Castle doctrine shooting

[Jawehawk]

So in your world, the appropriate punishment for stealing is death.

What's the most severe crime that you would consider it not appropriate to shoot someone for?

Perhaps if you had bothered reading the full discussion instead of just reading one of my posts, you'd realise that I've said multiple times that I don't approve of what the home owner did. No, I don't think killing is the appropriate answer. But I also don't pitty those who die as a result of them having tried to steal something.

And the obvious solution is to set a trap for them so that he can kill them and then hide behind a self-defense law?

In my opinion, the obvious solution would've been to hold the intruder at gunpoint until police arrived.
There's not much I can say aside from what I've already said. So I'll leave it at that.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've said multiple times that I don't approve of what the home owner did.

But you have also said that the only punishment he should get is a review of his gun ownership.

So you will forgive us if we get mixed messages here.

 

[niky]

Since when is an open garage door something that sparks speculation and worry? It's just a garage.
The garage door could be broken or the owner might've simply forgotten. And again, if someone feels like he/she has to investigate this, He/she knocks on the front door.

Coming upon an open door in the middle of the night is very unusual, especially in a country where people tend to triple lock their doors at night for fear of theft. If you're not alarmed at signs of a possible break-in at a neighbor's house, you're not a very good neighbor.

You can't predict what someone will do in a possible emergency. Will they call the cops? Will they snoop around? Will they ring the doorbell? Will they go in gung-ho, gun drawn, expecting trouble?

-

This is not to say that the teen wasn't looking to perform some small time pilferage (I'd say it's likely he was). But the penalty for petty theft is, obviously, not death by firing squad.

The point here is not that the man shot the boy. It's that he thought shooting indiscriminately into a dark garage was an appropriate response.

If he was shooting indiscriminately without intent to kill, that's homicidal recklessness, and warrants jail time for manslaughter. If he was shooting with intent to kill, that's plain murder.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...I've said multiple times that I don't approve of what the home owner did. No, I don't think killing is the appropriate answer. But I also don't pitty those who die as a result of them having tried to steal something.

So you have no pity despite disapproving of this inappropriate killing of someone you presume to be a thief?

I think I see what you mean but it seems a difficult attitude to reconcile.

 

[Jawehawk]

But you have also said that the only punishment he should get is a review of his gun ownership.

So you will forgive us if we get mixed messages here.

Yes, because even though what the home owner did was wrong, the problem would've never been there if the kid, or anyone else for that matter, hadn't trespassed. He was forced into taking action by repeated robberies, and while I again do not agree with how he handled it, I can understand why he felt some action was needed.

He has shown that he's not responsible enough to handle guns, and as such, removing his gun license solves the problem. But I just can't stand the thought of thieves essentially resulting in this guy's life being ruined, regardless of the fact that he made a bad decision. Is it fair that someone who might've attempted to steal something from his garage died? No. But nor do I think it's fair that the home owner goes to jail because of a decision he wouldn't have felt necessary to make if people hadn't robbed him in the first place.

Am I making sense?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No. You're excusing murder on the grounds that another crime was being committed. It also shows a fundamental lack of understanding about Castle Doctrine. The laws state that the use of deadly force can be considered justifiable if the home owner believes deadly force is necessary to defend against an attack, usually in the case of home invasion. There was no attack. The kid did not use force to gain access to the premises, nor was he carrying a weapon. He walked up to an open garage, with a light on. The home owner was not defending anything.

 

[Jawehawk]

I don't care about what the law dictates. I deal in what I find logical and morally correct. Laws are full of holes and depending on context, can lack logic.

And I think you're forgetting that the home owner was not aware that this was an unarmed kid who wasn't involved in the previous robberies. As far as we know, he was expecting it to be the ones who had been involved in several robberies in the neighborhood. Where did you get the idea that the light was on? Nothing of the sort is stated in the linked article. While we can't reasonably say that the home owner feared for his life in this case, you can't say that he didn't defend his property. We've been over this. From the info that we have access to, there's no logical reason for anyone to have entered the garage aside from wanting to steal something.

 

[niky]

Again, what is the logical punishment for petty theft. Ponder on that, for a bit.

And what is the logical punishment for a person who has demonstrated the willingness to kill over the slightest of economic affronts?

He has shown that he's not responsible enough to handle guns, and as such, removing his gun license solves the problem.

You are demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of gun laws and firearm use. As a firearm owner, you have it drilled into you that you do not point your gun at a target you are not willing to shoot and kill. A gun owner does not draw his weapon unless he is in combat. A gun owner does not shoot unless he has intent to kill.

Shooting indiscriminately into a dark garage is not simple irresponsibility. Illegal and indiscriminate use of firearms carry a severe penalty. Actually shooting someone without a clear reason to carries the maximum penalty possible.

-

This is what Kaarma saw on the baby monitor that night:

Flashlight in one hand, the other empty. No visible knife or gun. Castle doctrine isn't going to save him on this one.

 

[Exorcet]

I don't care about what the law dictates. I deal in what I find logical and morally correct. Laws are full of holes and depending on context, can lack logic.

And I think you're forgetting that the home owner was not aware that this was an unarmed kid who wasn't involved in the previous robberies. As far as we know, he was expecting it to be the ones who had been involved in several robberies in the neighborhood.

And he was totally wrong. It would be his job to identify who was there before shooting and not after.

there's no logical reason for anyone to have entered the garage aside from wanting to steal something.

We have no idea why the garage was entered, but it's safe to say that something suspicious, unusual, and potentially indicative of danger might draw attention from someone without bad intentions.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Thanks for the extra info, @niky, I'd searched for some earlier but couldn't find much. A combination of poor connection and good whisky.

It does seem quite likely that the lad was involved in theft. It was always literally possible that he was involved in (or knew details of) one or both of the previous robberies at the property and now to my mind it seems probable.

@Jawehawk I might be a soft snivelling left-of-field hedge-farting liberal but I think cold-blooded execution is a literal overkill for this offence, no?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't care about what the law dictates. I deal in what I find logical and morally correct. Laws are full of holes and depending on context, can lack logic.

Like saying "I think what he did was wrong, but he shouldn't be punished for it"? You admitted that there were other, better courses of action available.

Now, if the home owner had not set a trap for the intruder, then you might have a case. But the fact that he set a trap shows his intention, and intention is taken very seriously by the law. Intention - call it intention, planning or premeditation; it's all the same thing - is enough to upgrade a charge of second-degree murder to first-degree, and in first-degree cases, the prosecution can appeal for the death penalty (in states that have it).

The home owner might have been defending his property, but Castle Doctrine does not give him the right to kill. It only makes an allowance for citizens to use deadly force, provided that they can demonstrate that there was an immediate, tangible threat to their wellbeing or the wellbeing of others within the home. That has not been demonstrated here, and if anything, he posed a greater threat than the kid. The act of setting a trap shows premeditation, and so Castle Doctrine does not apply. Whatever crimes the kid was committing at the time do nothing to change the fact that the home owner committed first-degree murder. Nothing excuses that.

For somebody who claims to follow logic and morality, you're showing a complete lack of both. All I can say is that it is a good thing you're not setting laws

 

[KSaiyu]

I don't care about what the law dictates. I deal in what I find logical and morally correct. Laws are full of holes and depending on context, can lack logic.

This is the kind of attitude I was trying to highlight earlier. The law itself may be unambiguous, and it seems the general consensus here is this is murder plain and simple, but there's a hell of a lot of gray in its interpretation/public perception on their general rights to defend themselves such as in the Billings shooting

 

[Jawehawk]

Well, I've said all I can say about the matter, so I won't take this further.
I'd just be repeating myself anyway.

For somebody who claims to follow logic and morality, you're showing a complete lack of both.

This went on for so long without anyone getting personal. Well done on breaking that streak.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It wasn't a personal attack. It was an observation. After all, you have basically said that murder is okay if it prevents a lesser crime. So is theft okay if it prevents murder, or does it only apply to thwarting lesser crimes, in which case you would have to commit genocide to prevent murder?

 

[Imari]

This went on for so long without anyone getting personal. Well done on breaking that streak.

If you can explain how it's logical or moral for someone who murders a thief to get away with a slap on the wrist, which is what you're advocating with a review of his gun ownership, I'll be very surprised.

 

[Jawehawk]

It wasn't a personal attack. It was an observation. After all, you have basically said that murder is okay if it prevents a lesser crime. So is theft okay if it prevents murder, or does it only apply to thwarting lesser crimes, in which case you would have to commit genocide to prevent murder?

So in the future, I guess it's perfectly fine for me to call someone on here an idiot, as long as it's an observation...
Spare me the BS please.

I've said over and over again that I thought the home owner did the wrong thing. But clearly you're ignoring that in favor of focusing on other parts of what I've said. Nothing will be gained by putting the home owner in jail. He's not a criminal in the sense that he goes out to do bad stuff. After repeated robberies in his home and in the neighborhood, he felt he needed to take action. The police, from what I can understand, were not able to actually do anything about the robberies, so that leaves him with two choices. Do something about it, or wait it out.

Yes, he dealt with it the wrong way, but what are you actually achieving by putting him in jail? You aren't taking a dangerous cirminal off the street, as this guy doesn't have any history (that I know off) of going out to commit crimes. You aren't actually fixing anything. You're punishing him because you think he deserves to be punished for his actions, and while I can understand and follow that logic, you aren't actually getting anything concrete out of it. You're doing it solely to punish someone who wouldn't have felt the need to do any of this if the police had done a better job, or no one had robbed him in the first place.

Taking away his gun means he wouldn't be able to do something this stupid again. It also means he can continue his job at the fire department, and by extension, he can continue to contribute to the society. Something he won't be able to do in prison. Hell, prison might even have a bad influence on him.

So I guess that is my question. What is your actual goal with sending him to jail? What do you hope to actually get out of it, other than what some would say is justice?

 

[Exorcet]

but what are you actually achieving by putting him in jail?

A warning to anyone else with a gun and an open garage full of bait. Prison isn't just for punishment or isolation, but also deterrence. Murder is a serious crime anyway and I would not excuse it just because he was originally wronged.

 

[niky]

So I guess that is my question. What is your actual goal with sending him to jail? What do you hope to actually get out of it, other than what some would say is justice?

what is the logical punishment for a person who has demonstrated the willingness to kill over the slightest of economic affronts?

Taking away the rights to legally own a weapon does not turn a killer into a model citizen. It also does not take away their ability to kill.

If you can kill in a fit of rage over an imagined/real affront with a gun, you can do it with a knife. Or a car. Or...

-

And also:

A warning to anyone else with a gun and an open garage full of bait. Prison isn't just for punishment or isolation, but also deterrence. Murder is a serious crime anyway and I would not excuse it just because he was originally wronged.

@Jawehawk - By your logic, we should not send a man who poisons his father and brothers for a billion dollar inheritance to jail. Because he is no danger to anyone else, now that he has what he wants. Simply remove his right to buy antifreeze.

We should not send a man who purposely runs over a jaywalker to jail. He only killed a lawbreaker. Remove his driver's license. No problem.

We should not send someone who has strangled a vandal spray-painting his fence to jail. We should merely take away his right to buy piano wire.

-

If you allow a person to live without serious consequences to his actions (and no, the removal of a gun license is not all that serious... not when you can still illegally obtain firearms, or license them under your wife's name or a friend's name.) you are simply teaching him that he can (literally) get away with murder.

 

[Imari]

Nothing will be gained by putting the home owner in jail. He's not a criminal in the sense that he goes out to do bad stuff.

Yes, he dealt with it the wrong way, but what are you actually achieving by putting him in jail? You aren't taking a dangerous cirminal off the street, as this guy doesn't have any history (that I know off) of going out to commit crimes.

You're removing someone from society who plots the murder of other citizens. You're removing someone who is willing to kill without identifying their target.

That he commits his crimes from the comfort of his own home is irrelevant. That he was also the victim of crime is lamentable, but in no way excuses his actions. You'll find that many people have been the victims of crime, and most of them don't resort to killing random people.


Should we kill his whole family to the third generation for his actions? No, because that would be a massive overreaction.
Should he kill someone robbing his house when there's no established danger to his person? No, because that would be a massive overreaction.

People who react in ways that result in the unnecessary death of other people need to be removed from society and placed somewhere they can't do harm. People who plot situations that result in the unnecessary death of other people need to be locked up and provided with psychiatric help.


I mean, say you let this guy go. He in all likelihood didn't get the burglar, and even if he did there's lots more out there. What's to stop him doing the same thing again? By all accounts he's not exactly rational to start with, to think that the best way to solve his problem was to create a death trap.

So I guess that is my question. What is your actual goal with sending him to jail? What do you hope to actually get out of it, other than what some would say is justice?

What is achieved is that you keep the killer the hell away from everyone else, where he hopefully cannot kill again.

 

[Jawehawk]

niky

No. What you're doing is removing context and giving random examples that have nothing to do with this case.
Cases are handled on a case by case basis. Meaning the same consequence doesn't necessarily apply to every case, even though the law in question is the same. I'm tlaking about this case, and only this case. Because no matter how hard you try, you can't make a set of laws that are fair in any given situation.

Imari

You're temporarily removing him from society, and putting him in a place where he can establish criminal ties. Not to mention the chance of him becoming more than bitter and doing something truely stupid whenever he gets out. And saying that he plots the murder of other citizens is putting is very vague. He's not killing at random. He's not tricking random people into his own personal hunting ground.

What he did was attempt to put a stop to a series of robberies. So stop trying to make it seem like he's some serial killer who kills at random. You ask what is stopping him from doing this again, and that is exactly what the removal of his license and gun would do. If he were to aqquire a gun illigally, then you bust his ass. A probation of some sort could go a long way in this.

And how is it irrelevant that he killed someone who was trespassign with the possible intend of stealing? Are you actually saying that going out and killing someone at random is the same as killing someone who, as far as you know, are trying to steal from you? Even if you're insisting on punishing someone for doing this, they most definately should not recieve the same punishment for murdering someone in cold blood for no reason at all.

The fact that the he had been robbed twice before, is important to the context, just as the fact that he baited someone into his garage with the intention to kill the person, is important. If you disregard any of these facts, you certainly won't be able to reach a fair conclusion.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The fact that the he had been robbed twice before, is important to the context, just as the fact that he baited someone into his garage with the intention to kill the person, is important. If you disregard any of these facts, you certainly won't be able to reach a fair conclusion.

The fact that he'd been robbed twice before is relevant because it gave him the motivation to set up a kill-trap that he fired into.

That premeditation makes it very difficult to establish his "fear" so I suspect his defence might not want to make so much of it.

Was the baby monitor two-way audio enabled? If so that makes it even harder to defend his actions, in my view.

 

[Imari]

Imari

You're temporarily removing him from society, and putting him in a place where he can establish criminal ties. Not to mention the chance of him becoming more than bitter and doing something truely stupid whenever he gets out.

You're saying we shouldn't lock up people who commit crimes, because that puts them in contact with other criminals? I'm not following the logic there.

And saying that he plots the murder of other citizens is putting is very vague. He's not killing at random. He's not tricking random people into his own personal hunting ground.

It's not vague. He created a situation in which he planned to kill someone.

As for not killing at random, was the person he killed the person who had been robbing his house? Or could it have been almost anyone who walked past his open garage that night?

What he did was attempt to put a stop to a series of robberies. So stop trying to make it seem like he's some serial killer who kills at random.

He was trying to be a vigilante.

I didn't say he was a serial killer, he's killed one person. However, killing one person is generally considered to be enough to lock the killer up unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances.

While it's nice that he had good intentions and all, I doubt the boy's father really gives a ****, and I doubt anyone else in the community is safer for his good intentions. The man is unbalanced in a very dangerous way if he thinks setting up a death trap is the way to solve that problem.

In a society with unlimited resources, he would be provided with psychiatric treatment in a secure facility until it was established that he knew when it was appropriate to use lethal force. We don't live in that society, generally we just lock these people up and hope for the best. It's not a great solution, but what can you do, let the guy walk the streets? No thanks.

You ask what is stopping him from doing this again, and that is exactly what the removal of his license and gun would do. If he were to aqquire a gun illigally, then you bust his ass. A probation of some sort could go a long way in this.

A gun is not the only weapon you can use to kill someone. If he were not a gun owner, do you think this whole thing would never have happened?

I think he would have found another weapon and modified his plan accordingly. There has to be dozens of totally legal implements that can be used to kill someone very easily, from kitchen knifes to baseball bats to cars.

And how is it irrelevant that he killed someone who was trespassign with the possible intend of stealing? Are you actually saying that going out and killing someone at random is the same as killing someone who, as far as you know, are trying to steal from you?

If you are not in physical danger, then yes, that's what I'm saying.

One is more understandable than the other, but not more excusable. I don't even understand what goes through a serial killer's head. I can imagine what this guy was probably thinking as he set up his little trap, but the fact remains that he made a decision that resulted in someone's unnecessary death.

I think judging people's motivations is largely ********.

Even if you're insisting on punishing someone for doing this, they most definately should not recieve the same punishment for murdering someone in cold blood for no reason at all.

That I could certainly agree with.

The fact that the he had been robbed twice before, is important to the context, just as the fact that he baited someone into his garage with the intention to kill the person, is important. If you disregard any of these facts, you certainly won't be able to reach a fair conclusion.

Perhaps you could then explain, logically, how these facts lead to the conclusion that the appropriate punishment is that he have his gun license revoked.

I don't find his prior burglaries to be of importance, other than to explain why he felt the need to take these actions in the first place. It's not an extenuating circumstance, and his response is entirely irrational.

He baited someone into his garage with intent to kill the person. I struggle to think of many prior circumstances that would justify that.

If he had been in fear for his life from this person, his actions might have been reasonable. To defend yourself from burglary by blind firing into your garage when there's any number of other options is insane. The man is a danger to the community.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well put, @Imari!

My personal feeling is that @Jawehawk is saying it's okay/not okay.

Extinguishing a human life is not fair payback for robbery. In my opinion to believe that it IS makes things more important than people. Personally I'd give everything away to save the people I love (although they're scrounging bastards, my kids) and I struggle to understand anyone who can place the value of property above the value of life.

Dangerous statement; this seems particularly true of the US where, it seems to me, there's an insane obsession about property, land and "borders". Get over it

 

[Jawehawk]

Uhh. I don't know. I get what you guys are saying. Truely, I do.
But it just infuriates me to no end that one man's life has to go down the drain as a result of the actions of criminals. Yes, he made the wrong decision, I won't argue against that. But it's a decisions he should've never been forced to make. And that is what splits me in half in deciding what should be his punishment.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But it's a decisions he should've never been forced to make

That, for me, is the crux of the thing that makes me uncomfortable about your argument.

Did the previous two robberies force him to kill somebody or was that his elective choice?

I believe the second and can't support the valuations which, in my opinion, informed his choice.

 

[Imari]

But it just infuriates me to no end that one man's life has to go down the drain as a result of the actions of criminals. Yes, he made the wrong decision, I won't argue against that. But it's a decisions he should've never been forced to make. And that is what splits me in half in deciding what should be his punishment.

I can sympathise, but unfortunately it's the human condition. Hopefully most people won't have to face this man's situation of being regularly burgled without support from the authorities, but tough stuff happens to all of us and how we deal with it is important.

We can say that he shouldn't have been forced to make the decision, and in a perfect world he shouldn't have. But it's not a perfect world, and I reckon pretty much everyone will have at least one situation in their life where they might think "Hell, this would be a lot easier if the guy was dead". Lots more people are victims of crimes that could easily feel justified in killing their attacker, either in retribution or simply to protect themselves or others in the future. Rape victims, victims of physical violence, kidnapping victims, slaves, the families of murder victims, there's probably more but you get the idea.

The killer in this particular story was put in a pretty tough situation. Frankly, he chose the easy option, to shoot anyone who entered his house. While the trap plan was a relatively ingenious way of taking control of the situation, the way he used it was not. He could have filmed the actual crime taking place and got some action from the authorities after the fact. He could have tried to follow the burglar to identify him. He could have restrained him or held him at gunpoint until the authorities arrived. If we're going into probably illegal options, there are a bunch of incapacitating options he could have used such as pepper sprays or tasers. I don't know how legal those things are for civilians in the US, they're not legal over here. Hell, why not get silly and put bear traps all over the floor. Minus a foot, but still probably alive.

For only having been burgled twice, it seems to me that he had a lot of options left. I'm sure twice seems like a lot when there's someone in your house taking your stuff, but the killer went straight to the end game bypassing all non-lethal options. That's the problem.

Someone who shoots another motorist at the traffic lights in a fit of road rage is guilty of poor judgement, the inability to discern non-lethal options to a problem that is emotionally challenging. This guy seems to have the same problem, to be honest. He's not a serial killer and shouldn't be treated like one, but I don't think we should pretend that someone who thinks it's OK to kill another human under any but the most dire circumstances doesn't have a huge problem.

He killed a guy. There is a price to pay for that, and if he were rational he would have known that. Either he thought it was a fair price to pay and so should pay it, or he was unable to fully comprehend the consequences of his actions and should be locked up for being mentally unstable in such a way that he is able to kill people.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But it just infuriates me to no end that one man's life has to go down the drain as a result of the actions of criminals.

Prove to me that the kid was not in the same boat, and that his decision to steal was driven by criminality and not desperation or necessity. What if he had just been mugged, and so broke into the house looking for cash and a mobile phone to call for a taxi? That's just off the top of my head, but you get the point.

The home owner made a conscious decision to end another person's life. Regardless of who that person was or why they were there to begin with, he committed a criminal act. And for that, he deserves to have his life go down the drain. He's no better than the kid; if anything, he is worse. His life and livelihood are no more valuable than his victim's because he chose to set a trap for a thief. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the victim was injured and stumbled into the house looking for help, only to be shot.

 

[CarBastard]

But it's a decisions he should've never been forced to make.

You...ermmm...just whaaaaaaaaaat???

Nobody can be forced to do anything. Even when you're held at gunpoint you still are the one who decides, do I or do I not follow instructions? Will can't be imposed, but it certainly can be renounced to and renouncing to it is punishable, "I was forced to" is no valid way to get out of a crime, you're still gonna be held responsible for what you did because modern law, as far as I'm aware of, usually presuposes the ability to choose. And every human has it. That he or she chooses to ignore such an ability and play dumb so in the end he/she can make up excuses like "Everyone else was doing it", "If I hadn't done it, someone else would've done it", "I was forced to do it or I would've been killed" is an entirely different story altogether and one that has shown to be an absurd facade for heinous acts in recent history. The shooter could've been robbed once, twice, a million times, but in the end the decision to go batcrap crazy and kill someone without sufficient reason was all his, and he must pay for it. It's ridiculous that you're trying to make it look like that maniac is somehow a victim...

Beautiful retort by @Imari. I'm slow clapping right here...

 

[niky]

The fact that the he had been robbed twice before, is important to the context, just as the fact that he baited someone into his garage with the intention to kill the person, is important. If you disregard any of these facts, you certainly won't be able to reach a fair conclusion.

Eye for an eye. Not a kingdom for a nail.

The context is important for the defense, but does not excuse his actions.

The examples are all quite relevant. You're talking property rights, which can be put into monetary terms (a jaywalker robs a man of time, a vandal's actions costs you money to fix) versus the right to life, which is more basic.

From a logical point of view: There is no economic formula wherein you can demonstrate the equivalence of the loss of what may be a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of property against the loss of a life which is potentially worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in income generated in the future.

-

Nobody forces you to shoot a purse snatcher, just as nobody forces you to punch a man who has cut into line in front of you at the ticket counter. There is an appropriate response to everything. If you have proven that you cannot determine the appropriate response, you have proven yourself a danger to society and need to be held accountable.

You have a perpetrator in your garage. One with a door to the house you can lock (be stupid to set the trap there if you can't) and a roller door you can close behind him. Call the police, scream: "There's an intruder in my house!" Lock him up. Profit.

 

[SnakeOfBacon]

[Mr Karma] told investigators his home had twice been hit by burglars, and he told a hair stylist he had waited up at night to shoot intruders

sigh

When the sensors went off just after midnight and they saw a man on the monitor screen, Mr Kaarma went outside and fired a shotgun into the garage without warning several times.

Essentially, he was just itching to kill somebody, and abandoned reason in favour of proving how "tough" he was "defending" his home.
Dreadful.