• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Attack somebody in their car, get shot

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Turin39789 said:
And I disagree with it applying in this case, at least to the point where I think there should be an airing of the facts in court instead of just the media. It sounds on its face like he brought a gun to a fist fight, as Zebo said. Two men who had exchanged words earlier in the night somehow end up pulled up at the same light. The shooter has a history of brandishing, (according to the news, no idea if it was charged), was carrying an illegal substance, the passenger is confirmed to have yelled/said a slur to instigate, a witness said the dead man was standing up and backing away from the car window, the shooter changed his story with the police(re the slur and originally saying the gun was unloaded).
Click to expand...

And none of that changes the fact that he was legally allowed to defend himself with deadly force. All of these facts were heard by the judge and brought up by the prosecutor.
 
spidey07 said:
And none of that changes the fact that he was legally allowed to defend himself with deadly force. All of these facts were heard by the judge and brought up by the prosecutor.
Click to expand...

So maybe the law should be changed. If I start a fight with my mouth I'm not going to reach after a punch flies. If someone is getting robbed in their home/car I can see sparing them the time in court, but this was just a fight.
 
Kind of an ambiguous case, not sure if use of deadly force was justified. I also kind of wonder why they didn't just drive away if the guy was only leaning in their window and didn't have a gun or anything else that was an immediate threat to their lives...

But then again the judge that made this ruling probably knows far more about the case and KY law than anyone here, so there's probably some important info that we don't have.
 
spidey07 said:
They have to be in your house/vehicle unlawfully/uninvited. If you didn't invite or allow them in, fair game.
Click to expand...

How do you determine if it was unlawful without some form of trial? I was objecting to not being allowed to prosecute. There is still a responsibility to the deceased, who is also protected under the law, to determine if he did anything unlawful in the first place to deserve lead poisoning.

I am for the castle doctrine, but I think if you're going to take a man's life you have the responsibility of explaining yourself. I think it should be a defense allowable under prosecution.

Unless I misunderstand the definition of prosecute.
 
As with any criminal case, there's a preliminary hearing where the judge determines whether there is probable cause for the case to go to trial. Obviously the judge didn't think there was, so it stopped there.
 
actuarial said:
How do you determine if it was unlawful without some form of trial? I was objecting to not being allowed to prosecute. There is still a responsibility to the deceased, who is also protected under the law, to determine if he did anything unlawful in the first place to deserve lead poisoning.

I am for the castle doctrine, but I think if you're going to take a man's life you have the responsibility of explaining yourself. I think it should be a defense allowable under prosecution.

Unless I misunderstand the definition of prosecute.
Click to expand...



This. I strongly support the right to own/use firearms and the right to defend oneself and one's own. But I also strongly feel that right carries the responsibility and obligation to either conduct one's affairs accordingly or be held fully accountable if you don't.


Now - It may well be the law in some places, but I strongly disagree with the concept that one has an absolute right to shoot anyone who happens to be on your property and not have to answer for doing so.

There should be an investigation, and the evidence should be reviewed. There should be a determination as to whether or not the shooting is actually self defense and therefore justified. This, up to and including a Grand Jury and even a Trial should the Police/Prosecution feel the action wasn't or may not have been proper. i.e. some process similar to the following:

<Homeowner shoots intruder>

Police Investigate scene and determine facts. Hospital report/investigation, witnesses, coroner's report (as may or may not be necessary), a pile of 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one....

Prosecutor reviews evidence:

Question: Is the Evidence strongly consistent with legitimate self defense: Yes or No.

- - If Yes: Prepare appropriate report for Judicial review, and recommend not proceeding with a prosecution at this time. If/when Judicial review concurs with legitimate Self Defense, then the case is closed.

- - If No: Perform a second level investigation, and prepare a case for a Grand Jury. Provide case for Review and Recommendation for the GJ.

- - If Second review indicates strongly consistent with legitimate self defense - provide such recommendation back to judicial review. If Judicial Review concurs, then Case closed.

- - If Second Review feels justified to proceed, then they provide that recommendation to Judicial review. If/When Judicial review concurs, then case is prepared for a Grand Jury.

- - Grand Jury - self defense or no.. etc etc... If no, then:

- - Trial

********


For the record: I strongly doubt the "Absolute~ness" of Castle Doctrine in any State. If it were absolute, you could bring people onto your property, murder them, and nobody could do anything about it. This is completely untrue anywhere in the Country.
 
Last edited:
Scotteq said:
<snip>

For the record: I strongly doubt the "Absolute~ness" of Castle Doctrine in any State. If it were absolute, you could bring people onto your property, murder them, and nobody could do anything about it. This is completely untrue anywhere in the Country.
Click to expand...

All of what you ask is generally done. The defense claims self defense or protection or property. Prosecution has to prove a crime was committed or some suspicion there was, if they don't in the judges eyes, castle doctrine kicks in. There have been cases in the state where it didn't kick in because the prosecution convinced a judge a crime was committed, then it moves forward. It isn't absolute.

But if you shoot somebody, while being assaulted in your car or home, it's highly unlikely you will be prosecuted. Unless you committed some crime to bring it to that point.
 
DCal430 said:
What are these states what still have these wild wild west laws? I need to avoid going to these places.
Click to expand...

Lulz. Good luck. Most states have them and those that don't are adopting them.

Think twice before you do something stupid. Otherwise you may get ventilated.
 
actuarial said:
How do you determine if it was unlawful without some form of trial? I was objecting to not being allowed to prosecute. There is still a responsibility to the deceased, who is also protected under the law, to determine if he did anything unlawful in the first place to deserve lead poisoning.

I am for the castle doctrine, but I think if you're going to take a man's life you have the responsibility of explaining yourself. I think it should be a defense allowable under prosecution.

Unless I misunderstand the definition of prosecute.
Click to expand...

Explaining yourself to a law enforcement investigation and defending against criminal prosecution are two entirely different things. Even if you are found not guilty, an average Joe would be bankrupted with the cost of defending himself in court, and then never overcome the stigma of being officially charged with murder.

That is what the Castle Doctrine protects you from.
 
Last edited:
This case sounds like a serious miscarriage of justice. The standard for probable cause is very low, it's the Grand Jury that's supposed to investigate and decide if an indictment is warranted.

What we don't know is, is it the judge, the prosecutor, or a poorly thought out law that's to blame.

You know there's a good possibilty that a stand up guy, never had a record of any kind, was gunned down by a couple of racist thugs.

And some of you celebrate his death.
 
Tom said:
Somebody steals your wallet. They run down the street and jump in their car, you chase them, go in the car to get your wallet.

At that point they can shoot you ?
Click to expand...

This is where it straddles "taking the law into your own hands". You can only use force to defend yourself in the act in or on your private property. If you have to leave your property to pursue and tresspass other's private property, at that point you need to be collecting info and calling the police.
 
qliveur said:
LOL@ criminal apologists.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem. People here seem really looking forward to shooting someone, yet when I post about correcting some hood rats in a thread they are quick to tell me to mind my own business.

All I can wonder is if they worry that some how the punks I piss off are going to look at them as easier prey to get even with.

If one wants to shoot someone there are better targets.
 
alkemyst said:
Here's the problem. People here seem really looking forward to shooting someone, yet when I post about correcting some hood rats in a thread they are quick to tell me to mind my own business.

All I can wonder is if they worry that some how the punks I piss off are going to look at them as easier prey to get even with.

If one wants to shoot someone there are better targets.
Click to expand...

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

I honestly don't give a fuck about other people as long as my life and property aren't bothered. If someone wants to be a hood rat more power to them.

As for you, we already know you like to butt in to other people's business at every opportunity. :awe:
 
Last edited:
I often solve problems with lethal violence that could be solved with a press of the accelerator. Your "castle" has wheels, dickhead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top