was this shooting justified?

[spidey07]

It looks like MN doesn't have real castle doctrine laws, that's why he's being charged. Their castle doctrine doesn't have the most important part - the lawful presumption of threat to life simply by being in the home unlawfully. Weak sauce.

 

[Scotteq]

The ONLY action he took that was illegal was moving the body and then the shot. Well that and all the cover up stuff. Everything else was covered by castle doctrine.

You are still allowed to shoot the invader when they are on the ground if they so much as make a single move toward you or reach for something. In your house unlawully means they are legally presumed to be a threat.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

...you would go to prison for manslaughter.

 

[spidey07]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

...you would go to prison for manslaughter.

No I would not. Read it. The important part is about presumption of threat, that's the real teeth of "real" castle doctrine laws.

503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle -- Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly 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.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
(b) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a peace officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

 

[boomhower]

No I would not. Read it. The important part is about presumption of threat, that's the real teeth of "real" castle doctrine laws.

That gives you the right to defend yourself, not execute someone who is no longer a threat to you, which he admitted to doing. He legally defended himself and then committed murder. If that pharmacist got convicted of murder this case should be a slam dunk.

 

[BUTCH1]

When in your home they don't have to pose a threat and you can legally shoot them in the back when they are on the ground in most states. Them being in the home unlawfully is automatically considered a threat to your life.

This guys biggest problem was not notifying the police and trying to cover up (along with blabbing about it). Otherwise he'd be fine from a law perspective.

Wrong, yes, deadly force defending your home is completely legal, if said person(s) are shot, on the ground unable to move they no longer possess a threat to you, it is not legal thereafter and lift up a motionless person's head and blast a hole in it with a shotgun, your no longer "defending" your domicile, your are appointing yourself judge, and jury by then executing a helpless person. As far as those kids I could give a fuck, tough shit asshole, if either one died from the initial gunfire, good deal, one more less parasite for society to deal with. Old guy's in trouble here though, those charges will stick easily..

 

[spidey07]

That gives you the right to defend yourself, not execute someone who is no longer a threat to you, which he admitted to doing. He legally defended himself and then committed murder. If that pharmacist got convicted of murder this case should be a slam dunk.

That's why I said "if they so much as move towards you or reach for something". Everything he did would be covered in a state with real castle doctrine...except for moving the person and then shooting. THAT's what would be illegal.

 

[Gerle]

If you're going to shoot someone who broke into your own house; never shoot to wound, shoot to kill.

Shoot to stop the threat. That will often lead to the threat dying, but neutralization, not death, is the goal.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Don't break into houses, don't get shot. Can't say I feel sympathy for these 3 criminals.

FTFY

 

[waterjug]

You guys read the whole story? His house has been burglarized 8 times in recent times, taking very valuable items (and they were suspected in previous times). She had an addiction problem and people suspect she was after pills. It's very sad for those kids, it really is, but he had a right to defend his property. The number of shots were excessive, but if he shot them once each and they both died, they'd still be dead. Dead is dead, and it's their own fault.

I can't believe the people defending the kids here. ......they broke into someone's house. Once you do that, you're stating "I'm violating this person's rights, and giving up my own rights to safety. If the person I'm violating feels the need to, they may end my life". It's not "I'm breaking into this house, violating this person, and they have to play nicely with me". What is wrong with people?

 

[waggy]

That's why I said "if they so much as move towards you or reach for something". Everything he did would be covered in a state with real castle doctrine...except for moving the person and then shooting. THAT's what would be illegal.

and that is what is getting him trouble.the initial shooting? not so much. moving them and shooting them again? yeah. that crosses the line from defense to a execution.

 

[CPA]

Really can't answer the poll that simply... initial shots absolutely justified. Execution is definitely not justified. Sympathy for criminal idiots not found either.

this.

 

[MaxPayne63]

Shoot to stop the threat. That will often lead to the threat dying, but neutralization, not death, is the goal.

Death has the added advantage of only allowing one version of events for when the family of the upstanding youth, who was naturally in the middle of turning their life around when they broke in to your house, sues you.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I can't believe the people defending the kids here. ......they broke into someone's house. Once you do that, you're stating "I'm violating this person's rights, and giving up my own rights to safety. If the person I'm violating feels the need to, they may end my life". It's not "I'm breaking into this house, violating this person, and they have to play nicely with me". What is wrong with people?

There is a huge subset of kids on here who are living with their parents (or living in dorms paid for by parents) who have absolutely no idea how the 'real world' works.

Most of these people have a huge blame the victim mentality, and are quite literally incapable of processing independent thought.

This happens almost every time a story is posted about a homeowner defending himself with lethal force... They come out of the woodwork to cry about how the burglar/thief/rapist probably wasn't going to kill the homeowner thus the self defense shooting is totally unjustified and the victim should be charged.

 

[irishScott]

Death has the added advantage of only allowing one version of events for when the family of the upstanding youth, who was naturally in the middle of turning their life around when they broke in to your house, sues you.

I can understand fear of future repercussions, and while I wouldn't agree with it I could actually sympathize with executing a critically wounded (read: no longer a threat) intruder. Thing is that isn't what smith did. From the sound of it he flat-out tortured them and took pleasure in every second of it, and then bragged about it.

 

[BUTCH1]

I can't believe the people defending the kids here. ......they broke into someone's house. Once you do that, you're stating "I'm violating this person's rights, and giving up my own rights to safety. If the person I'm violating feels the need to, they may end my life". It's not "I'm breaking into this house, violating this person, and they have to play nicely with me". What is wrong with people?

Well I'm not really defending them, the fact they are dead I'm fine with, hell, they might have died from the initial wounds anyway. Old dude should have lied, "they were still moving to me", admitting the shotgun deal to the cops kinda did him in.

 

[Veliko]

I can't believe the people defending the kids here. ......they broke into someone's house. Once you do that, you're stating "I'm violating this person's rights, and giving up my own rights to safety. If the person I'm violating feels the need to, they may end my life". It's not "I'm breaking into this house, violating this person, and they have to play nicely with me". What is wrong with people?

Because unlike you, not everyone is a sad little man on the Internet who gets a boner at the thought of shooting people.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I can't believe the people defending the kids here. ......they broke into someone's house. Once you do that, you're stating "I'm violating this person's rights, and giving up my own rights to safety. If the person I'm violating feels the need to, they may end my life". It's not "I'm breaking into this house, violating this person, and they have to play nicely with me". What is wrong with people?

No one is defending the kids. Everyone agreed they should have been shot. Its when gramps declares to have gotten pissed when she laughed and "gave her a shot to the cranium" and "it being a clean finishing shot" that people have a problem with.

 

[NetWareHead]

I have no sympathy for the kids. Breaking into somebody's house? WTF did they expect? Such idiots. I fully support gun owners being able to defend themselves and properties.

However, it was the homeowners BIG mouth that got him into trouble. One of the kids was not dead yet and he dragged her to a corner of his basement and then shot her again under the chin into the skull. The homeowner described it as "a good finishing shot".

I also may unload a full clip into an intruder but not shoot more after the threat has passed. This has crossed the line from self defense into murder.

If you MUST keep shooting after they are down, then make up a story that he still posed a threat and tried to attack you further or was reaching for your gun. His comments probably sealed his own fate. This just reminds me of the old adage to STFU when talking to the cops. never say anything like that to cops. It WILL be used against you in a court of law. Good job idiot, this only the beginning of years of trials and may ultimately land the guy in prison.

 

[Geosurface]

I've changed my mind upon further reflection. Dragging her over then shooting up through chin = murder.

Send him away

 

[jpeyton]

Death has the added advantage of only allowing one version of events for when the family of the upstanding youth, who was naturally in the middle of turning their life around when they broke in to your house, sues you.

Seriously, this.

From the first shot, keep firing until your magazine is empty if you can do so safely.

Police do this all the time. It keeps the version of events simple, and prevents lawsuits later on.

But don't fire one shot, mull it over, then finish the perp off minutes later, or you'll be heading to prison like this guy. Do the job right the first time.

 

[eits]

anyone who voted yes is either lying, a bloodlusting nra republican, or psychotic and prays for the day they get the opportunity to kill someone and have it be protected by law, whether right or wrong.

 

[waggy]

anyone who voted yes is either lying, a bloodlusting nra republican, or psychotic and prays for the day they get the opportunity to kill someone and have it be protected by law, whether right or wrong.

i disagree. the initial shooting was justified. What he did after was not. the question is far to vague. It is a poorly worded question.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Initial disabling of intruders was justified. The execution that followed was not.

 

[waterjug]

Because unlike you, not everyone is a sad little man on the Internet who gets a boner at the thought of shooting people.

do you have spy cameras in my house??

 

[Printer Bandit]

why don't people use rubber bullets? too expensive?