Posted on 03/17/2016 7:25:32 AM PDT by Hojczyk
This case has a twist, though. When you read the details of the incident as recorded by the police, Johnson was climbing out of a window to flee the scene of the crime when Ms. Jenrette discovered him and she shot him in the yard, not inside of the house.
The wording of the Castle Doctrine seems to be a bit ambiguous here. Yes, there’s an assumption that the person who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home is there to kill you or cause great harm, but does that apply to your front yard? More to the point, will the state accept that the doctrine still applies when the perpetrator is not only outdoors but fleeing?
Johnson’s relatives are calling for retribution, of course, and it sounds like the courts may entertain their complaint. You may wonder why the focus is on the side of a person who was clearly in the process of committing a serious crime, but his family has an explanation. How else was he supposed to get any money?
Seemingly justifying her relative’s commission of burglary, Johnson’s cousin Nautika Harris suggested it was the only way through which he could obtain money.
“You have to understand, you have to look at it from a child’s point of view that was raised in the hood. How he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school?” asked Harris.
How Ms. Jenrette fares will tell us how far the homeowner’s rights extend in such a case and if Florida’s Castle Doctrine is strong enough as it stands. I’m all in favor of Stand Your Ground and the rights of property owners, as well as supporting the rights of crime victims and the law abiding.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Don’t proclaim to know much about Miami but IIRC Liberty City was where the Cubans were staged after the Mariel boatlift in ‘80. Not sure it ever recovered from that. Heard a few stories from people about attending sporting events at the orange bowl, none were good. Having said that, things can happen anywhere nowadays.
Your difficulty is that you are thinking about legal versus just. The law says you can't shoot a thief if he is fleeing. At this point the law often serves as an impediment to justice and as a juror you should consider that. I believe the thief's life was forfeit to the homeowner the instant he entered without permission.
Was he a danger? Was he threatening? Did he have a weapon? It’s a hard choice I know but again in this case he was attempting to flee. Now if it was a cop there’d be no argument but a homeowner for some reason is held to a higher standard. Just has no reasoning in this case. What is legal is what’s determined in court.
The article is BS. She doesn’t need to care about castle doctrine. He was shot from the front in the chest. He wasn’t climbing out the stupid window, he wasn’t making a break for it, he was advancing on her. As long as she keeps saying “I was in fear for my life” and doesn’t bring up any BS about stopping felonies, she golden. Pure self defense, maybe some “stand your ground” thrown in. Castle doctrine is irrelevant.
> Your difficulty is that you are thinking about legal versus just. The law says you can't shoot a thief if he is fleeing. At this point the law often serves as an impediment to justice and as a juror you should consider that. I believe the thief's life was forfeit to the homeowner the instant he entered without permission.
Actually, the Florida law here seems to permit the deadly shooting to prevent the completion of the forcible felony.
He was shot from the front in the chest.
Hope you're right, and agree that if she says she acted in self-defense, then she should be cleared. For all the dead guy's family is annoying, I was not happy to read that he'd exited the house when she shot him -- the original article made it sound like she'd shot a fleeing felon, and cops can't even get away with that, so I thought her odds were pretty poor.
But if she shot him from the front in the chest, that's a different story. Also sounds like the media is misusing the Castle Doctrine with this Travon as they did with another guy of about the same name -- it's a self-defense case, not a Castle Doctrine one.
If he was shot from the front, then I think she’ll be ok. Most stories never tell us that part, but I don’t doubt it. Media is only after a narrative.
Did she know how many there were?? Taking one down might scare others she might have been unaware of.
Yeah, I had words escape me too, but if I posted them I would be banned by the Moderators.
Police said they heard a loud confrontation. That’s enough for me. He wasn’t singing Happy Birthday to her.
If true, it is murder, not self-defense.
Never, ever shoot a perp that is fleeing, if you value not being in jail the rest of your life.
Yes, if the perp was close (opportunity), advancing on her (immanent), and he was menacing her (jeopardy), she had the right to self-defense with deadly force.
How are we to judge this without knowing the skin colors of those involved.?
And how is the homeowner supposed to know where the perp grew up?
We are learning to parse the media and identify their templates. If he was shot in the back, we would not hear a report without those words prominently mentioned. That we don’t hear he was shot in the chest confirms that in my mind.
Also, there is the report of arriving police hearing a “loud confrontation.” There is enough reasonable doubt right there to say “not guilty!”
Can't speak to the law of Florida, but here in Illinois shooting someone after they've turned to flee is a bad shoot and would make her guilty as sin.
Discharging your firearm at a person should ALWAYS be a last resort action, and only when you or someone else is in immediate physical danger. If this kid was making a dive out of the window, it seems to me there was no apparent danger to the person in the house. You can’t just go gunning for someone because you don’t like what they’re doing. I think she has something to be concerned about from a legal perspective.
Sitll-—HER YARD.
Had an incident on my rural property some years ago.
I would have shot the guy OUTSIDE my house IF he hadn’t gotten the message that I was serious.\
Why not inside the house??
Because I lived rural & had a log house-—very sound deadening materials.
I would have taken my chances with the jury rather than let him get inside the house.
Was he a danger? Was he threatening? Did he have a weapon? It’s a hard choice “””
Doesn’t matter-—IF anyone is on MY PROPERTY with I don’t recognize or I feel doesn’t belong there, they get nasty treatment.
What everyone is missing is that in other articles there is mention of a confrontation between the shooter and the guy shot. Until we know more about that confrontation everything else is just speculation without knowing all the facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.