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

[matttyl]

His point, which I completely agree with, is that if someone is willing to lie then they can get away with murdering a trespasser.

If someone is willing to lie, there is a lot they can get away with in this country. It's up to a jury, potentially, to know if his statement is reasonable or not.

Also, if they "get away with it", it's not murder, it's killing. It's only murder if it is unlawful. Also, murder requires premeditation (aka "malice aforethought") - so did you know the guy was going to trespass before he did it (which this HO did not)?

 

[parasaurolophus]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

So section 3 does not apply to his case?

No, it fully applies, you're just reading it wrong.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.what part?

Reasonably - something you're not being in this thread. Kinda like you bringing up "turn the other cheek" or the 5th (or 6th) Commandment into this thread when the line "person A shot person B" wasn't very reasonable. You're making assumptions that aren't there to be made.Saying what you said above likely isn't "reasonable" in the eyes of a jury. Believing one's life is in danger when confronted with a burglar who's hopped a fence onto my property at 2AM who when I tell to freeze reaches for his waistband instead is likely very reasonable in the eyes of a jury.

His point, which I completely agree with, is that if someone is willing to lie then they can get away with murdering a trespasser.

If people are willing to lie they can frequently get away with lots of things. If your whole desire was to just go commit murder a huge % of the population would just get away with it.

If you were a law abiding citizen that just one day decided you were going to shoot a random person and lie about the circumstances you would get away with it more often than not. I would imagine most police officers look for things like motive.

We dont pass laws in this country to make sure that insanely unrealistic scenarios like this don't happen. We pass laws that address the very likely situations that occur when a dude is on your property at 2am. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of that person being out to cause you substantial harm compared to the odds of there being lots of law abiding citizens just waiting for their one true chance at shooting a trespasser that was just picking creeping charlie out of the lawn to be helpful.

 

[Chaka]

So I should confess I made a horrible mistake last night. At roughly 1:25 AM after watching a movie with my wife and preparing to go to bed - my dog made a grumbling noise and stared at me. With this dog it can either be that she heard something outside which has upset her, or she needs to be let out to go to the bathroom. I assumed the second. I really should have assumed the first and called the police to come "do their job" before I dare go outside on my own property - as I could have turned into a child killer.

Is that what all the anti-HOers are claiming here?

You probably should have let the dog outside and proceeded from there. It's nice to see that you are so clear on the concept.

 

[Dr Oadi]

So I should confess I made a horrible mistake last night. At roughly 1:25 AM after watching a movie with my wife and preparing to go to bed - my dog made a grumbling noise and stared at me. With this dog it can either be that she heard something outside which has upset her, or she needs to be let out to go to the bathroom. I assumed the second. I really should have assumed the first and called the police to come "do their job" before I dare go outside on my own property - as I could have turned into a child killer.

Is that what all the anti-HOers are claiming here?

You probably should have let the dog outside and proceeded from there. It's nice to see that you are so clear on the concept.

Why do you want to send the dog out there to be killed by whatever madmans out there? Who are you Mike Vick?

 

[Henry Ford]

So I should confess I made a horrible mistake last night. At roughly 1:25 AM after watching a movie with my wife and preparing to go to bed - my dog made a grumbling noise and stared at me. With this dog it can either be that she heard something outside which has upset her, or she needs to be let out to go to the bathroom. I assumed the second. I really should have assumed the first and called the police to come "do their job" before I dare go outside on my own property - as I could have turned into a child killer.

Is that what all the anti-HOers are claiming here?

You probably should have let the dog outside and proceeded from there. It's nice to see that you are so clear on the concept.

And if there's someone out there who hurts your dog, you should invite him in for some cocoa to calm his nerves after the ordeal you put him through by forcing him to maim your furry friend.

 

[Henry Ford]

And then the two of you can share a beer and fire bullets into the air to celebrate your new friendship.

 

[matttyl]

So I should confess I made a horrible mistake last night. At roughly 1:25 AM after watching a movie with my wife and preparing to go to bed - my dog made a grumbling noise and stared at me. With this dog it can either be that she heard something outside which has upset her, or she needs to be let out to go to the bathroom. I assumed the second. I really should have assumed the first and called the police to come "do their job" before I dare go outside on my own property - as I could have turned into a child killer.

Is that what all the anti-HOers are claiming here?

You probably should have let the dog outside and proceeded from there. It's nice to see that you are so clear on the concept.

My yard isn't fenced in and my dog would run off after anything that moved. She requires being on a leash when outside, cause I'm you know, a responsible dog owner. Thanks again for making assumptions about a situation you don't have all the facts about.

 

[Chaka]

Gee, great stories bros.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's also a genius move, when you share a courtyard with your neighbor, to just send your dog out into it when you hear a noise outside at night. Nothing ccould go wrong if it turns out to be your neighbor out there.

 

[Chaka]

Brilliant!!!

 

[kentric]

So I should confess I made a horrible mistake last night. At roughly 1:25 AM after watching a movie with my wife and preparing to go to bed - my dog made a grumbling noise and stared at me. With this dog it can either be that she heard something outside which has upset her, or she needs to be let out to go to the bathroom. I assumed the second. I really should have assumed the first and called the police to come "do their job" before I dare go outside on my own property - as I could have turned into a child killer.

Is that what all the anti-HOers are claiming here?

Or, if you were concerned about someone being outside, you could look out your window. But feel free to go outside packing. Maybe you'll find a little kid to shoot. <_<

 

[Henry Ford]

So I should confess I made a horrible mistake last night. At roughly 1:25 AM after watching a movie with my wife and preparing to go to bed - my dog made a grumbling noise and stared at me. With this dog it can either be that she heard something outside which has upset her, or she needs to be let out to go to the bathroom. I assumed the second. I really should have assumed the first and called the police to come "do their job" before I dare go outside on my own property - as I could have turned into a child killer.

Is that what all the anti-HOers are claiming here?

Or, if you were concerned about someone being outside, you could look out your window. But feel free to go outside packing. Maybe you'll find a little kid to shoot. <_<

Anything which cannot be easily discerned through a window in the middle of the night should require a police presence, obviously. In fact, I feel a little stupid - I went from my bedroom to my bathroom in the middle of the night without a police escort last night. God knows what might have happened.

 

[matttyl]

So I should confess I made a horrible mistake last night. At roughly 1:25 AM after watching a movie with my wife and preparing to go to bed - my dog made a grumbling noise and stared at me. With this dog it can either be that she heard something outside which has upset her, or she needs to be let out to go to the bathroom. I assumed the second. I really should have assumed the first and called the police to come "do their job" before I dare go outside on my own property - as I could have turned into a child killer.

Is that what all the anti-HOers are claiming here?

Or, if you were concerned about someone being outside, you could look out your window. But feel free to go outside packing. Maybe you'll find a little kid to shoot. <_<

Again you're making my point, you're assuming things.

How do you know the HO didn't look out his window before going outside? How would looking out my window do anything for me on an overcast night at 1:25AM with no lighting on that part of my property (you can't just blindly assume that I'd see whatever could be there). Where I live I'm far more likely to find a bear/deer/raccoon or fox on my property (all could be very dangerous to a dog) at that time of night than a human intruder - you think I could see a black bear out my window in the dark?

 

[matttyl]

So I should confess I made a horrible mistake last night. At roughly 1:25 AM after watching a movie with my wife and preparing to go to bed - my dog made a grumbling noise and stared at me. With this dog it can either be that she heard something outside which has upset her, or she needs to be let out to go to the bathroom. I assumed the second. I really should have assumed the first and called the police to come "do their job" before I dare go outside on my own property - as I could have turned into a child killer.

Is that what all the anti-HOers are claiming here?

Or, if you were concerned about someone being outside, you could look out your window. But feel free to go outside packing. Maybe you'll find a little kid to shoot. <_<

Also, concerning assumptions and not making them.....if I were to find someone on my property at 2 AM who's hopped a fence with the intention of causing either myself or my property harm, I wouldn't assume he's a "little kid".

 

[Clifford]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

So section 3 does not apply to his case?

No, it fully applies, you're just reading it wrong.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

what part?

Reasonably - something you're not being in this thread. Kinda like you bringing up "turn the other cheek" or the 5th (or 6th) Commandment into this thread when the line "person A shot person B" wasn't very reasonable. You're making assumptions that aren't there to be made.

Saying what you said above likely isn't "reasonable" in the eyes of a jury. Believing one's life is in danger when confronted with a burglar who's hopped a fence onto my property at 2AM who when I tell to freeze reaches for his waistband instead is likely very reasonable in the eyes of a jury.

So how it is it not exactly like I said. All this guy has to say is "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family" and the burden shifts to the prosecution to show his belief in unreasonable. That's how it works.

The shooter simply has to say those words, and it becomes the prosecutions burden to prove to the jury that his belief was unreasonable.

 

[Clifford]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

So section 3 does not apply to his case?

No, it fully applies, you're just reading it wrong.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.what part?

Reasonably - something you're not being in this thread. Kinda like you bringing up "turn the other cheek" or the 5th (or 6th) Commandment into this thread when the line "person A shot person B" wasn't very reasonable. You're making assumptions that aren't there to be made.Saying what you said above likely isn't "reasonable" in the eyes of a jury. Believing one's life is in danger when confronted with a burglar who's hopped a fence onto my property at 2AM who when I tell to freeze reaches for his waistband instead is likely very reasonable in the eyes of a jury.

His point, which I completely agree with, is that if someone is willing to lie then they can get away with murdering a trespasser.

I don't know if the HO would be lying or not. My point is that is all the law requires, for the shooter to profess a belief that if he did not take the action at the time, it would have resulted in bodily harm or murder of his family inside the dwelling. Once the shooter makes that statement in a court of law, the burden falls on the prosecution to convince the jury that his belief is unreasonable.

My point all along has been that the way that the laws are worded give more weight to the shooter's state of mind than the actual events because one can reasonably believe something that isn't true. It happens all the time. There is a very good chance that this HO really did believe that this figure in his yard meant him and his family real harm. So he shot him, because of that belief. And there's nothing really to say that his belief was unreasonable at the time he pulled the trigger. I think it was reasonable.

However it was not based on fact or rooted in observation, because we now know (which the HO did not at the time) that the kid was unarmed. Does the fact that the kid turned out to be unarmed make the shooter's belief at the time unreasonable? NO. It was still perfectly reasonable for this man to assume the kid had some kind of weapon and meant him or his family harm.

So if this guy gets convicted, it means the external reality of the situation mattered more to the jurors, and since the man did not actually see a gun, or other projectile weapon, his belief was unreasonable. But given the way the law is worded, and the direction the jury will receive, I find this highly unlikely in this case.

The HO is the son of a guy who ran for Sheriff several times so it's reasonable to assume he has more knowledge of the law than your average citizen. So I think it's also reasonable to say that his knowledge of the law might have influenced his decision making at the time.

 

[matttyl]

So how it is it not exactly like I said. All this guy has to say is "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family" and the burden shifts to the prosecution to show his belief in unreasonable. That's how it works.

The shooter simply has to say those words, and it becomes the prosecutions burden to prove to the jury that his belief was unreasonable.

See, now you've got it. Just because the HO says one thing doesn't make it so and won't alone make him innocent of any crime (like you said originally). We have these amazing things called juries, made up of our peers. Maybe you'll find yourself on one and you can decide for yourself what you find reasonable or not.

 

[kentric]

So I should confess I made a horrible mistake last night. At roughly 1:25 AM after watching a movie with my wife and preparing to go to bed - my dog made a grumbling noise and stared at me. With this dog it can either be that she heard something outside which has upset her, or she needs to be let out to go to the bathroom. I assumed the second. I really should have assumed the first and called the police to come "do their job" before I dare go outside on my own property - as I could have turned into a child killer.

Is that what all the anti-HOers are claiming here?

Or, if you were concerned about someone being outside, you could look out your window. But feel free to go outside packing. Maybe you'll find a little kid to shoot. <_<

Anything which cannot be easily discerned through a window in the middle of the night should require a police presence, obviously. In fact, I feel a little stupid - I went from my bedroom to my bathroom in the middle of the night without a police escort last night. God knows what might have happened.

Good thing you stayed indoors. Your actions were commendable. So many potential problems can be rectified by not taking unnecessary actions..

 

[Clifford]

So how it is it not exactly like I said. All this guy has to say is "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family" and the burden shifts to the prosecution to show his belief in unreasonable. That's how it works.

The shooter simply has to say those words, and it becomes the prosecutions burden to prove to the jury that his belief was unreasonable.

See, now you've got it. Just because the HO says one thing doesn't make it so and won't alone make him innocent of any crime (like you said originally). We have these amazing things called juries, made up of our peers. Maybe you'll find yourself on one and you can decide for yourself what you find reasonable or not.

Look, this is what I have been saying all along. You've engaged in selective reading and not gotten it. This is the point I have been making all along.

If you are the prosecution, how would you go about convincing a jury of his peers that his belief, at the time he shot, was unreasonable?

Personally I think it's impossible. The only argument the prosecution has is that the man obviously did not see a weapon. Unless the kid pulls out of it and can take the stand, but it sounds like if he does live it would be with massive impairment. Don't know if he has improved.

 

[cstu]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

So section 3 does not apply to his case?

No, it fully applies, you're just reading it wrong.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.what part?

Reasonably - something you're not being in this thread. Kinda like you bringing up "turn the other cheek" or the 5th (or 6th) Commandment into this thread when the line "person A shot person B" wasn't very reasonable. You're making assumptions that aren't there to be made.Saying what you said above likely isn't "reasonable" in the eyes of a jury. Believing one's life is in danger when confronted with a burglar who's hopped a fence onto my property at 2AM who when I tell to freeze reaches for his waistband instead is likely very reasonable in the eyes of a jury.

His point, which I completely agree with, is that if someone is willing to lie then they can get away with murdering a trespasser.

I don't know if the HO would be lying or not. My point is that is all the law requires, for the shooter to profess a belief that if he did not take the action at the time, it would have resulted in bodily harm or murder of his family inside the dwelling. Once the shooter makes that statement in a court of law, the burden falls on the prosecution to convince the jury that his belief is unreasonable.

My point all along has been that the way that the laws are worded give more weight to the shooter's state of mind than the actual events because one can reasonably believe something that isn't true. It happens all the time. There is a very good chance that this HO really did believe that this figure in his yard meant him and his family real harm. So he shot him, because of that belief. And there's nothing really to say that his belief was unreasonable at the time he pulled the trigger. I think it was reasonable.

However it was not based on fact or rooted in observation, because we now know (which the HO did not at the time) that the kid was unarmed. Does the fact that the kid turned out to be unarmed make the shooter's belief at the time unreasonable? NO. It was still perfectly reasonable for this man to assume the kid had some kind of weapon and meant him or his family harm.

So if this guy gets convicted, it means the external reality of the situation mattered more to the jurors, and since the man did not actually see a gun, or other projectile weapon, his belief was unreasonable. But given the way the law is worded, and the direction the jury will receive, I find this highly unlikely in this case.

The HO is the son of a guy who ran for Sheriff several times so it's reasonable to assume he has more knowledge of the law than your average citizen. So I think it's also reasonable to say that his knowledge of the law might have influenced his decision making at the time.

Right, it made him aware that he's not going to do any jail time for killing a trespasser as long as he says he saw him reach for a gun.

 

[matttyl]

Talk about some HUGE ASSuptions being made above! Wow.....

 

[Clifford]

So rejoice, gun-owners, in LA at least, still have the right to kill people for trespassing, so long as you can make yourself say "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family."

No matter how many times you try to spin it, you're still wrong.

So section 3 does not apply to his case?

No, it fully applies, you're just reading it wrong.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.what part?

Reasonably - something you're not being in this thread. Kinda like you bringing up "turn the other cheek" or the 5th (or 6th) Commandment into this thread when the line "person A shot person B" wasn't very reasonable. You're making assumptions that aren't there to be made.Saying what you said above likely isn't "reasonable" in the eyes of a jury. Believing one's life is in danger when confronted with a burglar who's hopped a fence onto my property at 2AM who when I tell to freeze reaches for his waistband instead is likely very reasonable in the eyes of a jury.

His point, which I completely agree with, is that if someone is willing to lie then they can get away with murdering a trespasser.

I don't know if the HO would be lying or not. My point is that is all the law requires, for the shooter to profess a belief that if he did not take the action at the time, it would have resulted in bodily harm or murder of his family inside the dwelling. Once the shooter makes that statement in a court of law, the burden falls on the prosecution to convince the jury that his belief is unreasonable.

My point all along has been that the way that the laws are worded give more weight to the shooter's state of mind than the actual events because one can reasonably believe something that isn't true. It happens all the time. There is a very good chance that this HO really did believe that this figure in his yard meant him and his family real harm. So he shot him, because of that belief. And there's nothing really to say that his belief was unreasonable at the time he pulled the trigger. I think it was reasonable.

However it was not based on fact or rooted in observation, because we now know (which the HO did not at the time) that the kid was unarmed. Does the fact that the kid turned out to be unarmed make the shooter's belief at the time unreasonable? NO. It was still perfectly reasonable for this man to assume the kid had some kind of weapon and meant him or his family harm.

So if this guy gets convicted, it means the external reality of the situation mattered more to the jurors, and since the man did not actually see a gun, or other projectile weapon, his belief was unreasonable. But given the way the law is worded, and the direction the jury will receive, I find this highly unlikely in this case.

The HO is the son of a guy who ran for Sheriff several times so it's reasonable to assume he has more knowledge of the law than your average citizen. So I think it's also reasonable to say that his knowledge of the law might have influenced his decision making at the time.

Right, it made him aware that he's not going to do any jail time for killing a trespasser as long as he says he saw him reach for a gun.

Certainly is not unreasonable to think this might have been the case.

 

[matttyl]

So how it is it not exactly like I said. All this guy has to say is "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family" and the burden shifts to the prosecution to show his belief in unreasonable. That's how it works.

The shooter simply has to say those words, and it becomes the prosecutions burden to prove to the jury that his belief was unreasonable.

See, now you've got it. Just because the HO says one thing doesn't make it so and won't alone make him innocent of any crime (like you said originally). We have these amazing things called juries, made up of our peers. Maybe you'll find yourself on one and you can decide for yourself what you find reasonable or not.

Look, this is what I have been saying all along. You've engaged in selective reading and not gotten it. This is the point I have been making all along.

If you are the prosecution, how would you go about convincing a jury of his peers that his belief, at the time he shot, was unreasonable?

Personally I think it's impossible. The only argument the prosecution has is that the man obviously did not see a weapon. Unless the kid pulls out of it and can take the stand, but it sounds like if he does live it would be with massive impairment. Don't know if he has improved.

No, I've read every single word here. You've been selective in the words you choose to type. It's always up to the prosecution to prove the guilt of a defendant. This case is no different. But it's not just the defendant's word that will decide the outcome - that job is out of their hands entirely. That job is for a jury.

 

[cstu]

So how it is it not exactly like I said. All this guy has to say is "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family" and the burden shifts to the prosecution to show his belief in unreasonable. That's how it works.

The shooter simply has to say those words, and it becomes the prosecutions burden to prove to the jury that his belief was unreasonable.

See, now you've got it. Just because the HO says one thing doesn't make it so and won't alone make him innocent of any crime (like you said originally). We have these amazing things called juries, made up of our peers. Maybe you'll find yourself on one and you can decide for yourself what you find reasonable or not.

Look, this is what I have been saying all along. You've engaged in selective reading and not gotten it. This is the point I have been making all along.

If you are the prosecution, how would you go about convincing a jury of his peers that his belief, at the time he shot, was unreasonable?

Personally I think it's impossible. The only argument the prosecution has is that the man obviously did not see a weapon. Unless the kid pulls out of it and can take the stand, but it sounds like if he does live it would be with massive impairment. Don't know if he has improved.

Exactly. The only way to do it is if you could do it if you can a stack of his posting on some white power site talking about how much he wanted to kill a black person or something else just an incriminating. Otherwise you have nothing.

 

[cstu]

Talk about some HUGE ASSuptions being made above! Wow.....

I'm not saying that in this case that's what happened, but it's something that COULD happen in a similar case.

If I was on the jury I'd have no choice but to find him not guilty.

 

[matttyl]

Certainly is not unreasonable to think this might have been the case.

Even if true, so what?

Are you saying he should he be punished for knowing the law better than most?!

 

[Clifford]

So how it is it not exactly like I said. All this guy has to say is "I thought if I didn't shoot him he would break into my house and kill my family" and the burden shifts to the prosecution to show his belief in unreasonable. That's how it works.

The shooter simply has to say those words, and it becomes the prosecutions burden to prove to the jury that his belief was unreasonable.

See, now you've got it. Just because the HO says one thing doesn't make it so and won't alone make him innocent of any crime (like you said originally). We have these amazing things called juries, made up of our peers. Maybe you'll find yourself on one and you can decide for yourself what you find reasonable or not.

Look, this is what I have been saying all along. You've engaged in selective reading and not gotten it. This is the point I have been making all along.

If you are the prosecution, how would you go about convincing a jury of his peers that his belief, at the time he shot, was unreasonable?

Personally I think it's impossible. The only argument the prosecution has is that the man obviously did not see a weapon. Unless the kid pulls out of it and can take the stand, but it sounds like if he does live it would be with massive impairment. Don't know if he has improved.

No, I've read every single word here. You've been selective in the words you choose to type. It's always up to the prosecution to prove the guilt of a defendant. This case is no different. But it's not just the defendant's word that will decide the outcome - that job is out of their hands entirely. That job is for a jury.

You're not examining the practicality of what the law is asking the prosecution to do.

 

[matttyl]

Exactly. The only way to do it is if you could do it if you can a stack of his posting on some white power site talking about how much he wanted to kill a black person or something else just an incriminating. Otherwise you have nothing.

Not at all. A case in Texas comes to mind.....

http://www.youblawg.com/criminal-law/texas-man-convicted-of-killing-neighbor-despite-stand-your-ground-defense

 

[matttyl]

You're not examining the practicality of what the law is asking the prosecution to do.

No, I am. The law is asking a jury to decide what they think. Why is that wrong?

 

[Clifford]

Certainly is not unreasonable to think this might have been the case.

Even if true, so what?

Are you saying he should he be punished for knowing the law better than most?!

No, I am (and have been) saying that the way the laws are worded make it incredibly hard for the prosecution to convict in these cases. Having a better than average knowledge of that might have made him shoot before someone without that knowledge should have. Not saying it did, just saying it's a possibility.

Look, I've explained my POV as clearly as it can be explained. I don't know how many more ways to put it. Just go back and read my more lengthy explanation a few posts up.

 

[Clifford]

Exactly. The only way to do it is if you could do it if you can a stack of his posting on some white power site talking about how much he wanted to kill a black person or something else just an incriminating. Otherwise you have nothing.

Not at all. A case in Texas comes to mind.....

http://www.youblawg.com/criminal-law/texas-man-convicted-of-killing-neighbor-despite-stand-your-ground-defense

This pretty much proves my point

Jury Rejects Rodriguez’s Self-Defense ClaimProsecutors argued that Rodriguez could not rely on the Castle Doctrine because he provoked the confrontation by showing up at his neighbor’s house. They also argue that he engaged in criminal activity prior to the shooting by attacking an unarmed person. They relied on testimony from Rodriguez’s ex-wife, former coworkers and other neighbors to present an image of Rodriguez as an abusive person and a bad neighbor. Someone even testified that Rodriguez had once shot a dog. Prosecutors argued that the taped confrontation was too deliberate and that Rodriguez used phrases learned from a concealed handgun class in attempt to get away with murder.

 

[cstu]

Exactly. The only way to do it is if you could do it if you can a stack of his posting on some white power site talking about how much he wanted to kill a black person or something else just an incriminating. Otherwise you have nothing.

Not at all. A case in Texas comes to mind.....

http://www.youblawg.com/criminal-law/texas-man-convicted-of-killing-neighbor-despite-stand-your-ground-defense

Obviously you can't provoke someone into attacking you so you can kill them.

We're talking here about shooting someone in your yard in the middle of the night. It's very difficult to find a guy guilty as long as he does and says the right things when the police arrive and there are no other eyewitnesses.

 

[Clifford]

You're not examining the practicality of what the law is asking the prosecution to do.

No, I am. The law is asking a jury to decide what they think. Why is that wrong?

Look, I'm done. If you don't see it you're not going to. Peace.

 

[matttyl]

You're not examining the practicality of what the law is asking the prosecution to do.

No, I am. The law is asking a jury to decide what they think. Why is that wrong?

Look, I'm done. If you don't see it you're not going to. Peace.

Clifford, you above already claimed to "see it". You said yourself that you find it reasonable to think that the HO was in fear for his life or of harm. Therefore you must find him innocent of any murder charge.

So you're saying the law should be changed. Ok, to what? Why is it wrong to ask a jury of someone's peers if they think that a person's actions are reasonable or not? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, are you going to change that to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation?

I posted the above case from Texas as with it the person's actions were not deemed reasonable to the jury. Maybe (likely) in this case they will be.

HO finds intruder on his property at 2 AM who doesn't comply with his command to freeze. Not sure we have to go any further than that on the "reality of the situation". The intruder had already committed one crime (trespassing) and was likely in the midst of committing another (burglary), and given the "reality of the situation" the HO could easily have believed his life was in danger.

If the kid hadn't been attempting to steal, he wouldn't have been shot. If the kid hadn't trespassed, he wouldn't have been shot. If his mother/brother had kept a better eye on him and made sure he wasn't out at 2 AM that morning, he wouldn't have been shot. But you're right - it's the homeowner's fault.

 

[Clifford]

You're not examining the practicality of what the law is asking the prosecution to do.

No, I am. The law is asking a jury to decide what they think. Why is that wrong?

Look, I'm done. If you don't see it you're not going to. Peace.

Clifford, you above already claimed to "see it". You said yourself that you find it reasonable to think that the HO was in fear for his life or of harm. Therefore you must find him innocent of any murder charge.

So you're saying the law should be changed. Ok, to what? Why is it wrong to ask a jury of someone's peers if they think that a person's actions are reasonable or not? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, are you going to change that to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation?

I posted the above case from Texas as with it the person's actions were not deemed reasonable to the jury. Maybe (likely) in this case they will be.

HO finds intruder on his property at 2 AM who doesn't comply with his command to freeze. Not sure we have to go any further than that on the "reality of the situation". The intruder had already committed one crime (trespassing) and was likely in the midst of committing another (burglary), and given the "reality of the situation" the HO could easily have believed his life was in danger.

If the kid hadn't been attempting to steal, he wouldn't have been shot. If the kid hadn't trespassed, he wouldn't have been shot. If his mother/brother had kept a better eye on him and made sure he wasn't out at 2 AM that morning, he wouldn't have been shot. But you're right - it's the homeowner's fault.

You really can't pull your head out of what you want me to be saying can you? Look, if you ever want to discuss this without your emotions ruling the day, I'll try again, but this closing comment tells me you can't do that. Also crossed out your stealing assumption. The only crime the kid committed that night was trespassing.

 

[matttyl]

If you're going to use hindsight (the fact that the HO's father ran for sheriff and therefore he's an expert on the law, the fact that he's a kid, the fact that he was unarmed), I'll use the fact that he's had issues with burglary in the past.

 

[matttyl]

The only crime the kid committed that night was trespassing.

First off, you can't assume that at all. Maybe this was the 3rd house the kid hit up that night. I'm not saying it is, but I am saying you can't assume this was the only crime he committed.

And given the circumstances (none of which are hindsight) that he could only do so by hopping a fence put up to keep trespassers out - and the fact that it was 2 AM - and the fact that it's a very high crime area - and that he didn't do what the HO told him to do when confronted - is really all that's needed here.

 

[Henry Ford]

You really can't pull your head out of what you want me to be saying can you? Look, if you ever want to discuss this without your emotions ruling the day, I'll try again, but this closing comment tells me you can't do that. Also crossed out your stealing assumption. The only crime the kid committed that night was trespassing.

I would appreciate your link to the investigative report stating that. I haven't been able to find it.

At the very least, if he spent any time whatsoever about two blocks away from this guy's house on the main streets, he violated the city's curfew law for minors. But I don't think there's been a report regarding that issue.

 

[Chaka]

You're not examining the practicality of what the law is asking the prosecution to do.

No, I am. The law is asking a jury to decide what they think. Why is that wrong?

Look, I'm done. If you don't see it you're not going to. Peace.

Clifford, you above already claimed to "see it". You said yourself that you find it reasonable to think that the HO was in fear for his life or of harm. Therefore you must find him innocent of any murder charge.

So you're saying the law should be changed. Ok, to what? Why is it wrong to ask a jury of someone's peers if they think that a person's actions are reasonable or not? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, are you going to change that to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation?

I posted the above case from Texas as with it the person's actions were not deemed reasonable to the jury. Maybe (likely) in this case they will be.

HO finds intruder on his property at 2 AM who doesn't comply with his command to freeze. Not sure we have to go any further than that on the "reality of the situation". The intruder had already committed one crime (trespassing) and was likely in the midst of committing another (burglary), and given the "reality of the situation" the HO could easily have believed his life was in danger.

If the kid hadn't been attempting to steal, he wouldn't have been shot. If the kid hadn't trespassed, he wouldn't have been shot. If his mother/brother had kept a better eye on him and made sure he wasn't out at 2 AM that morning, he wouldn't have been shot. But you're right - it's the homeowner's fault.

Burglary implies entering the home when this case looks like it was the car. That is an important distinction.

 

[Henry Ford]

You're not examining the practicality of what the law is asking the prosecution to do.

No, I am. The law is asking a jury to decide what they think. Why is that wrong?

Look, I'm done. If you don't see it you're not going to. Peace.

Clifford, you above already claimed to "see it". You said yourself that you find it reasonable to think that the HO was in fear for his life or of harm. Therefore you must find him innocent of any murder charge.

So you're saying the law should be changed. Ok, to what? Why is it wrong to ask a jury of someone's peers if they think that a person's actions are reasonable or not? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, are you going to change that to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation?

I posted the above case from Texas as with it the person's actions were not deemed reasonable to the jury. Maybe (likely) in this case they will be.

HO finds intruder on his property at 2 AM who doesn't comply with his command to freeze. Not sure we have to go any further than that on the "reality of the situation". The intruder had already committed one crime (trespassing) and was likely in the midst of committing another (burglary), and given the "reality of the situation" the HO could easily have believed his life was in danger.

If the kid hadn't been attempting to steal, he wouldn't have been shot. If the kid hadn't trespassed, he wouldn't have been shot. If his mother/brother had kept a better eye on him and made sure he wasn't out at 2 AM that morning, he wouldn't have been shot. But you're right - it's the homeowner's fault.

Burglary implies entering the home when this case looks like it was the car. That is an important distinction.

You can say whatever you want about what it implies, but the legal definition includes vehicles.

 

[jon_mx]

The only crime the kid committed that night was trespassing.

And given the circumstances (none of which are hindsight) that he could only do so by hopping a fence put up to keep trespassers out - and the fact that it was 2 AM - and the fact that it's a very high crime area - and that he didn't do what the HO told him to do when confronted - is really all that's needed here.

The time of day and the fact that there is a fense, should not change anything from a legal standpoint. It may impact a jury. If there is evidence which shows the kid was trying to get away, this guy is guilty of manslaughter in my eyes. If there is nothing, you have to take his word and not even take him to trial.

 

[matttyl]

The only crime the kid committed that night was trespassing.

And given the circumstances (none of which are hindsight) that he could only do so by hopping a fence put up to keep trespassers out - and the fact that it was 2 AM - and the fact that it's a very high crime area - and that he didn't do what the HO told him to do when confronted - is really all that's needed here.

The time of day and the fact that there is a fense, should not change anything from a legal standpoint. It may impact a jury. If there is evidence which shows the kid was trying to get away, this guy is guilty of manslaughter in my eyes. If there is nothing, you have to take his word and not even take him to trial.

The time of day and the fence hoping make the HO's word much more reasonable, so it does change things in a legal standpoint.

If it were 2 PM and there weren't a fence, and he could see the intruder much better (both in terms of his age to better gauge situation and better view to see if he was reaching for a weapon or not), thing would indeed be much, much different for him.

 

[matttyl]

Very interesting quote in recent article about this story that I hadn't thought of really....

But Loyola Law School professor Dane Ciolino said the benefit to Landry, should Coulter not survive, isn’t clear-cut.

“It’s mixed bag. If the kid doesn’t die, then (Landry) is going to bear the burden of proving self-defense. If the kid does die, than the state has the burden of proving it wasn’t."

 

[Clifford]

Weird. Why would the kid surviving shift the burden?

 

[cstu]

You're not examining the practicality of what the law is asking the prosecution to do.

No, I am. The law is asking a jury to decide what they think. Why is that wrong?

Look, I'm done. If you don't see it you're not going to. Peace.

Clifford, you above already claimed to "see it". You said yourself that you find it reasonable to think that the HO was in fear for his life or of harm. Therefore you must find him innocent of any murder charge.

So you're saying the law should be changed. Ok, to what? Why is it wrong to ask a jury of someone's peers if they think that a person's actions are reasonable or not? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, are you going to change that to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation?

I posted the above case from Texas as with it the person's actions were not deemed reasonable to the jury. Maybe (likely) in this case they will be.

HO finds intruder on his property at 2 AM who doesn't comply with his command to freeze. Not sure we have to go any further than that on the "reality of the situation". The intruder had already committed one crime (trespassing) and was likely in the midst of committing another (burglary), and given the "reality of the situation" the HO could easily have believed his life was in danger.

If the kid hadn't been attempting to steal, he wouldn't have been shot. If the kid hadn't trespassed, he wouldn't have been shot. If his mother/brother had kept a better eye on him and made sure he wasn't out at 2 AM that morning, he wouldn't have been shot. But you're right - it's the homeowner's fault.

I'm not going to disagree with anything you wrote, but had the HO yelled "Get out of my yard, I have a gun" it's very likely he never would have had to shoot anybody.

 

[matttyl]

Weird. Why would the kid surviving shift the burden?

Still wrapping my head around that one.

Full article -

http://theadvocate.com/news/6675915-123/marigny-shooting-case-hinges-on

 

[Chaka]

You're not examining the practicality of what the law is asking the prosecution to do.

No, I am. The law is asking a jury to decide what they think. Why is that wrong?

Look, I'm done. If you don't see it you're not going to. Peace.

Clifford, you above already claimed to "see it". You said yourself that you find it reasonable to think that the HO was in fear for his life or of harm. Therefore you must find him innocent of any murder charge.

So you're saying the law should be changed. Ok, to what? Why is it wrong to ask a jury of someone's peers if they think that a person's actions are reasonable or not? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, are you going to change that to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation?

I posted the above case from Texas as with it the person's actions were not deemed reasonable to the jury. Maybe (likely) in this case they will be.

HO finds intruder on his property at 2 AM who doesn't comply with his command to freeze. Not sure we have to go any further than that on the "reality of the situation". The intruder had already committed one crime (trespassing) and was likely in the midst of committing another (burglary), and given the "reality of the situation" the HO could easily have believed his life was in danger.

If the kid hadn't been attempting to steal, he wouldn't have been shot. If the kid hadn't trespassed, he wouldn't have been shot. If his mother/brother had kept a better eye on him and made sure he wasn't out at 2 AM that morning, he wouldn't have been shot. But you're right - it's the homeowner's fault.

Burglary implies entering the home when this case looks like it was the car. That is an important distinction.

You can say whatever you want about what it implies, but the legal definition includes vehicles.

Not according to the FBI (or wiki or legal dictionary for that matter) but the point is that the target was likely the car and not the home. That is a big distinction.

 

[matttyl]

I'm not going to disagree with anything you wrote, but had the HO yelled "Get out of my yard, I have a gun" it's very likely he never would have had to shoot anybody.

True, but that doesn't mean the actions that he did take were wrong or unjustified.

 

[Henry Ford]

You're not examining the practicality of what the law is asking the prosecution to do.

No, I am. The law is asking a jury to decide what they think. Why is that wrong?

Look, I'm done. If you don't see it you're not going to. Peace.

Clifford, you above already claimed to "see it". You said yourself that you find it reasonable to think that the HO was in fear for his life or of harm. Therefore you must find him innocent of any murder charge.

So you're saying the law should be changed. Ok, to what? Why is it wrong to ask a jury of someone's peers if they think that a person's actions are reasonable or not? The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, are you going to change that to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation?

I posted the above case from Texas as with it the person's actions were not deemed reasonable to the jury. Maybe (likely) in this case they will be.

HO finds intruder on his property at 2 AM who doesn't comply with his command to freeze. Not sure we have to go any further than that on the "reality of the situation". The intruder had already committed one crime (trespassing) and was likely in the midst of committing another (burglary), and given the "reality of the situation" the HO could easily have believed his life was in danger.

If the kid hadn't been attempting to steal, he wouldn't have been shot. If the kid hadn't trespassed, he wouldn't have been shot. If his mother/brother had kept a better eye on him and made sure he wasn't out at 2 AM that morning, he wouldn't have been shot. But you're right - it's the homeowner's fault.

Burglary implies entering the home when this case looks like it was the car. That is an important distinction.

You can say whatever you want about what it implies, but the legal definition includes vehicles.

Not according to the FBI (or wiki or legal dictionary for that matter) but the point is that the target was likely the car and not the home. That is a big distinction.

Well, according to the statute for burglary in Louisiana it does, and that's what he'd be charged under. If he were being charged under wikipedia law, you'd have a great point.

 

[matttyl]

Not according to the FBI (or wiki or legal dictionary for that matter) but the point is that the target was likely the car and not the home. That is a big distinction.

Um, yes it is....

Cut and paste, direct from wiki (which apparently you didn't read and/or comprehend).

United StatesBurglary is prosecuted as a felony or misdemeanor and involves trespassing and theft, entering a building or automobile, or loitering unlawfully with intent to commit any crime, not necessarily a theft – for example, vandalism.