Shooting last night may test castle doctrine law

[KentuckyBlue]

This is the link. Thanks jfountain2.

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

 

[AndrewGWU]

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]

'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]

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]

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]

Losta people here are making me wish less people passed background checks.

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.

 

[jgo296]

i dont think kicking a door justifies the kill

 

[lacoochee]

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.

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?

 

[k_dawg]

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]

@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.

 

[TS537]

So what state do you live in where it's a felony to get drunk and knock on the wrong door?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Kind of Blued]

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]

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]

@ 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...

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...

 

[Kind of Blued]

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]

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]

Wow--this thread went from the ridiculous to the ludicrous real fast...

 

[jaholder1971]

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]

@ 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.