Replies

How could Mr White have known they were all unarmed.

Perhaps they weren't; perhaps they were all armed with bazookas, it's irrelevant. None of them threatened him or his family with a weapon, and that's what the law cares about.

The testimony indicates that certain of these young men were on his property.

Being an unwanted person on another's property is called "trespassing" and in New York that's not the same thing as creating an imminent life threat to another person, last time I checked. Trespassers are dealt with by calling the police, who will be delighted to come out to a black man's house and remove drunken white punks from his property before a racial incident is created.

He had already heard the threats issued against his son. Does Mr White have a right to protect his property from a mob of young men hurling racial invectives or must he sit in the house until somebody gets the drunken bright idea to set it on fire?

Of course not. While the drunk punks are merely outside shouting at him he can call the police and have them carted away, and he can enjoy Christmas dinner with his family.

If they give him reason to believe that they are intent on arson, then at that point he is legitimately in fear of his life and would be applauded by all, including myself, to defend himself and his family with lethal force.

The prosecutor actually made a point that Mr White had not "hunted in years". Do you agree with the prosecutor that this somehow points to Mr White's guilt?

No, that point is irrelevant to the issue.

Mr. White is paying a steep price for what you call "unarmed drunk kids"

Actually, it's not what I call them, it's what they, in fact, were.

making racially tinged threats

You seem fixated on the 'racial' aspect of the white kids' threats. Do you feel that because they were racial in nature that this serves to justify Mr. White's actions?

Your characrterization of them as kids is bogus nonsense.

No actually it's not. I have met numerous 20-somethings whom I would have no problem in referring to as "kids" because they are completely lacking in adult maturity, as is the case with this bunch. It takes far more than the number of years you've been alive to graduate into true adulthood. If you act like a kid, you should expect to be referred to as one.

the number of 50 year olds who could stand up to these "kids" unarmed in a fight are few and far between.

The law is not written based upon who can stand up to whom in a bare-knuckle fight.

I don't know if Mr White killed this young man in cold blood or by accident but I do know that the prosecutor's argument that you must hunt to have guns is bogus leftist bullcrap that he sold to the jurors.

Of course it is.

Additionally, his implication that Mr. White venturing outside his house to protect his property and family is evidence of his intent to kill is utter nonsense.

Of course it's nonsense.. Mr. White was apparently dumb enough to think that he could "reason" with a bunch of drunk punk kids, and that it was somehow okay for him to wave a gun inches from the face of one of the louder ones....so close that he tried to slap it away.

Mr. White should have moved to Texas.

Agreed, but since he chose to live in Long Island, he needs to accept the fact that the laws in Long Island are quite different than those in Texas, a concept that many posters to this thread appear to be unaware of.

Perhaps they weren't; perhaps they were all armed with bazookas, it's irrelevant. None of them threatened him or his family with a weapon, and that's what the law cares about.

Perhaps you're not as naive as your statement here suggests but until you give me reason to believe otherwise I'll assume you are indeed that naive. 30 years ago young men like this were routinely armed with dangerous weapons when going to a fight, I can't imagine it has gotten any better. But be my guest, live your life as if the bad guys are all unarmed.

As for the threatened with weapons strawman, you built it you tear it down.

Well, that would be a wonderful argument if I was arguing that Mr White could shoot trespassers on sight. Since I'm not arguing that, I have no idea why you wrote it unless you are enamored with your the breadth of your New York Statutes knowledge. It is not unlawful for a New York resident to carry a gun on his own property if so licensed. You are are not stating New York Law correctly. A jury can well decide that a a reasonable person was justified in using deadly force in a case like this which is why it was such a close call for the jury. They could also decide that the shooting was unintentional. They could not put this guy in jail for 5-15 for an unregistered gun. See Bernard Goetz.

Of course not. While the drunk punks are merely outside shouting at him he can call the police and have them carted away, and he can enjoy Christmas dinner with his family.

Or not, there is no statute making it a crime not to call in a complaint to the police.

I'm sure Mr. White and his family will be suitably comforted by your magnanimous gesture.

No, that point is irrelevant to the issue.

No, it wasn't irrelevant, the prosecutor used it to paint Mr White as a gun nut. It is very relevant and a shame that you don't understand that.

Actually, it's not what I call them, it's what they, in fact, were.

So we were all kids in the Army and Marine Corps? Who knew?

You seem fixated on the 'racial' aspect of the white kids' threats. Do you feel that because they were racial in nature that this serves to justify Mr. White's actions?

Now you're dissembling, I mentioned race exactly once to describe the threats launched at the White's. It would seem to be especially relevant since the gun that Mr White carried was given to him by his grandfather who, as it happens, was burned out in the Jim Crow south many years ago. Let's try keeping it real here pal.

I really could care less who you have or haven't met. They are not "kids" in the eyes of the law. They can be exceptionally dangerous under certain circumstances and should be treated as such.

The law is not written based upon who can stand up to whom in a bare-knuckle fight.

Wrong again, the laws are written so that those unable to defend themselves in a "bare knuckle fight" may use additional force if justified.

Of course it is.

And yet once again that is how the prosecutor helped convince the jury to convict.

If the kid tried to slap a gun out of the hand of a homeowner while the homeowner was on his property and the gun went off because of that, the jury should have found Mr White not guilty of the manslaughter charge. If Mr White waited a bit before re-targeting and then shooting the young man, then the jury was probably correct in their verdict. But they would have to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt.

BTW, how many years do you think Bernie Goetz should have spent in jail? 5-15?