Castle doctrine shooting
- Thread starter KSaiyu
- 122 comments
- 3,811 views
KSaiyu
(Banned)
- 2,822
I don't know if it was irrelevant. The defence didn't use it but it was a factor in the case (specifically to the jury)
I object to the thread title, "Castle doctrine shooting".
A real castle is a seriously defensive structure. If your walls are 9 meters high, the portcullis down and drawbridge up, you will not be troubled by burglars.
I'm sure it was a castle in his mind
Last edited:
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
If you are attacked unprovoked and face the fact of kill or be killed would you just call 911 on your fancy cell phone and hope for the best?
Of course the Martin case had a bit more to it, or did it? Personally I think the guy was over zealous but that is for another thread.
Of course the Martin case had a bit more to it, or did it? Personally I think the guy was over zealous but that is for another thread.
KSaiyu
(Banned)
- 2,822
No, which is why there is a place for self defence laws and why I was empathetic to Tony Martin
My point is if these laws are somehow enabling these killings by their ambiguity, is it time to take notice?
My point is if these laws are somehow enabling these killings by their ambiguity, is it time to take notice?
- 23,800
- Philippines
That's called entrapment. And it's also illegal when the police do it. A sting operation, in order not to foul of entrapment, has to follow and identify the person as a habitual law-breaker... they have to be fencing stolen goods or illegal drugs regularly, for example... and it can take several meetings before they've got a big enough case to finally raid, arrest and prosecute the person.
A honey-trap will lure actual career thieves. Maybe. If they're stupid. It will also lure people who might not be thieves, but who are tempted by a quick buck. It could also lure innocent people who are curious as to what's going on.
You have no proof that the trespasser is out to do you harm. You have no proof that under normal circumstances, that person would be trying their hand at breaking and entering. An open door is an invitation to come in to everyone from criminals to the curious.
If I walked by my neighbors' house and found the garage door open and all the lights out, I would be damn curious, myself... and if I were the type who owned a gun and was also looking to scare away intruders, that could lead to an awfully nasty confrontation.
Very difficult to prove defense if you shoot blindly without acquiring a target. Blind shooting also constitutes endangerment, even before the first bullet (or load of shot, depending on what was in that shotgun) finds its mark.
I cannot comment much until they release more information. But I will say this: Whether or not the boy was an actual burglar (and, him being a teenager, there's an even chance of it), it doesn't look good for the defendant.
He done stupid.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
niky
Oh really now? ... edit hmm the link is sour https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjAC&url=http://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/2-58-bait-car-program.pdf/view&ei=UmVmU47MOIGGyASoyoCABQ&usg=AFQjCNEfY9O60VnnH7TrNvzZElG733vnjA&bvm=bv.65788261,d.aWw
Of course, if it's a case of a civilian bait then I cry foul as well. The danger or intent needs to be established by the property owner, my point was not a cowboy one thus why I said the truth usually comes out. It is not that hard to do what is required when faced with a situation, more laws or restrictions are not going to help a foolish peoples. If the guy just went all shoot em up like he was in a Hollywood movie I'm sure he'll be convicted of something harsh.
Like I said, I'm not familiar with the case but I will still stand on what I said about guarding ones castle. It could very well be all the guy needed to do was turn on a light and the kid would have fled, who knows? I would never shoot blind by the way, if you find yourself in my garage and I roll up just yell as loud as you can, "it's just me Niky from GTP!" and I'd most likely offer you a beer.
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
As niky said, entrapment and sting operations are different.
Entrapment means that a police officer in some way pressured somebody into performing an illegal act.
If the purse had been left in the garage by a police officer, it would not have been entrapment because the burglar would have made the conscious decision to take the item.
But the home owners aren't police. It's not their business to be laying sting operations and they will likely be roasted for playing police officer.
If the defense did not use it, then it was not a factor in the case.
Entrapment means that a police officer in some way pressured somebody into performing an illegal act.
If the purse had been left in the garage by a police officer, it would not have been entrapment because the burglar would have made the conscious decision to take the item.
But the home owners aren't police. It's not their business to be laying sting operations and they will likely be roasted for playing police officer.
If the defense did not use it, then it was not a factor in the case.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
I have personally seen unattended sport cars parked idle in front of slum apt.s with the door ajar, I have seen thousand dollar mountain bikes left unlocked in front of grocery stores, all the time in fact. It has nothing to do with my law enforcement expertise but everything to do with my observations ...They bait where I live, everyday, it's a part of life here.
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
They bait where I live, everyday, it's a part of life here.
Tl;dr: You have no clue what you're talking about.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
Of course I do, the police where I live bait, all the time. 👍 I even linked their car bait program pdf if you bothered to read it.
I know quite a few unfortunate people, I visit them where they live, I see bait cars very often. I ride a modest 500 dollar rock hopper here and there, I see them baiting bicycles all the time when I go to walmart or whatever. If you simply look around you can spot the marked cars watching over the fishing pole.
Not sure why this is bothering you?
I know quite a few unfortunate people, I visit them where they live, I see bait cars very often. I ride a modest 500 dollar rock hopper here and there, I see them baiting bicycles all the time when I go to walmart or whatever. If you simply look around you can spot the marked cars watching over the fishing pole.
Not sure why this is bothering you?
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
It is foolish, some might think it takes the criminal element of the street but I disagree. It causes more problems than solutions IMO. Simple as that.
http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/APD-adding-more-bait-cars-to-fleet/17557186
In case you still think I'm crazy but I'm starting to realize you think it's a good idea.
http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/APD-adding-more-bait-cars-to-fleet/17557186
In case you still think I'm crazy but I'm starting to realize you think it's a good idea.
KSaiyu
(Banned)
- 2,822
So judge's instructions and jury opinions have no relevance in the legal system? Trials are held in a vacuum where the jury are only exposed to the prosecution and defence?
- 23,800
- Philippines
Grand Theft Auto is a bit different from simply picking up a wallet off the street. Whether bait cars are a good idea or fall under entrapment is still a gray area. Personally, I lean towards the latter, but if someone tries to drive away a car that's so obviously left out to be stolen, they deserve what's coming.
But what's coming is punishment that fits the crime. Death for purse-snatching... isn't.
Here's the thing: He's not the police, and he doesn't have the training, preparation or authority to carry out a sting operation.
And a sting operation typically ends with an arrest. Not random shooting. There's a big difference there.
If he'd attempted to make a citizen's arrest armed with a gun, after calling the police to alert them to the presence of an intruder in the house... he would likely be facing a lawsuit, but he would most likely win, and he would have my utmost sympathy and support.
As it is, he stands a fair chance of going to jail, because of several stupid decisions made over the course of a single day.
Zimmerman got off because his life was being threatened at the time. In this case, it's very hard for someone to threaten your life if they don't know you're there.
But what's coming is punishment that fits the crime. Death for purse-snatching... isn't.
Here's the thing: He's not the police, and he doesn't have the training, preparation or authority to carry out a sting operation.
And a sting operation typically ends with an arrest. Not random shooting. There's a big difference there.
If he'd attempted to make a citizen's arrest armed with a gun, after calling the police to alert them to the presence of an intruder in the house... he would likely be facing a lawsuit, but he would most likely win, and he would have my utmost sympathy and support.
As it is, he stands a fair chance of going to jail, because of several stupid decisions made over the course of a single day.
Zimmerman got off because his life was being threatened at the time. In this case, it's very hard for someone to threaten your life if they don't know you're there.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
I can't disagree with that, if he baited and shot a kid just because he was bored or angry that something was stolen from him before. No one likes a vigil anti, that will not deter me from protecting what is mine with the appropriate means at my disposal. I've never had to do it but I would, as required.
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
What the tabloids choose to whine about and what is used to determine guilty from innocent in a court room are two different things. Stand Your Ground laws were not a factor in that case. I suggest you reconsider your view on trials if you think otherwise.
Either way, this is not the Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman thread. If you want to claim that SYG was relevant, I'll be happy to talk about it in that thread.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
You're still wrong though, how does SYG have ambiguity to it? Or the Castle Doctrine, if you take the five minutes necessary to read the core of the documents and try to understand what you've read and how they are applied then you wouldn't be here sounding like a cable news soundbite. It's easy to see a senseless death and then have your heart on your sleeve, but it doesn't make your case valid or remotely correct.
Also you further go out of your way to show us that you really don't know what your talking about with a different case that didn't even use SYG law in Florida to claim defense. The reason you seem to cling to it is because Jury by Media said to and you have yet to crack open a law book or internet site telling you reality. Also @Zenith has proven to you that self defense =/= second amendment rights there is a limited indirect scope that one could possibly interlink them; so "due to my second amendment right to bear arms I was able to defend my domain with a gun". Yet as I said earlier one could defend their domain with any tool they deem fit or viable and thus it has no direct or real link to second amendment rights.
KSaiyu
(Banned)
- 2,822
The laws themselves are unambigious, it's the public perception - whether they are the shooter or one of the jury. Blame the media if you want but it's my opinion law makers should recognise when there is a problem with public understanding of a law and strive for a solution. Zimmerman himself admitted he'd never heard of the laws, the defence (as you both pointed out) didn't use it, yet the men and women who reached a verdict deliberated over it. If I type "Trayvon Martin S" in google the suggestion "Stand Your Ground" is fourth in the list. "Self defence" isn't even an option. Public ignorance is good when you want to feel intellectually superior to the "sheep", but dangerous if they aren't aware of the minutiae of laws with deadly weapons.
That is my argument - there is an apparent failure to educate people on their rights to self defence. It's surreal to me that within a few hundred miles of the Dede shooting someone shoots their own houseguest because he thought he was an intruder, and isn't even charged (The kid was moving quietly to avoid waking up the homeowner). Can you imagine if that broke mainstream? What would stop people using "I thought he was a baddie" as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
That is my argument - there is an apparent failure to educate people on their rights to self defence. It's surreal to me that within a few hundred miles of the Dede shooting someone shoots their own houseguest because he thought he was an intruder, and isn't even charged (The kid was moving quietly to avoid waking up the homeowner). Can you imagine if that broke mainstream? What would stop people using "I thought he was a baddie" as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Keef
Premium
- 25,146
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I don't think the laws are ambiguous at all. It's common knowledge that baiting intruders is malicious. It is not in line with the principle of "defense". Furthermore, intruding is illegal and I think we all know that's a pretty basic idea to wrap your head around.
The German student never should have been inside another person's property without permission. That was a pretty boneheaded move. At best, he should have expected to be arrested for trespassing but instead he got himself killed. Speaking of getting himself killed, he was shot by a person who was purposefully trying to bait an intruder in order to kill them. That's murder.
My point is that this case has less to do with castle doctrines than cold blooded murder. Leave it to a European to have anti-gun sentiment about it and a European news organization to run a non-issue as an example of the US being uncivilized and ruled by cowboys.
Sorry that your son was murdered, German guy, but you still must admit that you can't simply walk through somebody garage if the door is open. For future reference, you don't send a European college student to the American frontier. Just because the locals have German heritage doesn't mean they think like Germans.
The German student never should have been inside another person's property without permission. That was a pretty boneheaded move. At best, he should have expected to be arrested for trespassing but instead he got himself killed. Speaking of getting himself killed, he was shot by a person who was purposefully trying to bait an intruder in order to kill them. That's murder.
My point is that this case has less to do with castle doctrines than cold blooded murder. Leave it to a European to have anti-gun sentiment about it and a European news organization to run a non-issue as an example of the US being uncivilized and ruled by cowboys.
Sorry that your son was murdered, German guy, but you still must admit that you can't simply walk through somebody garage if the door is open. For future reference, you don't send a European college student to the American frontier. Just because the locals have German heritage doesn't mean they think like Germans.
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
That's wonderful and means absolutely nothing other than you using the ignorance of the public as an argument to further your agenda. Just because you do a quick search doesn't mean that it is not a self defense related situation, once again read the actual laws if you're going to talk about this. Also there are even subtle laws that people don't know about does that make it right or get them out of trouble when they break it and are caught? No not at all, if people are going to talk about it as well intellectually they should do the same.
Who's failure is it to educate? There is plenty of material, if you and others aren't going to be proactive and have this give it to me attitude and not learn on your own... That's your fault. For you to then blame others that they didn't educate people, is just trying to point a finger because you don't have an answer to why this happens like you wish you did. Also if the evidence points to a person feeling in danger then why should they be charged, their have been cases where this has been claimed and it's easy to see that it's a lie and the person was really trying to commit murder go ask Oscar Pistorius how well it's working for him.
Yes now you seem to be taking this stance that since it's not black and white like you want it to be the only viable solution is some sort of blanket ban on self defense. I also find it funny that you are only looking for shootings as the means of self defense too.
KSaiyu
(Banned)
- 2,822
What if the German student was drunk, and wandered into the wrong garage. The trap setting is immaterial to my argument - if this wasn't a trap it's possible the shooter could have left with no charges at all.
LMSCorvetteGT2
What agenda?
LMSCorvetteGT2
Where do I mention a blanket ban on self defence. And thanks for ignoring the story I quoted. I'm sure since the homeowner in his mind felt threatened by his own guest that means no charges is the appropriate response. Murder under the guise of self defence is obvious to see, my beef is with the immediate presumption of guilt on a "trespasser" - in both cases showing no signs of criminal intent, and in the one that didn't even lead to charges not even a trespasser at all.
