Link to Story
I think there is probably more to this story than what is being reported, and while I support the Castle Doctrine as written, I absolutely do not support this man's actions as the article presents them to have been.
In my opinion, the Castle Doctrine is intended to give individuals an extra layer of protection from prosecution, by removing their duty to retreat, if they are confronted by a criminal while minding their own business in a public or private location.
I do not believe that the Castle Doctrine is a license to start shooting any time you simply feel threatened, and I definitely do not believe that such use was the intent of the authors of the legislation.
I'm not sure what prompted this man to shoot his teenage neighbor, but it sounds to me like he was spooked by the loud party next door and shot the first person he saw on his lawn. The fact that he shot through a window suggests to me that he was likely in no danger whatsoever from the teen he shot. Clearly the teen didn't have a weapon, nor did the shooter ever allege that he did. The shooter claims he thought he was about to be burglarized, but other than walking across his lawn there is no evidence that the teens made any moves suggesting that intent.
Frankly, I am very glad that the Grand Jury has moved to indict, and if the facts of the case show that the shooter simply shot a teen on his lawn because he "felt" that he might at some point become a threat; he needs to be convicted and sentenced for that piss poor critical thinking. I think a very clear message needs to be sent to these trigger happy nutjobs that you can't shoot people just because they are there and you're feeling frisky; and the courts need to make it abundantly clear that the Castle Doctrine is NOT a free-for-all License to Kill.
If this man didn't want people on his lawn, there are things within the law that can be done to warn trespassers not to venture onto his property. Since I highly doubt he had a fenced front yard, or purple on his trees, or posted no trespassing signs; he broke the law by shooting this person and he needs to be punished for it.
Some of you might bring up the Joe Horn shooting that happened and was highly publicized in the recent past, but I don't think the two cases are in the same category. I do think, however, that a proper message on what exactly the Castle Doctrine means has become past necessary.
Additionally, I think it would be fair to use the resulting death of the mother during the sentencing portion of the hearing. I have no doubt this case will result in a conviction, unless there is some unpresented evidence against the teens which I don't expect there to be. I don't think the shooter should be charged with any part of the mother's death, as that happened due to the actions of a likely drunk driver; but I do think it should be considered as a mitigating circumstance when he is sentenced.
This nonsense has got to stop! People like me fight long and hard battles in order to get good laws like this passed, and all it takes is a handful of these cases to get the law reversed...
It's time the courts send a message to this type of person and permanently scratch their itchy fingers.
-SS
I think there is probably more to this story than what is being reported, and while I support the Castle Doctrine as written, I absolutely do not support this man's actions as the article presents them to have been.
In my opinion, the Castle Doctrine is intended to give individuals an extra layer of protection from prosecution, by removing their duty to retreat, if they are confronted by a criminal while minding their own business in a public or private location.
I do not believe that the Castle Doctrine is a license to start shooting any time you simply feel threatened, and I definitely do not believe that such use was the intent of the authors of the legislation.
I'm not sure what prompted this man to shoot his teenage neighbor, but it sounds to me like he was spooked by the loud party next door and shot the first person he saw on his lawn. The fact that he shot through a window suggests to me that he was likely in no danger whatsoever from the teen he shot. Clearly the teen didn't have a weapon, nor did the shooter ever allege that he did. The shooter claims he thought he was about to be burglarized, but other than walking across his lawn there is no evidence that the teens made any moves suggesting that intent.
Frankly, I am very glad that the Grand Jury has moved to indict, and if the facts of the case show that the shooter simply shot a teen on his lawn because he "felt" that he might at some point become a threat; he needs to be convicted and sentenced for that piss poor critical thinking. I think a very clear message needs to be sent to these trigger happy nutjobs that you can't shoot people just because they are there and you're feeling frisky; and the courts need to make it abundantly clear that the Castle Doctrine is NOT a free-for-all License to Kill.
If this man didn't want people on his lawn, there are things within the law that can be done to warn trespassers not to venture onto his property. Since I highly doubt he had a fenced front yard, or purple on his trees, or posted no trespassing signs; he broke the law by shooting this person and he needs to be punished for it.
Some of you might bring up the Joe Horn shooting that happened and was highly publicized in the recent past, but I don't think the two cases are in the same category. I do think, however, that a proper message on what exactly the Castle Doctrine means has become past necessary.
Additionally, I think it would be fair to use the resulting death of the mother during the sentencing portion of the hearing. I have no doubt this case will result in a conviction, unless there is some unpresented evidence against the teens which I don't expect there to be. I don't think the shooter should be charged with any part of the mother's death, as that happened due to the actions of a likely drunk driver; but I do think it should be considered as a mitigating circumstance when he is sentenced.
This nonsense has got to stop! People like me fight long and hard battles in order to get good laws like this passed, and all it takes is a handful of these cases to get the law reversed...
It's time the courts send a message to this type of person and permanently scratch their itchy fingers.
-SS