Shooting last night may test castle doctrine law


PDA






KentuckyBlue
April 30, 2008, 08:18 PM
There was a fatal shooting yesterday not too far from where I live. Early reports say that the victim and his roommate had been out drinking and got home around 3:00 a.m. Roommate went inside and went to bed; victim elected to stay in his vehicle and fell asleep. Around 6:00 a.m. the victim awoke and speculation is that he went to the wrong house and was kicking on the door. The resident fired one shot through the door and into the chest of the victim, who died later at the hospital. No charges have been filed as of now and the DA is investigating applicability of the new law which protects homeowners who use deadly force against intruders. It will be interesting to follow this as it may serve to answer many questions and clarify how law enforcement intends to apply the provisions of this law. Toxicology reports may well play some role in the decision in this case. Those reports won't be back for approximately three months. Go figure! Grissom on CSI does a much better job than that!!!

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting last night may test castle doctrine law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
p2000sk
April 30, 2008, 08:38 PM
Remember the days when it was safe to go kick any door you wanted?

TS537
April 30, 2008, 09:02 PM
I'm sorry, that's just irresponsible--if you're going to use deadly force, you at least have to be sure you're not shooting some drunk college kid at the wrong house or the previous resident who has Alzheimer's and has forgotten where he lives. Most people who mean you no harm and accidentally come into your house are going to turn around and flee when they see you in your tighty-whities with a gun--it's a real good way to determine intent. Just make sure they mop up what they leave on your doormat before they go.

People like this will just make it more difficult for people who have a legitimate need to defend themselves in the future:cuss:.

lacoochee
April 30, 2008, 09:16 PM
TS537 at first I thought you were joking. Seriously, you are going to let someone kick in your door in the wee hours of the morning just so you can show him your gun and hope that he will then flee? How would the home owner know that the guy kicking in his door was not going to kill him? Or that indeed he was the only attacker and not the vanguard of a crew of insane clown bikers?

I don't see how this will be a test of the "Castle Doctrine" the presumption is if someone is breaking down your door you can use deadly force. There is no requirement that the home owner determine the intent of the home invader before the home owner responds. The police are not required to determine intent if a suspect reached into his pocket and withdraws an "object" before they use deadly force. Why should a home owner be held to a higher standard?

Florida would make you even more angry, we can presume that if someone attempts to enter our car while we are occupants that they intend deadly harm and we can respond accordingly. In other words you jump into a passenger seat or even attempt to jump in that seat by breaking a window or trying to open the car door, we can use deadly force.

WayneConrad
April 30, 2008, 09:18 PM
Location?

News report?

Mr_Rogers
April 30, 2008, 09:19 PM
As usual, not so fast in the critique.

Could the homeowner actually see who was at the door from inside the house?
Had the door started to break open when the shot was fired or was it simply being kicked?
How many people here would recommend opening a door to see who is there when it sounds as though someone is trying to force entry?
How old was the homeowner?
What is the homeowners physical condition?
Who else was in the house?
What sort of neighborhood is this?
Any previous similar past events?

Let's wait a while before the lynching. This sounds bad but who knows?

mrokern
April 30, 2008, 09:27 PM
We're trying to get the law expanded in Minnesota for home defense, but at the moment legally we have to wait for the person to be inside. :banghead:

You start trying to kick in somebody's door, it's your fault. Maybe common sense needs to come back so that idiots don't get loaded to the point where they go frightening law-abiding homeowners.

-Mark

TS537
April 30, 2008, 09:30 PM
You're right. There may be no legal requirement in Florida, but how about a moral requirement? You're taking a human life.

Yeah, I'd wait until I knew who was kicking (note that it said kicking, not kicking down) my door before letting them have it. Stand back from the door with your gun ready. If they look menacing and they manage to bust down the door, do what you have to. A bullet travels faster than a moron. I like my odds.

What if it was teenager playing a prank? Just because you have a "legal right" to do something doesn't make it OK. Not even in Florida. As for evil clowns, that only happens in Florida. Plus I have a 26 round mag. Again, I'm likin' my odds, and the unlikelihood of a Wrongful Death suit.:banghead:

Also, given that you don't know me at all, it's pretty presumptuous of you to extrapolate from my reaction to this specific case what I'd "like" or "not like" about Florida law. Just sayin'. :D If somebody tried to break into my car with me or my wife in it, I'd most likely first use the car itself against them rather than a gun. I don't terribly much relish the idea of firing a gun in such a tiny enclosed space. We have a zero-deductible auto glass coverage clause, but it's not wise to invoke it too often, lest you incur the wrath of State Farm. Plus it's hell on the ears. If the guy was unfazed by my attempts to kill him with my Toyota, I might then resort to use of a firearm.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

PotatoJudge
April 30, 2008, 09:36 PM
Know your target and what's behind it. That means no blindly shooting through doors, in my book.

I actually went to high school with a kid, went off to Texas Tech and got shot drunkenly walking into the wrong apartment. It happens, and we as gun owners can at least try to do our part to prevent it.

As far as this shoot, not enough info, as usual.

Car Knocker
April 30, 2008, 09:37 PM
KentuckyBlue,

Do you have a link to this story?

FTA84
April 30, 2008, 09:37 PM
I guess it depends on the nature of the kicking. I imagine a young kid would be kicking the door in a manner intended to wake up the other occupant of the house. I reckon, depending on circumstances, that it would sound less violent and threatening than a kick intended to take the door down. It would depend on the situation, I doubt this guy would have shot through a door if he did not feel his life was in danger.

Also, I hate people who use drunkness as an excuse to do things. Blah blah I'm sorry I was drunk when I did XXXX so it is ok that I did it because I was drunk.

Wrong, nope. Nothing you do when you are drunk is any more ok than doing it sober. You made the decision to give up your right to cognative thought in order 'to have a good time'. Any consequences are entirely your fault. Don't want to get shot? Don't get so plastered you had to sleep in the car.

GRIZ22
April 30, 2008, 09:37 PM
The resident fired one shot through the door and into the chest of the victim

I don't think this is a castle doctrine test but a test of the shooter's stupidity. Yes, the shooter is stupid.

lacoochee
April 30, 2008, 09:37 PM
I would imagine that either way that I would be very upset at having to take any life but I will not allow indecision to cost the lives of my wife and child. I have no illusions about my ability to take out several assailants and you shouldn't either.

Also Florida's castle doctrine law provides immunity against civil lawsuits brought by the families of criminals. (And regardless of the reason - intoxication, drugs, prank, robbery -- breaking down the door of an occupied home you don't live in in Florida is a violent criminal act).

jfountain2
April 30, 2008, 09:38 PM
I would like to know more about the facts and circumstances around this too.
It will be very interesting to see how this comes out.

k_dawg
April 30, 2008, 09:39 PM
Even if it were "illegal", the homeowner would be morally justified to shoot thru a door, WHILE said door was being busted down.

For all he knows, that is just a distraction and another assailaint is sneaking in the back way.

Shoot thru the door, then take a defensive posture against other avenues of ingress.

lacoochee
April 30, 2008, 09:41 PM
The resident fired one shot through the door and into the chest of the victim

I don't think this is a castle doctrine test but a test of the shooter's stupidity. Yes, the shooter is stupid.

Not enough detail in the story, so I think calling th shooter stupid is premature at best.

mekender
April 30, 2008, 10:01 PM
You're right. There may be no legal requirement in Florida, but how about a moral requirement? You're taking a human life.

Yeah, I'd wait until I knew who was kicking (note that it said kicking, not kicking down) my door before letting them have it. Stand back from the door with your gun ready. If they look menacing and they manage to bust down the door, do what you have to. A bullet travels faster than a moron. I like my odds.

What if it was teenager playing a prank? Just because you have a "legal right" to do something doesn't make it OK. Not even in Florida.

all moral requirements go out the window the second someone does something threatening to me or my family... and if they bust down the door and look like the pope himself, im shooting... the act of kicking my door in is a violent threat to the safety of my family...

and a prank?... if you call that a prank, then the laws of natural selection come into play... as a homeowner, i would have no way of knowing the intentions of the said prankster that was kicking my door in

Cosmoline
April 30, 2008, 10:08 PM
Shooting THROUGH your door is always questionable. I won't say it's never appropriate, because there may be extraordinary circumstances where it's the only way to defend yourself. But I'm skeptical. I'd want to know if he was actually in the process of kicking the door down or just knocking with his foot. There should be some physical evidence one way or the other if the cops do the investigation properly.

Len S
April 30, 2008, 10:09 PM
We are hashing this out on a motorcycle forum. One poster said the area has a history of violent home invasions. That is the only other info offered.

Len

Car Knocker
April 30, 2008, 10:14 PM
Len,
Can you get a link of the other forum? We're sure getting a lot of opinions here based on some third- or fourth-hand information.

jfountain2
April 30, 2008, 10:32 PM
Is this the story?

http://www.kentucky.com/211/story/391097.html

Dksimon
April 30, 2008, 10:35 PM
You still cannot shoot through the door. I think the BG has to actually illegally enter your home before deadly force is allowable.

divemedic
April 30, 2008, 10:55 PM
I don't know about the other states, but in FL they do not have to be in the house yet, only attempting to enter:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

TS537
April 30, 2008, 10:56 PM
Here's another good what if to illustrate why shooting through the door in this (or any) instance might not be a good idea. What if it's a mother with a child in her arms, maybe being chased by an abusive spouse or boyfriend, who doesn't have her hands free, but is frantic and desperate and in need of help.

Same loud kicking, but if you shoot at chest height, you kill her and the kid. Far fetched? Maybe, but if you do not, and I quote, "be sure of your target and what's behind it," you've just killed somebody you could have helped. Whether or not you would choose to "get involved," you will have just killed two people while attempting to defend yourself from an infant and an abused woman. Good luck with THAT jury.

Also, who the hell names their child "Tardarvis"?

mekender
April 30, 2008, 11:32 PM
You still cannot shoot through the door. I think the BG has to actually illegally enter your home before deadly force is allowable.

in NC, they have to either be in the process of entering or attempting to enter... or they have to be inside and threatening you... if they break in, sit on the couch and start watching the simpsons, you cant shoot them

KentuckyBlue
April 30, 2008, 11:33 PM
This is the link. Thanks jfountain2.

http://www.kentucky.com/211/story/391097.html

AndrewGWU
April 30, 2008, 11:36 PM
in NC, they have to either be in the process of entering or attempting to enter... or they have to be inside and threatening you... if they break in, sit on the couch and start watching the simpsons, you cant shoot them

This is indeed true for NC. However, it depends on the laws of the state where it happened. In NC this would have been a justified shooting. I beleive something of the sort has happened here according to my CCW instructor and that the shooter was found to be in the right because of the castle doctrine.

jaholder1971
April 30, 2008, 11:41 PM
'm sorry, that's just irresponsible--if you're going to use deadly force, you at least have to be sure you're not shooting some drunk college kid at the wrong house or the previous resident who has Alzheimer's and has forgotten where he lives.

Almost every violent criminal encounter involves alcohol or drugs.

My 91 year old great grandfather violently beat 2 of his daughters thinking he was fighting WW1 again. It took 3 cops to handcuff him.

Most people who mean you no harm and accidentally come into your house are going to turn around and flee when they see you in your tighty-whities with a gun--it's a real good way to determine intent.

If they're too impaired to notice they're destroying the wrong door at the wrong address what makes you think that the guy in his skivvies with the gun will click?

People like this will just make it more difficult for people who have a legitimate need to defend themselves in the future.

Horse manure.

Kansas Statute:Kansas ( 21-3212). Use of force in defense of dwelling. A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his dwelling.(emphasis mine)

Kansas is pretty clear. It wouldn't be an issue here.

Standing Wolf
May 1, 2008, 12:04 AM
Early reports say that the victim and his roommate had been out drinking and got home around 3:00 a.m. Roommate went inside and went to bed; victim elected to stay in his vehicle and fell asleep. Around 6:00 a.m. the victim awoke and speculation is that he went to the wrong house and was kicking on the door.

That's not a "victim." That's a perpetrator.

Fburgtx
May 1, 2008, 12:12 AM
Ummm... Pardon me sir! Are you merely an inebriated citizen who has decided to kick in the door of the wrong home, or are you a brutal criminal here to rape my wife/steal my belongings/kill me??? Please let me know, so that I can decide whether to use deadly force or not!! Oh, and pardon me while I turn on the light or shine my light on you for a few seconds while I try to decide whether you're a criminal or not, giving you plenty of time to identify ME as a target, if indeed you are a hardened criminal.

I'm sure you won't mind honoring this request!! Oh, did I mention that I had a gun?? I'm sure that even though you're too drunk to avoid kicking in the door of the wrong home, you surely are of a clear enough mind to understand that "Stop, I have a gun!!" really has some meaning and you will cease this activity immediately. No?? Well, come on in and tear up my house and perhaps beat me to death while in your drunken stupor, while I wait 15 minutes for the cops to get here!!

Fburgtx's tip for the day-- Don't get so drunk that you feel the need to kick down doors (yours or anyone else's) in a violent rage. If you repeatedly exhibit such behavior, please refrain from imbibing alcoholic beverages in the future....

TS537
May 1, 2008, 01:02 AM
Losta people here are making me wish less people passed background checks.:what:

A few of you seem to have conveniently ignored the fact that the "perpetrator" was kicking, not KICKING DOWN the door, plus the fact that he intended no harm, plus the fact that the "defender," aka "defendant," aka "perpetrator," aka "trigger-happy macho %#@*," shot blindly through a closed door...

I guess if I don't come out and say that you can shoot anyone you feel like, I'm not sufficiently "right-wing" for y'all... :banghead:

But seriously, yes, I will definitely wait to be absolutely certain that a person knocking on my front door is a bad guy and not an over-zealous Jehovah's Witness before I send them to hell in a blaze of flaming lead. There's a huge grey area in this case, and some of you seem to be far more interested in appearing to uphold your right to shoot whomever comes anywhere near you to your fellow anonymous internet denizens than in facing the fact that an innocent unarmed man who had never hurt anyone will never be able to go on the internet and pass judgment on others like you get to, simply because he knocked on the wrong door one morning while hung over.

I guess I just take the responsibility of being able to defend myself, my wife, and my home with lethal force seriously enough not to spend my free time bragging on the internet about who I'd kill if they dared to knock on my door at an inopportune time. :D

jgo296
May 1, 2008, 01:07 AM
i dont think kicking a door justifies the kill

lacoochee
May 1, 2008, 01:33 AM
I guess if I don't come out and say that you can shoot anyone you feel like, I'm not sufficiently "right-wing" for y'all...

That was completely uncalled for and I never indicated that I would shoot someone just because I could. Your statement was definitely not high road, I for one just disagree with you on how you are characterizing the attempted home invasion. :p

You do what you feel is right, I hope it works out for you and I will do the same.

Fburgtx -- I understand the sentiment but maybe it was overstated just a little? :eek:

k_dawg
May 1, 2008, 01:37 AM
Ts537:

The person was not "innocent", and we don't know if he had never hurt anyone.

He certainly was involved in a violent felony, due to his extremely unwise choice to get drunk.

TS537
May 1, 2008, 01:42 AM
@lacoochee: I was not responding to you. I don't even that much disagree with you, except that you seemed to make baseless assumptions about what I would think about Florida law. No big deal.

I was indeed reacting to the fellow you seem to think was "just overreacting a little." A person died needlessly because a homeowner forgot rule four. That doesn't seem very "High Road," either, except if you leave out the "Road" part. :):cuss:

TS537
May 1, 2008, 01:43 AM
So what state do you live in where it's a felony to get drunk and knock on the wrong door?:confused:

But you're right, he was "involved in" a violent felony, in the sense that I'm virtually certain he'll be found to have been the victim of manslaughter.

hamourkiller
May 1, 2008, 01:51 AM
Does any one remember the doped up blues guitar player from Dallas?
Same story different names!
This ones already decided in Texas.
DO NOT KICK ON TEXAS DOORS!

TS537
May 1, 2008, 01:58 AM
Does nobody remember Yoshi Hattori?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

Just because you're acquitted doesn't make you not a despicable person...

I totally think any/everyone has the right to defend themselves from real threats, but in the particular case we're talking about, I'm betting the jury will rule that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable caution. But we'll see.

wolf13
May 1, 2008, 02:04 AM
Still don't know the whole story. Just because it says he kicked on the door, doesn't mean thats all he did. I'll wait to judge until I get as much info as I can. Did either one yell anything? I wouldn't be surprised if he yelled to open it up, especially if he truly thought it was his friends. I know how I can knock on my friends door when he doesn't open it up immediately. A lot of things could have been omitted from the article that I think are very important in deciding anything.

Mr_Rogers
May 1, 2008, 02:30 AM
TS537
I admire your resolve to be a responsible gun user but I really must call you on your misrepresentation of the event.
But seriously, yes, I will definitely wait to be absolutely certain that a person knocking on my front door is a bad guy and not an over-zealous Jehovah's Witness before I send them to hell in a blaze of flaming lead. There's a huge grey area in this case, and some of you seem to be far more interested in appearing to uphold your right to shoot whomever comes anywhere near you to your fellow anonymous internet denizens than in facing the fact that an innocent unarmed man who had never hurt anyone will never be able to go on the internet and pass judgment on others like you get to, simply because he knocked on the wrong door one morning while hung over.


1. Jehovah's Witnesses may be dedicated and persistent but even they do not kick on doors in the early hours of the morning.
2. The shooter made one, perhaps unwise, shot. Hardly a "blaze of flaming lead".
3. I hope you are not implying that Jehovah's Witnesses automatically go to hell when they die.
4. The "innocent unarmed man who had never hurt anyone". That appears to be the case at present but the homeowner certainly did not have that information at the time he was forced to make a decision.
5. "simply because he knocked on the wrong door one morning while hung over". Wrong, he kicked on the door, the "morning" was actually 6am and the hangover you refer to appears to be the continuation of an almighty drinking session rather than a simple thumping headache.

Your hyperbola and distortion of the known facts discredits your arguments.

ClickClickD'oh
May 1, 2008, 02:37 AM
A few of you seem to have conveniently ignored the fact that the "perpetrator" was kicking, not KICKING DOWN the door, plus the fact that he intended no harm, plus the fact that the "defender," aka "defendant," aka "perpetrator," aka "trigger-happy macho %#@*," shot blindly through a closed door...

I take it by your statements that you were a personal witness to the situation then?

But, let's play this semantics game for a moment. Assume I wake up in the wee hours of the morning and there is a person kicking on my door... how do I know the differance between them "kicking" my door (apparently in a playful or otherwise non-harmful manner) and attempting to kick down my door? Is there a particular harmonic frequency to listen for? Also, how exactly am I supposed to determine if this person kicking on my door at an undertermined harmoic frequency actually intends me harm? You seem to have done quite well establishing that through the internet, perhaps you could tell us how I can do it through such a measly barracade as a door? I guess perhaps I could behave after the manner of an English gentleman, open the door and proceed to ask, " My good sir, you do appear to be rapping on my door with your foot. Would you like a spot of team or perhaps to rape and murder my family?"

Personally, I think I'll just stick with the model established here in Texas by the courts and referanced by hamourkiller.. Smashing on someones door in the middle of the night is a mighty fine way to get one self shot. I don't know how the law is written where you are, but here we get to use force to defend ourselves when a reasonable person would percieve their lives to be in danger. I don't think I'm going very far out on a limb to say that reasonable people get scared for their lives when people start kicking on their doors.

tntwatt
May 1, 2008, 02:37 AM
Anybody notice that the door he kicked was "3 doors down".
This guy was so drunk he not only didn't go to his house, he went 3 doors down. Does anyone think he would have listened to any command once he got into the house? Does this article say anything except that the guy was shot through the door? Does this article say anything about what the victim did before he pulled the trigger?

Since the article left out everything the shooter did except pull the trigger, recognize this article for what it is: A legal use of lethal force being slanted against the shooter. The criminal is made out to be a saint.Not one word on the reputation of the shooter. Not one word on how well he is liked. Nothing but an article well written enough that THR members have gotten on their gun safety and tactics horses and convicted the victim. If we can't recognize a slanted article, how are the masses supposed too?

Kind of Blued
May 1, 2008, 02:40 AM
TS537 at first I thought you were joking. Seriously, you are going to let someone kick in your door in the wee hours of the morning just so you can show him your gun and hope that he will then flee? How would the home owner know that the guy kicking in his door was not going to kill him? Or that indeed he was the only attacker and not the vanguard of a crew of insane clown bikers?

I don't see how this will be a test of the "Castle Doctrine" the presumption is if someone is breaking down your door you can use deadly force. There is no requirement that the home owner determine the intent of the home invader before the home owner responds. The police are not required to determine intent if a suspect reached into his pocket and withdraws an "object" before they use deadly force. Why should a home owner be held to a higher standard?

Florida would make you even more angry, we can presume that if someone attempts to enter our car while we are occupants that they intend deadly harm and we can respond accordingly. In other words you jump into a passenger seat or even attempt to jump in that seat by breaking a window or trying to open the car door, we can use deadly force.

I would suggest reading more closely.

There is a huge difference between kicking ON a door (which is what the original poster wrote) and kicking IN a door (which is what you mistakenly read).

Imagine this scenario, if you will. You hear someone kicking on your front door, obvious due to the timbre and low area on the door where the impact is occuring. You fire through the door and hear a body drop dead. You open the door and find your friend's wife with a gag in her mouth and her hands tied behind her back. Her legs weren't tied because that would have made it more difficult for the serial rapist who just raped her a block away to commit his crime. Because of this she was only able to use her legs/feet to alert you, trying to get help and for you to call the cops to catch the rapist.

How would that make you feel?

Now this doesn't make a lick of difference in regard to the situation we are talking about, but I though we all learned well before the age of 15 not to "shoot at sounds". Even if my scenario could be considered a "justifiable shoot" in court, that is still a situation I wouldn't want to deal with.

ClickClickD'oh
May 1, 2008, 02:49 AM
I would suggest reading more closely.

There is a huge difference between kicking ON a door (which is what the original poster wrote) and kicking IN a door (which is what you mistakenly read).

FTA:

Tadarvis Gardner, 22, told police he was home with his girlfriend and brother when he heard someone trying to kick in the front door.

TS537
May 1, 2008, 02:56 AM
@ Mr. Rogers: I've been awakened enough times by Jehovah's Witnesses that I'm going to have to leave their eternal damnation to a higher power; but if I had a vote...:evil:

Also, if I make assumptions you don't like, I trust you will not judge them any more harshly than those asumptions you DO like. ;)

In any case, it's way more fun to play devil's advocate on this forum than I could possibly have imagined...:evil:

Kind of Blued
May 1, 2008, 02:56 AM
ClickClickD'oh: The post which I quoted was in response to the original post, which is not what you quoted.

What you quoted appeared after the fact.

Mr_Rogers
May 1, 2008, 02:56 AM
MDeViney,

"Imagine this scenario, if you will. You hear someone kicking on your front door, obvious due to the timbre and low area on the door where the impact was occuring (STET)." You open the door and find a serial rapist (but you don't know this yet) with a gag and a rope in his pocket. He pulls a gun on you and attacks your wife. OK, now we will go onto the piece about the raped woman walking a block to get help. She has to because you are dead.

TS537,
DAs can work for both sides. If only we knew which side deserved the title.

TS537
May 1, 2008, 03:01 AM
Wow--this thread went from the ridiculous to the ludicrous real fast... :)

jaholder1971
May 1, 2008, 03:01 AM
Losta people here are making me wish less people passed background checks.

Gee, that's really High Road.

A few of you seem to have conveniently ignored the fact that the "perpetrator" was kicking, not KICKING DOWN the door, plus the fact that he intended no harm, plus the fact that the "defender," aka "defendant," aka "perpetrator," aka "trigger-happy macho %#@*," shot blindly through a closed door...

I'm throwing the BS flag.

Someone I don't know starts kicking my door in the wee hours of the morning uninvited I'm not waiting to ascertain his intentions before I stop him and my state laws back me on this.

That's not being trigger happy, that's called Self Defense.



I guess if I don't come out and say that you can shoot anyone you feel like, I'm not sufficiently "right-wing" for y'all...

Oh, spare us from this...

But seriously, yes, I will definitely wait to be absolutely certain that a person knocking on my front door is a bad guy and not an over-zealous Jehovah's Witness before I send them to hell in a blaze of flaming lead.

1. you don't knock with your foot
2. Never had a JW bring me the Watchtower before dawn
3. Drunks kicking stranger's doors in the middle of the night for no reason is in most instances reason to fear for one's life.
4. The melodrama doesn't help your argument.

There's a huge grey area in this case,

No, there really isn't, at least in my state.

and some of you seem to be far more interested in appearing to uphold your right to shoot whomever comes anywhere near you to your fellow anonymous internet denizens than in facing the fact that an innocent unarmed man who had never hurt anyone will never be able to go on the internet and pass judgment on others like you get to, simply because he knocked on the wrong door one morning while hung over.

****, more melodrama!

He wasn't an innocent. There's no innocence in being drunk in the middle of the night kicking a stranger's door. It's drunk and disorderly at best and attempted burglary at worst.


I guess I just take the responsibility of being able to defend myself, my wife, and my home with lethal force seriously enough not to spend my free time bragging on the internet about who I'd kill if they dared to knock on my door at an inopportune time.

I think I hear violins.

If you want to take your time before you defend yourself, have at it. If you want to wait until the BG's entered your house, slit your throat, raped your wife and about to do it to your daughter, it's a free country. In some states, you'd have to wait that long before you could in the eyes of the law. Mine doesn't.

Believe it or not, I never want to pull the trigger on someone, but I'd have probably done the same thing being in the same circumstances.

TS537
May 1, 2008, 03:06 AM
@ jaholder

YAWN. Keep typing, at least then you won't be blindly shooting through doors. If "high road" means blindly accepting bravado about randomly shooting at people you can't even see, with no idea what's behind them, you're right, I'm definitely not High Road, unless, as I've already said, you leave out the "Road" part.

Please, get a sense of humor; purchase one if you must. The life you save may be your neighbor's kid's. A little hyperbole in the face of some of the BS people here are spouting ought to forgiven if not encouraged.

jaholder1971
May 1, 2008, 03:12 AM
Does nobody remember Yoshi Hattori?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

Just because you're acquitted doesn't make you not a despicable person...

I totally think any/everyone has the right to defend themselves from real threats, but in the particular case we're talking about, I'm betting the jury will rule that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable caution. But we'll see.

Apples and Oranges.

Hattori and friends weren't drunk, they didn't kick doors and was early evening when visitors might be expected. He also was shot point blank and NOT through a door.

Hattori's killer also admitted he screwed up.

You're really grasping straws if you've got to cite Hattori.

ClickClickD'oh
May 1, 2008, 03:13 AM
...randomly shooting at people you can't even see, with no idea what's behind them

All righty, let's tackle this one. This also came up when this happened in Dallas. What is behind the guy? Well, if it's air, a car, a tree, a mailbox or any other inanimate chunk we don't care. We only care if it's another person. Fine, what is another person doing behind the guy kicking in your door at 0600?

Do you have a large number of people that have a habbit of walking down your street at 0600 and pay no attention to the guy who appears to be breaking into someones house? Neither do I. If there's another person camping out with the guy kicking in your door it's because he's in with the guy kicking in your door.. and who cares if you put a bullet in him too.

Kind of Blued
May 1, 2008, 03:14 AM
So Mr. Rogers, my point was that it is not a good idea 100% of the time to shoot through doors to kill whatever is making the noise.

What was yours?

TS537
May 1, 2008, 03:24 AM
@ DeViney: No #%@* :)

@ Jaholder: Just citing another needless life taken by a person who (admitted he) was an irresponsible gun owner; I guess that's "grasping at straws" to you. I hope your friends will still visit you in prison if you act on what you purport to believe. I grew up in a house with a gun owning and carrying district attorney father, so please forgive me if I have no idea what I'm talking about.

coyotehitman
May 1, 2008, 03:36 AM
After reading this and many, many, other threads on this forum, I am convinced that there is a population of folks here who like the idea of having an excuse that justifies the use of a firearm to inflict harm/death on someone they deem a menace to society.

tntwatt
May 1, 2008, 03:42 AM
TS537
Presuming to know the law because you were raised by a lawyer is like presuming to know medicine because you were raised by a doctor. It just don't float.
If you learned so much from him you might want to look at the article from both sides: victim/criminal.
Realize it is a typical report by an antigun media that is steeply slanted against the shooter/victim.
The article does not give the reputation of the shooter, it only places the criminal on a pedistal. No where in the article does it say that the victim just got his gun and blindly shot through the door. No where in the article does it say that the criminal was still so drunk he got out of his car and wandered 3 houses down to start kicking on a door. No where in the article does it say the victim did not shout commands to stop from inside the house or what the reaction of the obviously drunk person was.

This article is completely slanted against the shooter/victim and you bought it lock/stock and barrel.

TS537
May 1, 2008, 03:44 AM
@ coyote: Could not agree more. Frankly, with all of the time some here seem to spend worrying about what "antis" think, the lack of critical self-reflection in the face of what seems like an almost overwhelmingly unambiguous case of overreaction with a firearm resulting in the death of a person who seems like they were probably just temporarily incapacitated is at times deafening. If you think our political opponents aren't reading stuff like this, you're deluding yourself.

The point of carrying/home defense is hoping you never have to defend yourself, not being really stoked to open up on anyone who makes you twitchy. :rolleyes:

@tnt: So, you're saying your Dad the MD never taught you to recognize a broken arm?

You may very well be right. On the other hand, Dad and I talked about the law an awful lot, especially as pertains to useful info to keep one's self out of jail (37 years and counting), and I feel I have a real good handle on my own state's laws. A jury will decide. On the other hand, please tell me what inside info you have on the newspaper reporter who wrote the article to prove they're "anti-gun"? It seems a lot of people here simply assume bad faith on the part of the media and take that train of thought all the way to Paranoiatown Station...

tntwatt
May 1, 2008, 04:07 AM
I've been carrying for over 20 years. Never once felt "twitchy" never once been "stoked" with the thought of shooting someone. I pray to God it will never happen. But remember, it is not my duty as a victim to determine the intentions of a violent, drunk criminal. It is my duty to protect myself and my family. That is the specific reason for the Castle doctrine. To protect the victim, not the criminal.
I've been reading THR for almost a year before finally posting. In that time I've become aware that almost every single piece of media written or spoken about firearms is anti. That's the best thing I have learned here. To read and listen to what is not being said.
I find it wholey understandable that some THR members may seem vehement in their defense of any perceived legitimate shooting. That's because it is the natural reaction to a totally biased media. Some of the things you have posted have almost sounded like they came from the Brady site.

This is THE HIGH ROAD, not the low road. People on this forum do not advocate unprovoked, irrational, or criminal use of firearms. But they will get very seriously upset when someone posts with classic anti sentiments.

coloradokevin
May 1, 2008, 04:38 AM
The fact that the shot was fired through the door more or less supports the assumption that the victim was not yet in the home!

As always, we can't draw absolute conclusions based on third-party (media-biased) accounts of things that we did not witness. Having said that, I don't think we are wrong to voice our opinions on this... And here is mine:


This shooter was stupid, and I don't agree with the "eliminating a threat" talk that those who condone his actions have alluded to. Again, the shot going through the door pretty much shows that the victim was not in the shooter's home at that time.

As gunowners we have a responsibility to identify our target and the threat before taking the shot... Shooting through a door in this case is reckless and stupid. I can tell you this much, when I knock on a door in my job I typically knock loud... Sometimes the homeowner may not be expecting my knock on the door... But, some idiot had darn well better not put a bullet through that door when I do.

Assuming the OP's account of these events is accurate, this is an example of reckless ignorance (or, as the law might choose to call it: Criminally Negligent Homicide -- AKA "felony stupid").

Whether or not the DA in that jurisdiction decides to pursue a case in this instance may very well depend on the assumption of what a "reasonable" person would likely have done. This homeowner may skate if his door had damage at the time that he fired the shot. If it didn't, I'd say he is criminally liable in my book. Regardless, I consider his actions to be reckless and irresponsible.

I support the rights of gunowners to defend their homes, and I would defend mine if I ever needed to. But, cases like this hurt all of us, and in this situation cost an innocent life (sure, he was drunk, and kicking at the wrong door --- but that doesn't necessarily make him a violent criminal). We can't allow ourselves to blindly shoot at everything that goes bump in the night!

Urbana John
May 1, 2008, 05:17 AM
I want to know how these "drunks" go home? Sounds like someone was already breaking the law by driving "drunk".

UJ

divemedic
May 1, 2008, 06:41 AM
Where in the law does it state that the person must already be in your home? I know in FL they don't need to be, the shooter must simply BELIEVE that the person is ATTEMPTING to enter his home unlawfully.

There are a lot of conclusions being drawn based on a one paragraph paraphrasing of an incident. Trials of cases like this take days. Maybe if you guys were on the jury, we could speed up cases and clear up the court docket.

mbt2001
May 1, 2008, 09:13 AM
TS537, Coloradokevin

- There is a big difference between saying that what he did wasn't text book, wasn't "the best" idea and saying that he shot an "innocent" and should go to jail. Cops shoot the wrong people at times and RARELY go to jail. Citizens have less training (experience factor can mean a lot in a case like this), but seem to be held to a higher standard. I don't think that can be argued with.

Anyway, the homeowner had no way of knowing that the perp meant or didn't mean to be there kicking his door. Frankly it is irrelevant to the discussion. HE WAS THERE and WAS TRYING TO GAIN ENTRY and he did all of this without authorization. That the home owner was scared is understandable. A raving drunk was at the door, kicking, screaming and beating the door. Honestly, it had to be something like that OR he would not have inspired a high degree of fear in the homeowner. At 6:00 you are usually getting ready for work. A knock, while not welcomed, isn't unforeseen.

Coloradokevin (I think you are a policeman so maybe you can answer this question). First, there seems to be an increasing number of drunks "getting the wrong house". I have been as drunk as all get out in my time, I have never walked into the wrong house, apartment, bed... The question is, do you see a lot of that? A perp (obviously intent on some illgotten treasure) says, "Man, I is drunk, got the wrong house, it didn't dawn on me to the cuffs got put on... I know I don't seem drunk, but I was scared sober"? I reckon that any lie that MIGHT get someone out of the clink is a lie they would use.


There may be no legal requirement in Florida, but how about a moral requirement?

Well that is the crux of this issue isn't it. First off, there is more than a little suggestion in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions (a considerable majority of the worlds population) that getting raving drunk is not good. I am sure the same is true of other religions, in fact it is against the law to get raving drunk and run around town, several laws. So, the perp acted immorally.

The homeowner had a MORAL obligation to him and his. That is why he fired.

There is a moral obligation NOT to take an innocent life, which is why said homeowner didn't go outside and shoot him in his car while he slept. This is not a moral dilemma. It is an ethical dilemma.

IMO, considering that the homeowner isn't a ""trigger-happy macho %#@*,"" actually better describes his behavior... I don't know where Biker is, but he is muy macho and he would have opened the door and spit tobacco juice in the dudes eye and tied him to the pipes of his "chopper", all while making an egg white omelet. The behavior of the homeowner was decidedly ignorant and un-macho, which MAY have been what saved his life.

A person died needlessly because a homeowner forgot rule four.

How do you figure? A person died because they unwisely tried to enter a home in contravention of the law and because the homeowner followed rule 4. I don't see how anyone can say he didn't. He shot the door, the perp was behind the door, the perp died, no one else did and no other property damage was reported.

Article Slanted Against The Shooter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anybody notice that the door he kicked was "3 doors down".
This guy was so drunk he not only didn't go to his house, he went 3 doors down. Does anyone think he would have listened to any command once he got into the house? Does this article say anything except that the guy was shot through the door? Does this article say anything about what the victim did before he pulled the trigger?

Since the article left out everything the shooter did except pull the trigger, recognize this article for what it is: A legal use of lethal force being slanted against the shooter. The criminal is made out to be a saint.Not one word on the reputation of the shooter. Not one word on how well he is liked. Nothing but an article well written enough that THR members have gotten on their gun safety and tactics horses and convicted the victim. If we can't recognize a slanted article, how are the masses supposed too?

+1 It is a little early to make a call and even if we DO MAKE A CALL, the law would support what he homeowner did (I think) so let's leave it there.

KentuckyBlue
May 1, 2008, 09:31 AM
Looks like I stirred up a hornet's nest. No one has all the facts and circumstances at this point, and we certainly can't rush to judgement. I know what the letter of the law says. I want to see how the law is interpreted and applied. Lots of time the spirit of the law trumps the letter.

When I took my CC class, the instructor was a firefighter by profession. A scenario very similar to this was presented in the Q&A session. He reflected on several cases locally where persons observed a neighbor's house on fire and beat and kicked on the door to wake the neighbor up. He also said that if someone calls the Fire Dept. to report a neighbor's house on fire and it is on fire when they arrive, he will pound on the door and then he's coming in!

Each incident is different, but a gun owner must be responsible enough to exercise sound judgement in a given situation. In the case at hand, I think the DA will weigh heavily as to whether its conceivable to find a jury that would return a unanimous verdict, given the venue.

mbt2001
May 1, 2008, 10:20 AM
When I took my CC class, the instructor was a firefighter by profession. A scenario very similar to this was presented in the Q&A session. He reflected on several cases locally where persons observed a neighbor's house on fire and beat and kicked on the door to wake the neighbor up. He also said that if someone calls the Fire Dept. to report a neighbor's house on fire and it is on fire when they arrive, he will pound on the door and then he's coming in!

There are always have hypothetical arguments that speak to the using of a gun, in accident or error, against a member of your family, a friend or innocent. Our country and Russia are currently in charge of 20,000 nukes. Smallpox had been erradicated until revived in a gov't lab to be used as a bio weapon. Stalin killed 60 million of his own folks, Hitler killed millions (depending on how you reckon), Mao... Millions. Just trying to add where our concern SHOULD BE.


Each incident is different, but a gun owner must be responsible enough to exercise sound judgement in a given situation. In the case at hand

uhhhh He fired on a stranger trying to gain illegal access to his home. I mean, if he lived on Bourbon street during Mardi Gras and this happened, then there might be some doubt as to whether this kick or that kick gave reasonable cause, but in this case I just don't think there is as large a grey area as some folks seem to think.

jaholder1971
May 1, 2008, 10:29 AM
@ Jaholder: Just citing another needless life taken by a person who (admitted he) was an irresponsible gun owner; I guess that's "grasping at straws" to you.

There was absolutely no similarity between those situations and trying to create one proves your argument is weak.


I hope your friends will still visit you in prison if you act on what you purport to believe.

Re-read my post where I cite KANSAS state law on Castle doctrine, then check my location. Once an indivdual begins an attack on my home OR my property I am allowed to use lethal force to STOP IT and face neither civil nor criminal penalty.

It doesn't say I have to wait until the door's broken or that they've gained entry. Nor does it say I need to positively identify them or their intentions.

Should (God forbid) a drunk attack one's home in Kansas in the middle of the night and gets killed, the drunk will go to the morgue, the cops will take a report and the homeowner will rinse off his porch in the morning. Read the law!!!

I grew up in a house with a gun owning and carrying district attorney father, so please forgive me if I have no idea what I'm talking about.

In Minnesota, not Kansas.

I've yet to meet a prosecutor who didn't look at everyone as a criminal he simply hasn't convicted yet. You need to free yourself of these notions, my friend.

PeashooterJoe
May 1, 2008, 11:00 AM
Live in a Rural area, situation like that happened. guy and his girl friend got stuck on a dirt road. He came to my door beating and pounding to get in to use my telephone, was drunk. There was words etc, then when heard the rack and slide of the .45 his attitude changed. I then called a wrecker and law enforcement, they stayed till the wrecker picked them up. Never did see the law enforcement,come to my door to ask questions. Later on the same guy beat his father to death over money. Two years ago his Father in law shot him breaking in his front door.
So was I in danger and didn't know it? The Deputy Sheriff I talked to later on was yes, he had a history of breaking and entering, also violet temper.

Art Eatman
May 1, 2008, 11:19 AM
Y'all would do a lot better to stay with the subject of the thread.

We don't give out medals for "Best Snark Of The Day".

Enuf.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting last night may test castle doctrine law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!