More Shooting Stuff: Murder or DefenseFollow

Sure. But I was commenting more on the public perception of this and how it relates to things like the Castle Doctrine when in this case I don't think it was the issue. It just seems like some people are trying really hard to use this case to attack that, and I think that's misplaced outrage. This guy almost certainly would have done the same thing whether a castle doctrine was in place or not, so using his actions as an excuse to change the law is misguided IMO.


I think if we objectively ask if a homeowner has the right to park his car around the corner, we'd say "yes, of course he does". If we ask if a homeowner has the right to leave his lights off while he's home, the answer is again "of course he does". If we then ask if he has the right to stay up all night watching his home in case someone tries to break in, again, he clearly does. And if we ask if he has a right to use a firearm to defend his property against an intruder, he also clearly does. The idea that a homeowner may only defend himself and his property if he accidentally comes upon someone trying to break in is kind of absurd. So if he just happens to be home in the dark and wakes up to the sound of an intruder, he's free to pick up his shotgun and blow the intruders head off, but if he stays up all night in the dark, gun in hand, waiting to see if someone tries to break in, and does the exact same thing he's committing murder? I don't see it. And frankly, it's a nearly impossible legal standard to uphold. But that's what some people seem to be trying to argue here.

I'll have to take your word on it that you're seeing all sorts of outrage. It's not happening here but I suppose that doesn't mean it's not happening somewhere *shrug*

Um... It's in this thread:




Maybe not "outrage" in his case, but clearly Joph made a connection between what this guy did and the castle doctrine. Point being that he made this statement, and about 3 other people responded to that part of his post (with various degrees of jokiness), but not one person (until me) pointed out that this wasn't about his right to shoot the intruders, or even his right to lay in wait, but that he continued to shoot them until they were dead and well past the point where they were incapacitated.

I suppose this will be another one of those cases where I see media inclusion of certain phrases in the article as designed to cause people to make the "we need more restrictions on home defense" connection and others will insist that I'm just seeing things that aren't there. To me though, I see Joph's response as an expected response to an article which spends more time talking about the homeowner lying in wait and shooting the intruders as it does him shooting them repeatedly and taunting them whilst doing so (which is what made this a murder rather than justified shooting).


Even Joph's wording suggests the wrong viewpoint. Whether or not he had set a "death trap" is irrelevant (what exactly does that even mean in this context?). It's that having shot the intruders and ended their threat to him, he was obligated to call police and have them send medical aid. Instead, he continued shooting them until they were dead, and didn't call the police until a day later. The castle doctrine doesn't let you keep shooting people who are on the ground until they expire either, but Joph focused on the "trap" part of things. This focuses the issue on whether a homeowner can shoot someone who enters their home if they suspected they would enter the home ahead of time and waited for them, when it should be about the nature of the shooting itself.

Point being that we all know that shooting events like this will ultimately end out being used as ammunition (hah! I kill me!) for proposed legal changes that have nothing to do with the real issue at hand. Do I really have to sit around and wait until someone bundles this in with a list of other shootings and argues for elimination of the castle doctrine, or some other restriction on home defense rights? Or can I predict that this will happen instead?

No one pointed out that this wasn't about his right to shoot the intruders because that is an irrelevant discussion. If he was in danger, he had the right to shoot. He wasn't in danger. The guy from last week or so, with the daughter? That guy was all about the doctrine. People mentioned the part about his laying in wait because that is weird. It's really the only detail about the case that's even discussion worthy, because it's different. (SpoilerAs an aside, I think it'd be funny if after all his preparation he had gotten shot.) No one pointed out his continued shooting them even after incapacitation because it's bleedingly obvious that's a "bad thing to do." You're not pointing out a glaring flaw in the discussion. You didn't notice a subtle detail that the rest of the world missed. It doesn't add to the discussion. And if they do, they're stupid. It'd be like having OJ Simpson talk to a Woman's Abuse Symposium. Maybe find those places that are being misguided and argue your points with them? Why do it here? No one is outraged like you say they are here. No one is arguing to eliminate the castle doctrine here, or even hinting at it. Really, all you're doing is baiting people to make that argument preemptively just so you can post the talking points.

You ***** about people not discussing things. Maybe try actually having a discussion instead of this attention seeking behavior.

No that's not at all the question.

If he had set up a video camera, hid in the attic and pretended to be away waiting for the house to get burgled, then took his video to the police - for them to arrest the criminals, the legality would never come into question.

The question is whether this guy had the right to decide these two people would die at his hand - without due process, without judge/jury/sentencing, without parole or bail or even that one phone call.

Apparently he doesn't.Spoiler Uh duh.

Maybe you are.

Well.... now I want a pet smilodon. I could name him Sparky and feed him treats, when burglars are in short supply.

But by talking about that, and not the "kept shooting them after they were incapacitated because he wanted to make sure they died" in the context of a question about whether it's murder or defense (see the topic title if you're confused) strongly suggests that people are making that judgement based on that aspect (lying in wait). Doesn't it?




I'm asking the question though because when I see a topic asking whether something is murder or defense, and everyone is talking about how he lay in wait for the two thieves, it seems relevant to ask "hey, are we making that determination based on the fact that he lay in wait, or because he kept shooting them after they were incapacitated? Cause I think it's the latter and not the former that makes this murder". I made the point I made because no one else seemed to have addressed it yet. I think it's a valid point to make given the topic at hand.




Sure. But what specifically about his actions makes what he did meet that criteria? That's what I'm asking here. Even in your example you make a point of contrasting lying in wait to video tape the burglars versus lying in wait to shoot them. Which still kinda gives the impression that it's the "lying in wait and shooting them" part you're focusing on here. I'm just curious is that's really what makes this murder? I don't think so, but the preponderance of people mentioning the "lying in wait" bit makes me think that others disagree.

Let me bottom line this: If he had done exactly what he did, but had only shot each person one time, and lets say one of them died from the shot and the other survived, do you think he would have committed murder for the one that died (and been charged/convicted for it)?

I agree with gbaji on this. If you have an intruder in your home you are already in danger. Once the intruder is in my house all bets are off.

I would say its murder because it seems to have been premeditated. Its the difference between sitting in a chair minding your own business, and somebody breaks in and you scramble for a gun and he dies as a result versus sitting in a chair with your gun already pointed at the door ready to shoot the next person that comes through.

If he shot them in the legs, left them outside, phoned an ambulance, and sometime while that was happening they bled out and died, would he not be in gaol for premeditated murder?

*shrug* It may be murder; the real question is if it was justified. Does the guy have a right to bunker up in his own home and wait for a hapless sap to show up uninvited?

Well? Can I do what I want in my place? Does it include... waiting?