|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,807
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,807 |
I say that in the fact you sit here and defend someone for setting up such a trap by saying that type of thing is within their rights and okay to do.
It seems you've done nothing but that in both the cases there are threads on. I was a hunter and shooter for decades. I am a firm believer in second amendment rights. I do believe that somewhere there is a big difference in defending oneself and setting up a trap to murder someone.
My comments are because some people are on the fringe. They are the outliers who make all gun owners look bad. They uphold cold blooded murder by trying to minimize people like the man in this article.
Yes, I do believe that in the end, that hurts the overall picture of gun owners and people who want to have the right to defend themselves a great deal. It serves as further evidence and examples of people so out of touch, that the anti gun people look like they have a point.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
You need to go back and look things over. I never commented on the thread about the guy that shot the two scumbag kids that broke into his house. This German kid should not have been in that garage. Trap or not, if he hadn't been there, he wouldn't have gotten shot. It's obvious he was up to no good and it cost him his life. I would have knocked on their door to let them know the woman's purse was on the car in an open garage. If the shooter in this case would have waited until there was an actual break in, he wouldn't be in trouble with the law. Yes, he set the guy up, but if I accidentally leave my garage open, I believe I have the right to shoot intruders, and it's also my right to quickly determine their intent. If I take the time to ask, they might shoot me first. My point all along is that this German kid got shot by performing an illegal act. If he'd not been breaking the law, he wouldn't have been shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I guess the home owner has to wait until the perp says, "I will kill you", or is shot at by the intruder? Why was this kid trespassing? Shouldn't he have known better than to trespass?
In today's society, whether in America, Germany, Turkey or anywhere else, the sad answer is: No. It's totally possible that knowing that trespassing and/or taking other people's things was wrong had never occurred to him. It's quite possible that he was never told that that it was wrong; not even once in his life.
If I were on the jury and I'm provided evidence that backs up the defendant in this case, I vote to acquit. Evidence of the deceased being in the home uninvited would be sufficient enough for me to acquit. If he was actually invited (and an open garage door and a purse left in view is not an invitation) into the garage and then slain, I would most assuredly vote to convict.
To me, it's not even a matter of whether the persons in the home felt threatened. I think, if the facts bear it out, that burglaries were happening in the neighborhood, then the threat of harm is implicit in that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,807
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,807 |
Quote:
Trap or not, if he hadn't been there, he wouldn't have gotten shot.
Here we simply disagree. Once you tell someone you are setting a trap in order to shoot someone, you made it your intent to shoot someone if any possibility, which you are intentionally trying to set up, presents itself.
Quote:
It's obvious he was up to no good and it cost him his life.
While that may or not be true, under your scenario, it could just as easily been one of your own teen aged children who just happened to have snuck out that night. Of course he did something wrong, so he should be shot, right?
That's one problem you seem to keep avoiding here. What if it were your child or other family member in that garage and you didn't know it? In this case it was more of a stake out than an unknowing type thing. But someone quite innocent could end up being a victim in the circumstances you describe and I believe most people understand just how easily that could happen.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
That German kid was shot because he was trespassing. He was in that garage, and shouldn't have been in there. Trap or not, he walked right into it.
Hopefully I have taught my kids right and wrong enough so they will not repeat the same mistake. As for sneaking out, I had my dad stick a gun in my face after sneaking out and sneaking back in once. It wasn't loaded, but the lesson we well learned.
My wife woke up early one morning and found a kid we didn't know asleep on the couch. She went back up stairs, got her gun, and tapped the kid on the forehead with the barrel. Turns out, my idiot 22 YO invited his buddy who got kicked out of his house to spend a night on our couch, without asking us. He learned a good lesson too, and no shots were fired.
You don't enter someone's property without permission, as bad things could happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
I'm just curious who here has ever gone into a strangers open garage or house uninvited. I think some kids at my school stole someones beer doing that? And some kids robbed my house once (sort of a stoner house back in highschool, took our ps2, gamecube, and a jar of quarters). I've personally never done it and consider it a pretty stupid idea. No one is saying "the punishment for trespassing should be death!". But I think it should remain a valid possibility of trespassing into a house. Into a yard? Hell no. Into a house, yes. Knock on the front door and you have no problems. Going into someones garage, well you just might get killed. I understand the german father is understandably upset his kid was killed. But then again he raised a (speculative) thief so he is probably not the best father in the world 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Eh, people are gun happy. I remember that my mother was almost shot by my grandmother when she was a kid because she wanted to have a midnight snack.
I also remember being around 6 or so and visiting my other grandma after school, so it's around noonish. Someone tried to break into our house through climbing into a back window. My Grandma saw him halfway through the window and invited him inside and made some tea and a sandwich for him. I remember sitting at the table with this man while my grandma lectured him and asked him resume questions so she could help him find work. She sent him on his way after he left and he vowed to never steal again. I don't know if he kept that vow, but I do know that he did get a job at a supermarket later.
The reason I shared this story was because I think you can truly reach people with kindness and that's something that's lacking in our populace. Real, day to day, kindness.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137 |
Quote:
The reason I shared this story was because I think you can truly reach people with kindness and that's something that's lacking in our populace. Real, day to day, kindness.
I think for the most part, you are correct. There are some though, that have physical and/or mental disorders rendering them incapable of responding to compassion, kindness or love. In the case of psychopaths, they are highly intelligent and can appear as if they are responding positively. They can fool the experts more than 40% of the time. Others that fall into the antisocial group aren't quite as calculating, but they too are just plain evil and unable to form emotional bonds with anyone. People with closed head injuries or under the influence don't have the capacity to be reasoned with. Mentally ill people who are delusional and/or hallucinating will respond to the thoughts/voices before they respond to you.
If someone's a direct threat to me or my family, I'm not going to do a mental status assessment before taking defensive action.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,807
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,807 |
Quote:
That German kid was shot because he was trespassing. He was in that garage, and shouldn't have been in there. Trap or not, he walked right into it.
Setting a trap and telling people you are waiting up to shoot people, when combined, shows intent.
Quote:
Hopefully I have taught my kids right and wrong enough so they will not repeat the same mistake.
"Hopefully" so. Or you may end up knowing how it feels on the other end of this story.
Quote:
As for sneaking out, I had my dad stick a gun in my face after sneaking out and sneaking back in once. It wasn't loaded, but the lesson we well learned.
Luckily it wasn't loaded and it wasn't a case of shoot first ask questions later as it very easily could have been considering your side of the debate in this case.
Quote:
My wife woke up early one morning and found a kid we didn't know asleep on the couch. She went back up stairs, got her gun, and tapped the kid on the forehead with the barrel. Turns out, my idiot 22 YO invited his buddy who got kicked out of his house to spend a night on our couch, without asking us. He learned a good lesson too, and no shots were fired.
according to what you seem to be advocating in this debate, you could have ended up with someone completely innocent killed here couldn't you?
Quote:
You don't enter someone's property without permission, as bad things could happen.
And you don't "set a trap", just start shooting when someone is in your garage, not your house, didn't force there way in....
Or you may end up facing murder charges just like the guy in this story.
You pointed out two stories in your own life, where if people didn't use some restraint, there could have been two people killed. One being yourself and one who did have permission to be where they were.
Yet you don't see the problem with your reasoning? I find that troubling and perplexing.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
Setting a trap and telling people you are waiting up to shoot people, when combined, shows intent.
Actually, you keep missing the point. If you don't put yourself in a position to be shot, chances are you won't be. I have never said a thing about the guy setting a trap, as he even admitted he did. I'm saying the German kid was where he shouldn't have been, giving the shooter an opportunity.
Quote:
"Hopefully" so. Or you may end up knowing how it feels on the other end of this story.
That's why we teach our kids right from wrong, huh? To keep them from getting killed over something stupid. The rest is up to them.
Quote:
Luckily it wasn't loaded and it wasn't a case of shoot first ask questions later as it very easily could have been considering your side of the debate in this case.
My side of the debate? See the point I made above and let me give it to you again. If you are in or on my property, and I believe you are a threat to me or my family, I will shoot you dead. I don't have to ask you questions. If I don't believe you are a threat, I might ask you questions.
Quote:
according to what you seem to be advocating in this debate, you could have ended up with someone completely innocent killed here couldn't you?
For all she knew, this drugged up kid could have already killed everyone else in the house and passed out before he could finish off the rest of us. She armed herself and decided to ask questions. Her choice.
Quote:
And you don't "set a trap", just start shooting when someone is in your garage, not your house, didn't force there way in....
Or you may end up facing murder charges just like the guy in this story.
You pointed out two stories in your own life, where if people didn't use some restraint, there could have been two people killed. One being yourself and one who did have permission to be where they were.
Yet you don't see the problem with your reasoning? I find that troubling and perplexing.
Once again, see my actual point at the beginning. If you don't put yourself in the position to be shot, chances are you won't be. I have never advocated a shoot first mentality. I have said that it's my right to defend me and mine as I see best. If I determine my best defense is to shoot, I will do so without asking your intent. My dad wasn't going to shoot me, his plan was to scare me. It worked. My wife, who is a crack shot, decided to ask questions first.
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
Rule #5: When they are down or disabled, stop shooting. The intent is to protect yourself and your family, not to kill people.
Wrong. Keep pulling the trigger until the gun is empty. That will show just how afraid you were for your life. If the cops show up and you're still pulling the trigger, they'll be sure you were scared to death.
I'm assuming I am misinterpreting you because I wouldn't recommend shooting a gun when cops show up. They have no idea what happened and can very likely believe you're the "bad guy."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Let's consider what we know.
1. Suspect shoots and kills foreign exchange student from Germany.
2. Foreign exchange student was where he shouldn't have been.
3. Suspect says that there have been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood, including his own home which he says was targeted twice by burglars.
4. Suspect says that surveillance system was set up to catch perpetrators in the act.
5. Suspect states that he set up a trap (a scenario) that would lure those with criminal intent into his home by leaving the garage door open and leaving a woman's purse in view.
6. The deceased foreign exchange student was in the suspect's home uninvited.
7. Homeowner shot and killed uninvited foreign exchange student while the deceased was criminally in the suspect's home.
8. We don't know what the video shows.
If the video shows the deceased taking anything from the garage or rifling through the woman's purse, personally, I would acquit entirely with not only a 'Not Guilty' verdict, but that the man was wholly innocent of any charges whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137 |
Quote:
5. Suspect states that he set up a trap (a scenario) that would lure those with criminal intent into his home by leaving the garage door open and leaving a woman's purse in view.
You left out the part that says "with the intention of shooting them". This was premeditated murder. He knew someone would take the bait, otherwise he wouldn't have set the trap. This jackwad wanted to shoot someone, and he set up an ambush and killed someone. There was no innocent victim in this situation. Both sides committed a crime.
Those of us that keep and bear arms for self defense pray that we never have to exercise the right to use them. We avoid situations where we would have to use deadly force, we don't manufacture those situations.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
Did Zimmerman manufacture his own situation?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430 |
OK, just a few general and related questions.
1) Doesn't the castle doctrine apply only in event the homeowner feels that his/her life in is danger? I don't believe that it applies to theft, does it? I don't recall seeing anything in any of these laws that lets you open fire on someone because they are running off with your weed whacker, You have to be in fear for your life, and someone doing a sneak and grab of something out of your garage would not seem to apply IMHO.
2) Is the garage of a house, with the door open, considered to be part of the "castle"?
3) Does castle doctrine apply to burglary? (related to #1) If there is no threat to person,as in your final example, then the castle doctrine would not seem to me to apply. There has to be a combination of an intruder in the home, and a reasonable threat of violence and/or harm to someone living in the home. Castle doctrine, to the best of my knowledge, does not allow you to blast a burglar in the back as he's carrying off your TV. If it only allows you to shoot if you feel that your life is in danger, then whether or not the purse was out in the open, and whether or not anyone went through the purse, is irrelevant.
As far as I can tell, there has to be a threat to someone in the home before a homeowner can claim protections under the law. How is someone who left a purse laying on a car in an open garage, waiting while armed, threatened? I cannot see such a case working in favor of the homeowner, no matter what was stolen or not.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
1. Yes
2. In my opinion, yes.
3. No.
Castle doctrine only applies (in my opinion, and I am not a lawyer) to situation where you feel you or someone else in the house is in imminent danger of physical harm or death.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rule #5: When they are down or disabled, stop shooting. The intent is to protect yourself and your family, not to kill people.
Wrong. Keep pulling the trigger until the gun is empty. That will show just how afraid you were for your life. If the cops show up and you're still pulling the trigger, they'll be sure you were scared to death.
I'm assuming I am misinterpreting you because I wouldn't recommend shooting a gun when cops show up. They have no idea what happened and can very likely believe you're the "bad guy."
If the cops show up and see you pulling the trigger of an empty gun aimed at the bad guy, they'll assume you are severely freaked out. I never said to reload and keep shooting him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
And further more - know what you are shooting, and WHY you are shooting.
Here's real life: A guy breaks into your home. He has 5 guns on him, brandishes 1 or 2, says he's going to kill you. You shoot him - not time to call 911.........you shoot him and kill him.
Cops show up 2 to 15 minutes later. They take notes. Cops even tell you "from what we can discern, you were 100% within your rights"..........you're still getting hauled in and will spend at least the night in jail.
Now, it USED to be (in ohio) you had to prove you could not flee before shooting. The way castle doctrine works - the dude that entered your house has to prove he was allowed to be there.
You, either way, will get sued for taking the life or injuring someone..........but with castle doctrine the burden of proof is on the intruder, not you.
Again - castle doctrine does NOT give you free reign to just shoot.........you need to be in fear of your personal safety.........and that is probably a fine line.........but remember, you WILL have to answer to a jury.
Shoot someone in the back? You're probably going to be held culpable. If the intruder doesn't have a weapon of any sort? You're probably going to be held culpable. Shoot a guy in your house, that had a gun in his hands? You're still going to get taken in, although your defense is bolstered by the weapon the intruder had - it makes "I was in fear of my life" a lot more believable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430 |
I agree with you that the garage could be part of the castle, but only if there was an imminent threat of physical harm or death. (as i understand the law)
For example, if someone was chasing you saying "I'm going to kill you", and you ran into your garage and managed to get a guy out of the trunk of your car, or some such instance, then that would be a legally acceptable (IMHO) example of applying the castle doctrine. Another might be of someone was in the garage, and trying to force their way into the home through the door between the garage and house, and someone in the home felt at risk.
I agree with you that theft, or the prevention of theft, does not allow someone to use deadly force.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
I'll say it again: Castle doctrine does not give you the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. But it DOES put the burden of proof on the intruder as opposed to the home owner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137 |
Quote:
Did Zimmerman manufacture his own situation?
He didn't lay a trap, but he pursued someone while carrying a weapon. If you follow a suspected criminal, you'd have to realize there's a chance you'll have to defend yourself. If you're carrying, that means using your weapon. I feel that a person that carries a firearm is responsible for trying to avoid situations in which he may have use it. You don't go looking for "opportunities".
To answer your question, I don't think Zimmerman manufactured the situation, but he should not have pursued Trayvon while carrying. Only law enforcement has that authority. This was definitely a case for reckless manslaughter, and I would have agreed with the conviction. It's too bad the prosecution bowed to the pressure of the media and special interest groups and got greedy.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
I agree with you that the garage could be part of the castle, but only if there was an imminent threat of physical harm or death. (as i understand the law)
For example, if someone was chasing you saying "I'm going to kill you", and you ran into your garage and managed to get a guy out of the trunk of your car, or some such instance, then that would be a legally acceptable (IMHO) example of applying the castle doctrine. Another might be of someone was in the garage, and trying to force their way into the home through the door between the garage and house, and someone in the home felt at risk.
I agree with you that theft, or the prevention of theft, does not allow someone to use deadly force.
What are you doing with a guy in your trunk? is that like a trunk monkey?
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Did Zimmerman manufacture his own situation?
No, he stalked a kid and when Trayvon "stood his ground" Zimmerman murdered him. But for these purposes, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I agree with you that theft, or the prevention of theft, does not allow someone to use deadly force.
It depends on how the statute is written. Some of the ones that I've seen permit the use of deadly force to prevent any perceived felony.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,079
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,079 |
Quote:
Did Zimmerman manufacture his own situation?
Not before the fact, but certainly during.
"Sir, we don't need you to do that-"
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,430 |
Quote:
Quote:
I agree with you that theft, or the prevention of theft, does not allow someone to use deadly force.
It depends on how the statute is written. Some of the ones that I've seen permit the use of deadly force to prevent any perceived felony.
I would hate to put anyone in the position of killing someone to prevent a theft. (even of, say, a car, or other larger, expensive object) To me, that would be murder. Self defense, (or defending your family) against even merely a perceived threat by someone who had broken into your home, that I can see. However, defending property against theft with deadly force ..... no, that I would not agree with.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
Quote:
For example, if someone was chasing you saying "I'm going to kill you",
Not sure if this adds anything but my understanding is you can shoot such a person dead in the street regardless of castle doctrines.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
For example, if someone was chasing you saying "I'm going to kill you",
Not sure if this adds anything but my understanding is you can shoot such a person dead in the street regardless of castle doctrines.
Castle doctrine doesn't stand or apply in the streets. That is "stand your ground" area. However, if someone is chasing you down in public, and they have a weapon and say "i'm going to kill you", please, stop them. And hope common sense jurors are on your jury.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
Entering someone's property without announcing yourself or without invitation is really pretty stupid especially in western states with high rates of gun ownership. Stupid.. stupid.. stupid More than half of Montana is armed. States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners(more than 50%) •1. Wyoming - 59.7% •2. Alaska - 57.8% •3. Montana - 57.7% •4. South Dakota - 56.6% •5. West Virginia - 55.4% •6. Mississippi - 55.3% •6. Idaho - 55.3% •6. Arkansas - 55.3% webbage
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Thank you for common sense.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks the correct response of theft is killing them. Jesus, not even the 3rd World Countries are that bad.
If you want to kill that badly just get Call of Duty and Xbox One.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
1. Not in Florida, no. No specific threat is required. Only a "forcible and illegal entry". I've quoted this several times, and the law was posted more than once during the Zimmerman case.
2. A garage that is attached to the house is part of the house. A garage that is not attached, is still a defensible part of your property. Again, in Florida, no threat or crime other than the "forcible and illegal entry" is required.
3. In Florida, use of lethal force to prevent a forcible felony is acceptable. Whether burglary is "forcible" is a question. If the intruder has broken in to your home, and you are already outside, you can shoot him thru the window.
That's the law in my state. I've researched it, memorized it, watched a number of hearings and debates on it. Questioned it with judges, discussed it with prosecutors. I like it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
Jc
If someone forcibly enters your property how are you supposed to know if they are there to rob you or rape and murder you. How do you propose to find out? Ask them to sit down for tea so you can ask them?
As a victim of home invasion I can tell you that it is terrifying and you will do whatever you have to to get them out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
In Florida, use of lethal force to prevent a forcible felony is acceptable. Whether burglary is "forcible" is a question.
Burglary is indeed considered in Florida to be a "forcible felony" (which is a statutorily defined term).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
5. Suspect states that he set up a trap (a scenario) that would lure those with criminal intent into his home by leaving the garage door open and leaving a woman's purse in view.
Quote:
You left out the part that says "with the intention of shooting them".
I didn't leave it out. It doesn't seem relevant to me. But okay, "...with the intention of shooting them."
Quote:
This was premeditated murder.
Why? Because the deceased person shouldn't have been in the man's house, regardless of whether the owner intended to use deadly force or not to protect his life or property?
Quote:
He knew someone would take the bait, otherwise he wouldn't have set the trap.
He suspected (even if he says that he knew) and again, it's immaterial. The criminal entered the man's home uninvited AND unannounced.
Quote:
This jackwad wanted to shoot someone, and he set up an ambush and killed someone. There was no innocent victim in this situation. Both sides committed a crime.
Alright. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I disagree. If I were on the jury, I would vote to find the man innocent, if these are the facts. If your argument for conviction is that the burglar is dead and that the guy laid a trap for him, then you're barking up the wrong tree.
If you park your car in your driveway but leave the keys in it and the car running while you quickly run inside for something that you forgot, would you say that you baited the criminal into stealing your car? You purposely left your car running knowing that a criminal could come by and take it, especially if there were a rash of car thefts in your neighborhood. So, the car thief is only doing what car thieves do, right?
The burglar (in this case, the student) was 100% wrong and your argument comes down to saying that the residents were also 100% wrong.
Quote:
Those of us that keep and bear arms for self defense pray that we never have to exercise the right to use them. We avoid situations where we would have to use deadly force, we don't manufacture those situations.
They didn't manufacture the situation. The person entering the home uninvited, whether it's through an open garage door, an unlocked door anywhere or a window or an unsecured cellar door, is the one that manufactured the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
OK, just a few general and related questions.
1) Doesn't the castle doctrine apply only in event the homeowner feels that his/her life in is danger? I don't believe that it applies to theft, does it?
It depends on how the law is written. Texas has a law where you can appoint someone to protect your property in case of absence.
Quote:
I don't recall seeing anything in any of these laws that lets you open fire on someone because they are running off with your weed whacker, You have to be in fear for your life, and someone doing a sneak and grab of something out of your garage would not seem to apply IMHO.
You might remember the case of Joe Horn.
Quote:
2) Is the garage of a house, with the door open, considered to be part of the "castle"?
Indeed it is. These aren't 'stand your ground' laws where you could be anywhere (i.e., at the corner convenience store) when a robbery suspect comes in and tries to rob the place.
Quote:
3) Does castle doctrine apply to burglary? (related to #1) If there is no threat to person,as in your final example, then the castle doctrine would not seem to me to apply. There has to be a combination of an intruder in the home, and a reasonable threat of violence and/or harm to someone living in the home. Castle doctrine, to the best of my knowledge, does not allow you to blast a burglar in the back as he's carrying off your TV. If it only allows you to shoot if you feel that your life is in danger, then whether or not the purse was out in the open, and whether or not anyone went through the purse, is irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Wouldn't ANY uninvited person willfully committing a crime in one's home, by inference, be deemed a threat? You're asking the dweller, their invited guests or whoever else is lawfully in the home, to get into the mind of the criminal and to determine intent. That's a leap that I'm not willing to require of them.
Quote:
As far as I can tell, there has to be a threat to someone in the home before a homeowner can claim protections under the law. How is someone who left a purse laying on a car in an open garage, waiting while armed, threatened? I cannot see such a case working in favor of the homeowner, no matter what was stolen or not.
You see, you're asking the persons lawfully in the home to determine the intentions of someone that isn't lawfully in the home. I don't give a damn if I decided to pave my driveway from my property line to my house with solid gold bars, that doesn't make it an invitation for others to come onto my property to pry them up and carry them off.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137 |
Quote:
If you park your car in your driveway but leave the keys in it and the car running while you quickly run inside for something that you forgot, would you say that you baited the criminal into stealing your car? You purposely left your car running knowing that a criminal could come by and take it, especially if there were a rash of car thefts in your neighborhood. So, the car thief is only doing what car thieves do, right?
In this scenario, I didn't manufacture a plan to leave the car running so I could wait in ambush and shoot someone that tries to steal it.....I forgot something in the house. I rolled the dice hoping that someone wouldn't try to steal it. There's quite a difference.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
If you park your car in your driveway but leave the keys in it and the car running while you quickly run inside for something that you forgot, would you say that you baited the criminal into stealing your car? You purposely left your car running knowing that a criminal could come by and take it, especially if there were a rash of car thefts in your neighborhood. So, the car thief is only doing what car thieves do, right?
In this scenario, I didn't manufacture a plan to leave the car running so I could wait in ambush and shoot someone that tries to steal it.....I forgot something in the house. I rolled the dice hoping that someone wouldn't try to steal it. There's quite a difference.
But you would have manufactured it, probably consciously too. It's a conscious decision to do it and you know that the possibility exists.
They didn't make anyone enter the home illegally. The deceased did it on his own. Lured? The kid didn't have the good sense not to go into a home where he doesn't belong? Come on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,137 |
I am in no way justifying the kid's actions. He too rolled the dice. As a responsible gun owner, one should not seek out or create situations that will result in someone getting shot, he should avoid them if at all possible. This guy obviously wanted to shoot someone, and manufactured a situation where he could. He is a cold blooded killer.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rule #5: When they are down or disabled, stop shooting. The intent is to protect yourself and your family, not to kill people.
Wrong. Keep pulling the trigger until the gun is empty. That will show just how afraid you were for your life. If the cops show up and you're still pulling the trigger, they'll be sure you were scared to death.
I'm assuming I am misinterpreting you because I wouldn't recommend shooting a gun when cops show up. They have no idea what happened and can very likely believe you're the "bad guy."
If the cops show up and see you pulling the trigger of an empty gun aimed at the bad guy, they'll assume you are severely freaked out. I never said to reload and keep shooting him.
You said UNTIL the gun is empty. Meaning you would be firing bullets when the cops show up. I understand what you mean now, but it wasn't the best wording.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
jc
It seems like a discussion about what constitutes a threat and the right to shoot the threat has developed and the focus has changed to, "this kid would be alive if he hadn't...."
The kid would probably be alive if the owner had called the police, given them the description and the kid had been arrested.
The kid would definitely not have died from a shot gun blast if the owner hadn't created a situation to kill.
The concern is about a switch in our society toward accepting vigilante gun violence.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... German student Diren Dede killed
in 'castle doctrine' case
|
|
