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

[Henry Ford]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

Explain yourself

What do you think happens with bullets that get fired in a "warning" shot?

 

[Henry Ford]

"We don't want to hurt the criminal, so let's set a metal projectile flying at 1500 feet per second in a random direction"

 

[Clifford]

So makes much more sense to fire at someone and face murder charges? Rather than firing into the air? Ok...

 

[Henry Ford]

So makes much more sense to fire at someone and face murder charges? Rather than firing into the air? Ok...

If you fire into the air, you are randomly firing at an innocent person. Are you insane? Never, never, ever fire a gun randomly into the air. Never.

In fact, you should not pick up a gun until you get some real training with one. Never put your finger on a trigger unless you intend to kill something with it or are at a practice range.

 

[Clifford]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

Explain yourself

What do you think happens with bullets that get fired in a "warning" shot?

They eventually fall to the earth after losing most of their velocity. To the point that they bounce off wood instead of shooting through it. I know because it happened right next to me NYE.

What do you think happens when you shoot an unarmed teen? Oh wait, we already know. You face murder charges and have to spend all your money on legal defense.

Which is worse for the shooter?

 

[Henry Ford]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

Explain yourself

What do you think happens with bullets that get fired in a "warning" shot?

They eventually fall to the earth after losing most of their velocity. To the point that they bounce off wood instead of shooting through it. I know because it happened right next to me NYE.

What do you think happens when you shoot an unarmed teen? Oh wait, we already know. You face murder charges and have to spend all your money on legal defense.

Which is worse for the shooter?

Google "killed by bullet shot into the air" without the quotes. I'll wait.

 

[jsharlan]

Isn't Clifford the very guy that complained about a stray bullet from a warning shot hitting some kid in another thread?

 

[Henry Ford]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

Explain yourself

What do you think happens with bullets that get fired in a "warning" shot?

They eventually fall to the earth after losing most of their velocity. To the point that they bounce off wood instead of shooting through it. I know because it happened right next to me NYE.

What do you think happens when you shoot an unarmed teen? Oh wait, we already know. You face murder charges and have to spend all your money on legal defense.

Which is worse for the shooter?

Also - is your plan to move the gun from aiming at the person to aiming straight up in the air, fire, and then re-aim? Because I'll tell you which one's worse if the teen turns out to be armed.

 

[Clifford]

Bullets fired STRAIGHT (at a 90 degree angle to the ground) into the air usually fall back at terminal velocity, speeds much lower than those at which they leave the barrel of a firearm. Nevertheless, people can be injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. Bullets fired other than exactly vertical are more dangerous, as the bullet maintains its angular ballistic trajectory, is far less likely to engage in tumbling motion, and so travels at a speed much higher than its terminal velocity would be in a purely vertical fall.

A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 80% of celebratory gunfire-related injuries are to the head, feet, and shoulders.[4] In Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[5] Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[6]Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.[6]

 

[Henry Ford]

Bullets fired STRAIGHT (at a 90 degree angle to the ground) into the air usually fall back at terminal velocity, speeds much lower than those at which they leave the barrel of a firearm. Nevertheless, people can be injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. Bullets fired other than exactly vertical are more dangerous, as the bullet maintains its angular ballistic trajectory, is far less likely to engage in tumbling motion, and so travels at a speed much higher than its terminal velocity would be in a purely vertical fall.

A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 80% of celebratory gunfire-related injuries are to the head, feet, and shoulders.[4] In Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[5] Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[6]Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.[6]

Hey, look, even Wikipedia thinks it's stupid to fire a bullet into the air. Who would have guessed?

 

[Clifford]

Isn't Clifford the very guy that complained about a stray bullet from a warning shot hitting some kid in another thread?

It wasn't a warning shot, but the guy still got off by merely saying it was. Had it been a warning shot (IE fired into the air instead of directly at the kids at the lake) there is zero chance it would have hit any of them, who were not that far away.

So I guess you missed the point of that.

 

[jsharlan]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

Explain yourself

What do you think happens with bullets that get fired in a "warning" shot?

They eventually fall to the earth after losing most of their velocity. To the point that they bounce off wood instead of shooting through it. I know because it happened right next to me NYE.

What do you think happens when you shoot an unarmed teen? Oh wait, we already know. You face murder charges and have to spend all your money on legal defense.

Which is worse for the shooter?

I imagine being dead is worse because you wanted to wait to be sure the criminal at 2am is pulling a gun from waist and not a purple teddy bear.

 

[Clifford]

Bullets fired STRAIGHT (at a 90 degree angle to the ground) into the air usually fall back at terminal velocity, speeds much lower than those at which they leave the barrel of a firearm. Nevertheless, people can be injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. Bullets fired other than exactly vertical are more dangerous, as the bullet maintains its angular ballistic trajectory, is far less likely to engage in tumbling motion, and so travels at a speed much higher than its terminal velocity would be in a purely vertical fall.

A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 80% of celebratory gunfire-related injuries are to the head, feet, and shoulders.[4] In Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[5] Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[6]Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.[6]

Hey, look, even Wikipedia thinks it's stupid to fire a bullet into the air. Who would have guessed?

Is it dumber than shooting an unarmed person 30 feet away? Would this guy be facing murder charges now?

 

[Clifford]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

Explain yourself

What do you think happens with bullets that get fired in a "warning" shot?

They eventually fall to the earth after losing most of their velocity. To the point that they bounce off wood instead of shooting through it. I know because it happened right next to me NYE.

What do you think happens when you shoot an unarmed teen? Oh wait, we already know. You face murder charges and have to spend all your money on legal defense.

Which is worse for the shooter?

I imagine being dead is worse because you wanted to wait to be sure the criminal at 2am is pulling a gun from waist and not a purple teddy bear.

If the victim were holding a purple teddy bear the shooter would be in much better legal standing.

 

[jsharlan]

Isn't Clifford the very guy that complained about a stray bullet from a warning shot hitting some kid in another thread?

It wasn't a warning shot, but the guy still got off by merely saying it was. Had it been a warning shot (IE fired into the air instead of directly at the kids at the lake) there is zero chance it would have hit any of them, who were not that far away.

So I guess you missed the point of that.

Oh yes, clearly I am the one missing the point.

 

[Henry Ford]

Bullets fired STRAIGHT (at a 90 degree angle to the ground) into the air usually fall back at terminal velocity, speeds much lower than those at which they leave the barrel of a firearm. Nevertheless, people can be injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. Bullets fired other than exactly vertical are more dangerous, as the bullet maintains its angular ballistic trajectory, is far less likely to engage in tumbling motion, and so travels at a speed much higher than its terminal velocity would be in a purely vertical fall.

A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 80% of celebratory gunfire-related injuries are to the head, feet, and shoulders.[4] In Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[5] Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[6]Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.[6]

Hey, look, even Wikipedia thinks it's stupid to fire a bullet into the air. Who would have guessed?

Is it dumber than shooting an unarmed person 30 feet away? Would this guy be facing murder charges now?

If it hit someone? He'd be in jail and facing a civil suit. And he'd lose the criminal trial and the civil one. And some innocent would be injured or worse.

It's substantially dumber than shooting someone who's committing a crime on your property, yes.

 

[jsharlan]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

Explain yourself

What do you think happens with bullets that get fired in a "warning" shot?

They eventually fall to the earth after losing most of their velocity. To the point that they bounce off wood instead of shooting through it. I know because it happened right next to me NYE.

What do you think happens when you shoot an unarmed teen? Oh wait, we already know. You face murder charges and have to spend all your money on legal defense.

Which is worse for the shooter?

I imagine being dead is worse because you wanted to wait to be sure the criminal at 2am is pulling a gun from waist and not a purple teddy bear.

If the victim were holding a purple teddy bear the shooter would be in much better legal standing.

Yes when your family and yourself are at risk, you should definitely bet on the teddy bear.

 

[Clifford]

And when neither you nor your family is at risk, but your car might be? That's kinda the point here.

 

[Henry Ford]

And when neither you nor your family is at risk, but your car might be? That's kinda the point here.

Then you should definitely fire a gun in a random direction. Great idea.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

For a guy who spends so much time arguing about gun control, you'd think he'd have half a clue. Guess not.

 

[Politician Spock]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

Explain yourself

What do you think happens with bullets that get fired in a "warning" shot?

They eventually fall to the earth after losing most of their velocity. To the point that they bounce off wood instead of shooting through it. I know because it happened right next to me NYE.What do you think happens when you shoot an unarmed teen? Oh wait, we already know. You face murder charges and have to spend all your money on legal defense.

Which is worse for the shooter?

I imagine being dead is worse because you wanted to wait to be sure the criminal at 2am is pulling a gun from waist and not a purple teddy bear.

Are we talkin like a Lots-O-Huggin' type bear?... Cause those things are evil and can't be pumped full of enough lead to satisfy justice.

 

[Clifford]

Sorry I posted something you disagree with. But you're essentially saying it's better to shoot with a very strong likelihood of killing a person than it is to shoot with a very low likelihood of killing someone. When you don't know anything about the person other than they are on your property at 2am.

 

[rick6668]

True in a sense, but I believe juries are instructed to consider the shooter's mindset at the time for whether use of deadly force was reasonable, which is what is confusing.

To objectively look at the facts, it's a slam dunk that his life was not in immediate danger at the time he pulled the trigger.

However, being asked to consider whether someone's mindset was reasonable is a different and confusing proposition. What is the juror being asked to do here? Who can say whether something going on in someone's head was reasonable without actually being that person?

I think people would be less quick to shoot in a similar situation if the standard of guilt were more weighted to objective facts of the case. IOW, if the standard in this case were an automatic guilty if the shooter could not prove the victim showed something that would provide reasonable belief that the person was in fact capable of killing him from where he stood, perhaps the shooter would not have fired so quickly, knowing he has to at least see a weapon for self-defense to be considered. Maybe he would have waited a split second after seeing the guy reach for his hip to see if he produced anything. And maybe instead of getting shot the kid simply jumps and runs, and this guy isn't facing murder charges.

Laws that cause a little more pause for the shooter would likely produce better outcomes for the shooter.

Officer, he made his hand in the shape of a gun and pointed it at me.

 

[jsharlan]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

Explain yourself

What do you think happens with bullets that get fired in a "warning" shot?

They eventually fall to the earth after losing most of their velocity. To the point that they bounce off wood instead of shooting through it. I know because it happened right next to me NYE.What do you think happens when you shoot an unarmed teen? Oh wait, we already know. You face murder charges and have to spend all your money on legal defense.

Which is worse for the shooter?

I imagine being dead is worse because you wanted to wait to be sure the criminal at 2am is pulling a gun from waist and not a purple teddy bear.

Are we talkin like a Lots-O-Huggin' type bear?... Cause those things are evil and can't be pumped full of enough lead to satisfy justice.

Maybe it was the bear for the movie Ted. That bear would have had a gun in its hand.

 

[Henry Ford]

Sorry I posted something you disagree with. But you're essentially saying it's better to shoot with a very strong likelihood of killing a person than it is to shoot with a very low likelihood of killing someone. When you don't know anything about the person other than they are on your property at 2am.

No, I think it's better to shoot at a criminal who is in the act of committing a crime, who is the reason for you shooting a gun, than it is to just randomly fire a gun in the air in a residential area.

 

[matttyl]

So makes much more sense to fire at someone the criminal on your property and face attempted 2nd degree murder charges? Rather than firing into the air? Ok...

Yes, it does.

 

[rick6668]

Sorry I posted something you disagree with. But you're essentially saying it's better to shoot with a very strong likelihood of killing a person than it is to shoot with a very low likelihood of killing someone. When you don't know anything about the person other than they are on your property at 2am.

Anytime you point a gun at someone and fire, you better be trying to kill them. That's the point.

That you're even arguing this is laughable.

 

[timschochet]

I'm sympathetic to your overall POV, Clifford, but I just can't get behind your point here. If we are to believe the shooter (and again that's the big if) the kid appeared to be reaching for something at his waist. It's reasonable for the shooter to assume that it's a gun (based on the fact that the kid was trespassing on his property at 2am). It's reasonable for the shooter to fire his weapon before the kid can get to his gun. It's unreasonable for the shooter to decide to fire a warning shot.

I know EXTREMELY little about firearms (as most of my opponents here will no doubt agree with) but this is just common sense, isn't it?

 

[Clifford]

While he might have been in the act of committing a crime, he was not in the act of trying to kill the shooter, nor could he have if he wanted to, from where he was standing. Killing someone in the act of trespassing does not work out well for the shooter.

 

[Henry Ford]

Sorry I posted something you disagree with. But you're essentially saying it's better to shoot with a very strong likelihood of killing a person than it is to shoot with a very low likelihood of killing someone. When you don't know anything about the person other than they are on your property at 2am.

Anytime you point a gun at someone and fire, you better be trying to kill them. That's the point.

That you're even arguing this is laughable.

Exactly. And if you fire a gun into the air, you better be prepared to kill a random person.

 

[Henry Ford]

While he might have been in the act of committing a crime, he was not in the act of trying to kill the shooter, nor could he have if he wanted to, from where he was standing. Killing someone in the act of trespassing does not work out well for the shooter.

Either he's justified in shooting or he isn't. He is never justified in shooting randomly into the air.

 

[jsharlan]

And when neither you nor your family is at risk, but your car might be? That's kinda the point here.

No the point continues to be that you don't use knowledge you gained in hindsight well after the fact to suggest that he should have had precognitive abilities and foreseen this in the past when he actually had to make the decision. This isn't Minority Report. You know NOW the kid didn't have a gun, you didn't know when the decision actually had to be made. Which is why it will be irrelevant when they debate it, because he could only go by what he knew at the time the decision was made.

 

[Clifford]

Unless you are arguing that it is reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing on your property, or to shoot someone for stealing from your car, then there is no argument for this shooting. It doesn't meet the standard for self-defense.

 

[timschochet]

While he might have been in the act of committing a crime, he was not in the act of trying to kill the shooter, nor could he have if he wanted to, from where he was standing. Killing someone in the act of trespassing does not work out well for the shooter.

?? If the shooter could shoot him in the head, why couldn't the kid shoot the shooter in the head (assuming he had a gun).?

 

[jsharlan]

While he might have been in the act of committing a crime, he was not in the act of trying to kill the shooter, nor could he have if he wanted to, from where he was standing. Killing someone in the act of trespassing does not work out well for the shooter.

It has in numerous cases, and will in numerous more. If you are going to commit a crime, you risk your life.

 

[Henry Ford]

Unless you are arguing that it is reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing on your property, or to shoot someone for stealing from your car, then there is no argument for this shooting. It doesn't meet the standard for self-defense.

I think I've been clear, but I'll try to re-state:

If someone trespasses on my property at 2 am, I confront him, the only way off the property is through me, and he moves enough to disturb the butterfly that landed on his nose, I'm going to put a bullet in him. And it's perfectly justifiable to do so.

Trespassing under cover of night onto someone's property, in a dangerous neighborhood, where burglaries, assaults, and murders happen every day, creates a perfectly reasonable belief of danger. If you do anything but follow very simple instructions like "stop where you are and don't move" you are likely going to be maimed or die.

 

[timschochet]

Unless you are arguing that it is reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing on your property,

This is exactly the argument that some people have made here or at least implied.

I don't think that's justified, but I do believe that in such a situation we have to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately it's his decision as to the best way to protect his family.

 

[jsharlan]

Unless you are arguing that it is reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing on your property, or to shoot someone for stealing from your car, then there is no argument for this shooting. It doesn't meet the standard for self-defense.

It does if you understand what self defense is. He didn't get shot because he was trespassing, he got shot because the shooter thought he was pulling a weapon. I don't believe I read anywhere the guy say,"I shot him because he was on my lawn."

 

[Clifford]

And when neither you nor your family is at risk, but your car might be? That's kinda the point here.

No the point continues to be that you don't use knowledge you gained in hindsight well after the fact to suggest that he should have had precognitive abilities and foreseen this in the past when he actually had to make the decision. This isn't Minority Report. You know NOW the kid didn't have a gun, you didn't know when the decision actually had to be made. Which is why it will be irrelevant when they debate it, because he could only go by what he knew at the time the decision was made.

Which is why I think that objective facts should be more heavily weighted in these trials. As people have pointed out, the shooter's mindset at the time isn't the only factor here. If you don't see a gun, and the defense won't argue that he did, is it reasonable to believe your life is in immediate danger from someone 30 feet away.

My whole point is that if we weighted objective stuff more, maybe people would be less willing to shoot BEFORE they see anything. But it seems like some would rather have self-defense simply equate to being scared.

 

[[icon]]

While he might have been in the act of committing a crime, he was not in the act of trying to kill the shooter, nor could he have if he wanted to, from where he was standing. Killing someone in the act of trespassing does not work out well for the shooter.

ORLY?

 

[[icon]]

Unless you are arguing that it is reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing on your property, or to shoot someone for stealing from your car, then there is no argument for this shooting. It doesn't meet the standard for self-defense.

I don't think you really grasp the defendant's story, or the defense's case here.

Either that or you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

[timschochet]

Unless you are arguing that it is reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing on your property, or to shoot someone for stealing from your car, then there is no argument for this shooting. It doesn't meet the standard for self-defense.

I think I've been clear, but I'll try to re-state:

If someone trespasses on my property at 2 am, I confront him, the only way off the property is through me, and he moves enough to disturb the butterfly that landed on his nose, I'm going to put a bullet in him. And it's perfectly justifiable to do so.

Trespassing under cover of night onto someone's property, in a dangerous neighborhood, where burglaries, assaults, and murders happen every day, creates a perfectly reasonable belief of danger. If you do anything but follow very simple instructions like "stop where you are and don't move" you are likely going to be maimed or die.

For the purpose of argument: let's suppose that the homeowner does not yell out any warning. He simply sees the trespasser in his yard at 2am. From a distance of 30 feet, he fires his gun and hits the trespasser in the head.

Justified shooting or murder?

 

[Clifford]

While he might have been in the act of committing a crime, he was not in the act of trying to kill the shooter, nor could he have if he wanted to, from where he was standing. Killing someone in the act of trespassing does not work out well for the shooter.

?? If the shooter could shoot him in the head, why couldn't the kid shoot the shooter in the head (assuming he had a gun).?

The whole problem is shooting based on a false assumption instead of reality. Do you think shooting someone based on a false assumption of what they had should exonerate the shooter under self-defense?

 

[[icon]]

Unless you are arguing that it is reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing on your property, or to shoot someone for stealing from your car, then there is no argument for this shooting. It doesn't meet the standard for self-defense.

I think I've been clear, but I'll try to re-state:

If someone trespasses on my property at 2 am, I confront him, the only way off the property is through me, and he moves enough to disturb the butterfly that landed on his nose, I'm going to put a bullet in him. And it's perfectly justifiable to do so.

Trespassing under cover of night onto someone's property, in a dangerous neighborhood, where burglaries, assaults, and murders happen every day, creates a perfectly reasonable belief of danger. If you do anything but follow very simple instructions like "stop where you are and don't move" you are likely going to be maimed or die.

For the purpose of argument: let's suppose that the homeowner does not yell out any warning. He simply sees the trespasser in his yard at 2am. From a distance of 30 feet, he fires his gun and hits the trespasser in the head.

Justified shooting or murder?

If the resident feels his or his family's life is in imminent danger (ie criminal has or is reaching for a weapon, criminal charging him or his family, etc), then 100% justified shooting.

If the resident simply shoots the man for being on his property without any perceived threat? Murder.

The law backs this up 100%.

The law also gives a good bit of leeway in determining imminent threat in order to protect the homeowner in situations like this where you have a man who has not just wandered into his property, but leapt a tall fence... then, in darkness, made a motion that resembled reaching for a weapon when confronted. And all this is happening in a neighborhood with a tremendously high rate of violent crime recently.

This is pretty cut and dry and absent any crazy revelations, the shooter will walk free. As he should .

 

[timschochet]

While he might have been in the act of committing a crime, he was not in the act of trying to kill the shooter, nor could he have if he wanted to, from where he was standing. Killing someone in the act of trespassing does not work out well for the shooter.

?? If the shooter could shoot him in the head, why couldn't the kid shoot the shooter in the head (assuming he had a gun).?

The whole problem is shooting based on a false assumption instead of reality. Do you think shooting someone based on a false assumption of what they had should exonerate the shooter under self-defense?

Maybe.

The key is not "false assumption"; the key should be "reasonable, honest, assumption." If the homeowner is reasonable and honest, then he made a mistake in assuming the kid was armed and trying to shoot him. But I don't think in most cases you should go to jail for such an error.

 

[[icon]]

While he might have been in the act of committing a crime, he was not in the act of trying to kill the shooter, nor could he have if he wanted to, from where he was standing. Killing someone in the act of trespassing does not work out well for the shooter.

?? If the shooter could shoot him in the head, why couldn't the kid shoot the shooter in the head (assuming he had a gun).?

The whole problem is shooting based on a false assumption instead of reality. Do you think shooting someone based on a false assumption of what they had should exonerate the shooter under self-defense?

I just started typing out a detailed post trying to spell it out to you, but I just realized you're either fishing or too obtuse to get the actual scenario. In either case I'm wasting my time. Cheers.

 

[jsharlan]

Unless you are arguing that it is reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing on your property, or to shoot someone for stealing from your car, then there is no argument for this shooting. It doesn't meet the standard for self-defense.

I think I've been clear, but I'll try to re-state:

If someone trespasses on my property at 2 am, I confront him, the only way off the property is through me, and he moves enough to disturb the butterfly that landed on his nose, I'm going to put a bullet in him. And it's perfectly justifiable to do so.

Trespassing under cover of night onto someone's property, in a dangerous neighborhood, where burglaries, assaults, and murders happen every day, creates a perfectly reasonable belief of danger. If you do anything but follow very simple instructions like "stop where you are and don't move" you are likely going to be maimed or die.

For the purpose of argument: let's suppose that the homeowner does not yell out any warning. He simply sees the trespasser in his yard at 2am. From a distance of 30 feet, he fires his gun and hits the trespasser in the head.

Justified shooting or murder?

Depending if the kid allegedly was in the act of pulling on him, or if he perceived him to be. The warning is irrelevant.

 

[Henry Ford]

Unless you are arguing that it is reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing on your property, or to shoot someone for stealing from your car, then there is no argument for this shooting. It doesn't meet the standard for self-defense.

I think I've been clear, but I'll try to re-state:

If someone trespasses on my property at 2 am, I confront him, the only way off the property is through me, and he moves enough to disturb the butterfly that landed on his nose, I'm going to put a bullet in him. And it's perfectly justifiable to do so.

Trespassing under cover of night onto someone's property, in a dangerous neighborhood, where burglaries, assaults, and murders happen every day, creates a perfectly reasonable belief of danger. If you do anything but follow very simple instructions like "stop where you are and don't move" you are likely going to be maimed or die.

For the purpose of argument: let's suppose that the homeowner does not yell out any warning. He simply sees the trespasser in his yard at 2am. From a distance of 30 feet, he fires his gun and hits the trespasser in the head.

Justified shooting or murder?

If the resident feels his or his family's life is in imminent danger (ie criminal reaching for a weapon, criminal charging him or his family, etc), then 100% justified shooting.

If the resident simply shoots the man for being on his property without any perceived threat? Murder.

Agreed.

 

[bigbottom]

While he might have been in the act of committing a crime, he was not in the act of trying to kill the shooter, nor could he have if he wanted to, from where he was standing. Killing someone in the act of trespassing does not work out well for the shooter.

?? If the shooter could shoot him in the head, why couldn't the kid shoot the shooter in the head (assuming he had a gun).?

The whole problem is shooting based on a false assumption instead of reality. Do you think shooting someone based on a false assumption of what they had should exonerate the shooter under self-defense?

Sure. If the false assumption was a reasonable one. And apparently you agree with this as well, inasmuch as you would support a self-defense argument if the shooter falsely assumed that the gun drawn on him was loaded.

 

[Clifford]

Unless you are arguing that it is reasonable to shoot someone for trespassing on your property, or to shoot someone for stealing from your car, then there is no argument for this shooting. It doesn't meet the standard for self-defense.

I think I've been clear, but I'll try to re-state:

If someone trespasses on my property at 2 am, I confront him, the only way off the property is through me, and he moves enough to disturb the butterfly that landed on his nose, I'm going to put a bullet in him. And it's perfectly justifiable to do so.

Trespassing under cover of night onto someone's property, in a dangerous neighborhood, where burglaries, assaults, and murders happen every day, creates a perfectly reasonable belief of danger. If you do anything but follow very simple instructions like "stop where you are and don't move" you are likely going to be maimed or die.

For the purpose of argument: let's suppose that the homeowner does not yell out any warning. He simply sees the trespasser in his yard at 2am. From a distance of 30 feet, he fires his gun and hits the trespasser in the head.

Justified shooting or murder?

If the resident feels his or his family's life is in imminent danger (ie criminal has or is reaching for a weapon, criminal charging him or his family, etc), then 100% justified shooting.

If the resident simply shoots the man for being on his property without any perceived threat? Murder.

This is my issue. Anything can be a perceived threat in someone's head. And I don't think a perceived threat, by itself, is sufficient for asserting self-defense. You have to convince a jury that the threat that was perceived by the shooter was a "reasonable belief" that the victim posed immediate and deadly danger to the shooter.