonable or whether they would do the same in their shoes. Two different things. The first would rely solely on objective evidence (IE was the victim armed, proximity to shooter at time shot was fired, was there a physical confrontation, was it physically possible for victim to kill shooter from where he was shot, etc), while the second would take into account the shooter's mindset and the jury would decide if they think the shooter actually believed their life to be in danger.

See the difference? Very important one IMO.

The objective standard here is whether he reasonably believed that there was danger. Reasonably is where the objective standard comes in. Reasonably means that the jury has to believe not only that he believed it, but that a reasonable person would.

OK, and that is what I am saying needs to be changed in all laws regarding self-defense. This is a ridiculous standard to apply.

 

[bigbottom]

I said jury's definition of whether his life was in danger, not jury's definition of whether the action was reasonable or whether they would do the same in their shoes. Two different things. The first would rely solely on objective evidence (IE was the victim armed, proximity to shooter at time shot was fired, was there a physical confrontation, was it physically possible for victim to kill shooter from where he was shot, etc), while the second would take into account the shooter's mindset and the jury would decide if they think the shooter actually believed their life to be in danger and whether such belief was reasonable under the circumstances.

See the difference? Very important one IMO.

Added missing component.

 

[bigbottom]

OK, and that is what I am saying needs to be changed in all laws regarding self-defense. This is a ridiculous standard to apply.

No it's not.

 

[Henry Ford]

The objective standard here is whether he reasonably believed that there was danger. Reasonably is where the objective standard comes in. Reasonably means that the jury has to believe not only that he believed it, but that a reasonable person would.

OK, and that is what I am saying needs to be changed in all laws regarding self-defense. This is a ridiculous standard to apply.

"Your honor, the gun didn't have any bullets in it. He could not have actually killed anyone, so he shouldn't have been shot."

 

[jsharlan]

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!"

Why change it to a gun being loaded? I said make sure someone has a gun. Having a gun, loaded or not, and reaching for it and then raising it is obviously grounds for using self-defense.

So in the split second this guy has to decide the threat, you want him to poll the audience? So you want him to ask the unknown criminal who is reaching at his waist what his intentions are before defending himself? Being a father myself, I can bet the shooter would take being on trial for murder with his wife and kids alive over not being on trial and having a dead family any day. You don't know how dangerous the threat is at the moment, you don't know the criminals intentions, you only know whether you feel threatened and that your family must live at all costs. I don't understand feeling sympathetic for criminals doing things they shouldn't be. Break the law, put your life at risk, its exactly how it should be. Just because after the fact in hindsight, you feel his criminal intentions weren't quite enough for possible death is completely irrelevant for the shooter at that moment he had to make a decision. Waiting to find out without a doubt that someone has a gun and is shooting at you is too late.

Waiting for the police is stupid, police do not prevent crimes, they respond after they have already happened. The protection of your family is YOUR responsibility. I will be the #### and say the guy's wife and kid's life is worth more than the guy trespassing. It might be a sh***y thing to believe, but its absolutely reality. I can't fathom how anyone with children of their own couldn't feel this way.

 

[bigbottom]

The objective standard here is whether he reasonably believed that there was danger. Reasonably is where the objective standard comes in. Reasonably means that the jury has to believe not only that he believed it, but that a reasonable person would.

OK, and that is what I am saying needs to be changed in all laws regarding self-defense. This is a ridiculous standard to apply.

"Your honor, the gun didn't have any bullets in it. He could not have actually killed anyone, so he shouldn't have been shot."

He's already argued the polar opposite point:

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!"

Why change it to a gun being loaded? I said make sure someone has a gun. Having a gun, loaded or not, and reaching for it and then raising it is obviously grounds for using self-defense.

 

[matttyl]

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.

So what's the first thing on your mind? Letting them take your car?