19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[umbrella39]

What this case is highlighting is the absurdity of the law. That it's legal to shoot and kill anyone at the front door, or even near your house. Just claim they were "entering". It is not possible to prove they weren't! Not possible to convict if those requirements hold.

Some sure sound like they would really LOVE for this to be the only requirement. Nice.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Neighbors? The shooters own call to 911 and his own words. "Banging on my door" Sorry, I paraphrased.

https://soundcloud.com/fergus-burns/theodore-wafer-911-call-after

Yet that doesn't tell the whole story, what is his full statement to the police?

None the less this can be a difficult case to try based on the law.

http://www.schwartzlawfirmpc.com/Articles/The-New-Self-Defense-Act-Defensible-or-Dangerous.shtml

Rebuttable Presumption of Self- Defense
People acting in self-defense now have substantial immunity from both criminal and civil liability under the new laws. When using defensive force against someone, a person is now automatically presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault, as long as both the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.
(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).13
​

This legal presumption must be overcome by the prosecutor, who is required to present evidence at each stage of the criminal proceedings, to rebut the presumption that the individual did not act within the constraints of the Self-Defense Act. Only if the prosecutor has presented enough evidence to rebut the presumption that defensive force was justified under the Act, will the individual using such force be subject to prosecution.
There are, however, exceptions to the presumption cited above. These include the following:

• The person against whom force is used has a legal right to be present in the dwelling or vehicle (such as an owner, lessee or titleholder);
• the person being removed is a child or grandchild or in lawful custody of the person against whom the defensive force was used;
• the person against whom defensive force is used is a police officer engaged in performing official duties; or
• the person using defensive force was engaged in an unlawful activity or using the dwelling or vehicle to further an unlawful activity.14

If none of these exceptions apply, then the person is essentially immune from criminal prosecution.
Similarly, an individual using force in self-defense or defense of another in compliance with the Self-Defense Act would not be civilly liable for damages caused to the person against whom the force was authorized or to anyone claiming damages arising out of the incident.15 Additionally, the court is required to award payment of actual attorney fees and costs to an individual sued for civil damages if that person is immune from civil liability under the Act.16 The rationale behind such a provision is that people who act in self-defense should not have to spend the time or money to go to court to justify their actions in protecting themselves or others.17

 

[nehalem256]

What this case is highlighting is the absurdity of the law. That it's legal to shoot and kill anyone at the front door, or even near your house. Just claim they were "entering". It is not possible to prove they weren't! Not possible to convict if those requirements hold.

If the law is so absurd surely you should be able to produce a case that doesn't involve a drunk/stoned woman showing up at a guy's door in the middle of the night after having previously committed at least 4 crimes that night

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Rofl.... That law will never change. Too many Americans value the right to self defense from someone trying to illegally enter their home.

 

[Jaskalas]

Rofl.... That law will never change. Too many Americans value the right to self defense from someone trying to illegally enter their home.

Some Americans might value the right to live.

What you are advocating is the right to kill anyone near your home. No? Bullshit. All you have to do is claim they were "trying to illegally enter". It cannot be proven otherwise.

 

[Howard]

Some Americans might value the right to live.

What you are advocating is the right to kill anyone near your home. No? Bullshit. All you have to do is claim they were "trying to illegally enter". It cannot be proven otherwise.

If only some Americans value the right to live, then the right to live probably wouldn't be a right.

 

[nehalem256]

Some Americans might value the right to live.

What you are advocating is the right to kill anyone near your home. No? Bullshit. All you have to do is claim they were "trying to illegally enter". It cannot be proven otherwise.

And again, do you have any evidence of self-defense laws being abused in the way you claim that don't involve a drunk and stoned girl showing up at someone's door in the middle of the night after she committed at least 4 crimes that night?

 

[Jaskalas]

And again, do you have any evidence of self-defense laws being abused in the way you claim that don't involve a drunk and stoned girl showing up at someone's door in the middle of the night after she committed at least 4 crimes that night?

Oh, so a broken law legalizing murder is okay as long as people who "deserve" it get killed.

The "its coming right for us!" routine is alive and well, and it disgusts me. Not only that - but to have people actually defending it...

 

[spidey07]

Oh, so a broken law legalizing murder is okay as long as people who "deserve" it get killed.

The "its coming right for us!" routine is alive and well, and it disgusts me. Not only that - but to have people actually defending it...

The voters overhwelmingly support these laws. The good they have done to protect innocent victims is far reaching. They're not going anywhere and they absolutely do not legalize murder. They legalize defending your home from a home invasion. The laws have done far more good than harm.

In fact, why don't you find an instance where castle doctrine allowed murder? If it's murder, it will be tried as such.

In this case it's a clear cut case of defense of home from an invader attempting to enter.

Don't want to get shot? Don't try to enter somebody's home at 3 on the morning.

 

[nehalem256]

Oh, so a broken law legalizing murder is okay as long as people who "deserve" it get killed.

The "its coming right for us!" routine is alive and well, and it disgusts me. Not only that - but to have people actually defending it...

So the only case you have of self-defense laws being "abused" is a drunk/stone girl who was shot while fleeing the police. :hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

Ask yourself what is more likely

(a) A drunk and stoned girl who had already committed at least 4 crimes that night continued committing crimes

or

(b) A guy who was sleeping peacefully in his bed woke up and decided he to blast off a woman's head for basically no reason... and then didn't even have the sense to cover it up effectively.

 

[classy]

Here are 3 cases of breaking and entering with the intruders being shot. This case in discussion is completely void of any of these circumstances. Breaking and entering is usually very easy to detect and identify. There is very little doubt in my mind the police would not have said there are no signs of forced entry if there was any. To believe a person is attempting a break in has to be supported by facts. It is pretty clear there was no supporting evidence. You will also see that in these other incidents the person called 911 while grabbing a weapon. We know the girl never breached the home in anyway.

I think unless the defense can show some proof she tried to break in the home, he is going to jail. It will be murder 2 or if he sticks with it was an accident, manslaughter. Someone banging on your door doesn't support the right to shoot through the door regardless of the time of day. The law requires much more substance to claim self defense than that. These 3 cases clearly outline what a true attempted breaking and entering is.

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=944039#.UokjmcSsh8F

http://www.examiner.com/article/woman-shoots-and-kills-intruder-w-911-audio

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

 

[tgferg67]

Ask yourself what is more likely

(a) A drunk and stoned girl who had already committed at least 4 crimes that night continued committing crimes

or

(b) A guy who was sleeping peacefully in his bed woke up and decided he to blast off a woman's head for basically no reason... and then didn't even have the sense to cover it up effectively.

(B) had similar behavior as (A) when younger with drunk driving arrests. (B) was allowed to become the peaceful guy that minds his own business sleeping that night because there wasn't a (B) around to terminate his life when he was conducting his life like (A).

 

[spidey07]

She should have just stayed in the car. None of this would happen if she stayed in the car like she is supposed to.

 

[nehalem256]

(B) had similar behavior as (A) when younger with drunk driving arrests. (B) was allowed to become the peaceful guy that minds his own business sleeping that night because there wasn't a (B) around to terminate his life when he was conducting his life like (A).

How many times did (b) flee the scene of an accident exactly?

 

[tgferg67]

How many times did (b) flee the scene of an accident exactly?

We only know what he was caught doing. If he was arrested for drunk driving a couple of times he was no law abiding model citizen.

 

[nehalem256]

We only know what he was caught doing. If he was arrested for drunk driving a couple of times he was no law abiding model citizen.

So in other words they acted the same, so long as we neglect important details, which were instrumental to the result of the woman being shot.

 

[tgferg67]

So in other words they acted the same, so long as we neglect important details, which were instrumental to the result of the woman being shot.

He could have shot someone else in a different scenario, at his door late at night.

 

[EagleKeeper]

He could have shot someone else in a different scenario, at his door late at night.

And the girl could have killed a pregnant mother is a different scenario instead of a parked car.

 

[nehalem256]

He could have shot someone else in a different scenario, at his door late at night.

There are many ways to "knock" on the door in the middle of the night.

Does it seem likely that someone who is drunk, high, and has been running around in the cold fleeing the po-po for 3 hours might be doing so in a manner likely to make the homeowner paranoid and trigger-happy?

 

[classy]

So in other words they acted the same, so long as we neglect important details, which were instrumental to the result of the woman being shot.

There are no other important details. She wasn't shot because she was drunk. She wasn't shot because she hit a parked car. She was shot because she knocked on some one's door loudly. She could have been sober as a nun, knocked on his door for help, and by everything we know at this time he still would have shot her. So far nothing has come out to suggest he spoke with her at all. Or he opened the door and she came at him. Or that she was drunk and acted violently toward when he opened the door. Also keep in mind, no one who spoke with her at the accident scene said she was hostile or aggressive.

 

[classy]

And the girl could have killed a pregnant mother is a different scenario instead of a parked car.

All these kind of posts really do not make any sense and is just deflecting. That didn't happen and as far as we know never has. This is NOT the Minority Report. I loved that movie by the way.

 

[nehalem256]

There are no other important details. She wasn't shot because she was drunk. She wasn't shot because she hit a parked car. She was shot because she knocked on some one's door loudly. She could have been sober as a nun, knocked on his door for help, and by everything we know at this time he still would have shot her. So far nothing has come out to suggest he spoke with her at all. Or he opened the door and she came at him. Or that she was drunk and acted violently toward when he opened the door. Also keep in mind, no one who spoke with her at the accident scene said she was hostile or aggressive.

So you contention is the guy shot her because he was pissed she woke him up?

 

[classy]

There are many ways to "knock" on the door in the middle of the night.

Does it seem likely that someone who is drunk, high, and has been running around in the cold fleeing the po-po for 3 hours might be doing so in a manner likely to make the homeowner paranoid and trigger-happy?

To answer your question with facts. He didn't call 911 till after he opened the door and shot the girl. Clearly he wasn't frightened, because he would have never opened the door, and he never attempted to determine who was knocking or why.

 

[Jaskalas]

Ask yourself what is more likely

(a) A drunk and stoned girl who had already committed at least 4 crimes that night continued committing crimes

or

(b) A guy who was sleeping peacefully in his bed woke up and decided he to blast off a woman's head for basically no reason... and then didn't even have the sense to cover it up effectively.

Pretty sure he said it accidentally went off. Accident implies no threat, no breaking and entering, no justifiable use of deadly force.