Shooting last night may test castle doctrine law

[jaholder1971]

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]

...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]

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]

@ 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]

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]

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]

@ 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.

@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]

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]

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]

I want to know how these "drunks" go home? Sounds like someone was already breaking the law by driving "drunk".

UJ

 

[divemedic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@ 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]

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]

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.