Posted on 10/26/2003 4:41:29 AM PST by lifacs
Wow. You've totally convinced me with your logical arguements there.
You are totally ignorant here
And even I don't go around knocking on people's doors at o'dark thirty.
WAit for the truth and don't believe the "facts" just you read it in a newspaper befor the investigation is complete
Actually, the newspapers "facts" were totally in favor of the punk and against the homeowner. So I don't believe them.
My characterization of tthe kids will come out as accurate.
So there was more than one "kid" that knocked on the door? I guess these poor angelic kids were simply trying to deliver cookies and free Bibles at 1:00 in the morning.
It certainly appears that way.
Third, most states do NOT permit defending property, per se, with deadly force. If someone breaks into your home, then all bets are definitely off.
Fortunately, my state is not one of them. But anybody who does live in a state like that should certainly be smart enough to put a knife in a dead burglar's hand. THEN all bets are off - - case closed.
The kind that do home invasions here in the Pittsburgh area.
Yes, a reasonable juror would ask the question, "Why wouldn't you ask, 'Who is it and why are you knocking on my door?' before even opening the door late at night?"
The standard in most cases like this is "What would a reasonable person do in this situation?" A person fearful enough of a threat to carry his firearm to the door might reasonably be expected to ask (through the door) who the hell is knocking before opening the door and firing without conversation.
When you walk to the door with a loaded firearm, you are proving you expect trouble. When you take no reasonable steps to rule out a harmless visitor, you have acted like someone who WANTS to shoot first and ask questions later.
Were you ever 16?
This is the part that makes no sense. If the kid was shot in the back, then the homeowner should be prosecuted. But if the kid was shot face on, then he was not playing "ring and run" was he? And if that was the case, what was he doing?
I think there is plenty more to the story.
Clearly this nice (210 pound 6 ft plus) kid (whos religious associations are repeated throughout the story) didn't play knock and run well (or wasn't at all) so that is one clear lie if he was indeed shot while facing the homeowner.
Also was "nice" of the presstitute as to how the "suspects" contact and business information with the state placed in the paper for all to read before he is officially tried in court or not. CHL, property value, business's over the years.....ect ect.
What kind of burgler knocks ?....we all know from years here at FR how many cases of home invasion by those alledgedly seeking assistance, pretending to be LEO's, or just knocking on the door and pushing their way in , we have read about in the news. This happens all over the country.
If the kid was shot running away then I have no problem with the man facing trial by his peers. If this 210 pound 6'2" ..."child".... was standing toe to toe on private property with an armed homeowner at Oh Early Thiry on a Saturday morning playing games with a friend of the same size/age while being a good boy, well liked, popular at school, birthday boy ect ect his parents should have some splainin to do also. I had a curfew while I lived at home with my parents. What's this 6'2" ..210 pound... child doing out so late ?
Presstitutional Passion at it's best here IMO.............Stay Safe SLB !
Twice within the last three years I have been awakened to late night hard banging on my door.
The first one was the week after 9/11, 12:30am. I went to the door and yelled "who is it?". A accented voice yelled back "Pizza delivery". Without opening the door, I sent him away. Loaded 12 guage was trained at the door the whole time.
About a year later at 3:00 in the morning, I was awakened the same way, this time a guy was yelling like a mad man, "HELP, YOU HAVE TO HELP!" Turned out to be a drunk that had taken out a telephone pole with his 4 wheel drive about a half mile down the road. He tried to drive it home, but only made it as far as our place. I told him to hang on a minute. I verified the damaged truck with a flashlight through a second story window. The people across the street had heard the commotion and were also flashing a light at the truck from thier doorstep. I went down and opened the door, shotgun ready and aimed. The guy was in shock and a bloody mess. I never let him inside, and never let go of the gun until the cops got there.
While both of these guy's were stupid (and the first one was out and out suspicious)niether one died for their stupidity.
Not a capital offense though. Negligent homicide at least. I feel bad for the homeowner but a lot worse for the kid and his family.
That is a flawed premise. I might say that answering your door at 12:30am without a gun is asking for trouble.
Reasonable doubt that LeRoy was going to use the tire iron to assault the homeowner. Hang the miserable SOB.
Case 2: Walking after dark, our responsible person hears a scream, and goes toward it. A man is crawling all over a woman, partially unclothed in the shadows of a hedge, she is saying what sounds like 'Help, Rape!', muffled by his hand. Our man pulls his weapon. The man jumps up and aproaches, cussing at our responsible person, threatening to kill him. She is screaming unintelligibly. He shoots. The couple had been drinking and was playing 'games' in their back yard, he shot the husband.
The reasonable doubt standard for defense provides that any reason the accused might be innoccent in the face of the evidence should be applied to find the defendant innocent.
If 'reasonable doubt' should be applied in the instance of intent to commit bodily harm, bodily harm must be committed. The application of that standard to a potential threat renders the person defenseless until the wrong has been done, at which point, the victim may be unable to respond on their own behalf.
A better standard is that which requires circumstances which would reasonably cause a person to assume that serious bodily harm or death are being prevented by the use of lethal force.
Being aware that things are not always what they seem makes a person more cautious about pulling a weapon. Watching the news would be enough to make a person trigger happy. A lot depends on perceptions.
I agree that a pattern of behaviour on the part of the deceased might help with the defense, as would a good reputation on the part of the shooter, but they are only supporting evidence, at best.
Did the deceased act in a way which could have been interpreted as life-threatening?
Were there other reasons the shooter might have credibly believed his life in jeapordy, even if unrelated to the deceased?
These are key questions in sorting out this situation, and bear heavily on the shooter's actions and intent.
IMHO, he should have waited until someone was forcibly entering the home, warned them, and only then, if they persisted, fired. By then he should have had 911 on the line, to at least record threats to himself, noises of breaking glass, etc.-all before taking the shot, if there was time. He was foolish, perhaps, to have not made sure the deceased's intent was patently clear. But he may have been scared sh!tless, and acted out of panic.
There is no way to know how you will react until the chips are down.
BTW, I have friends from the Tarheel State, and it is a lovely place, but I live in North Dakota, not North Carolina and can't attest knowledgeably to their laws.
I see. Well, how about this? "I just wanted to tell you smoke and flames are pouring out of your attic. I called the fire department but wanted to alert anyone in the house."
Are you gonna shoot a neighbor who would wake you up to save your life?
How about, "Your son was injured down the street, Mr. Smith, and I thought you'd want to know immediately."
Not everyone who knocks on your door late at night needs to be shot dead.
Thanks!
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.