Rochester, NY man charged with murder, claims self defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
the district attorney handling this case was on the tube with a very strong statement

he said he was not averse to people carrying

he did say that if you choose to carry, you best know the
laws of the state of ny about when to legally use lethal force

as peetzakilla posted above, part 35 of nystate law outlines
when you can and cant escalate to using lethal force

we have to know the law...that is all there is to say

it is not something to run over once or twice....it is something
that we have to read and re-read and digest it so that it becomes
ingrained in our brain

the question isnt: are you willing to accept the responsibility of
using lethal force?

the question first is: do you know when you can legally use it?

even if we do know, (and are justified) there will be lots of action in the courts

(as some one said: every bullet has a lawyer attached to it)
 
If I got somebody trying to steal my car or anything in it I would go outside with a handgun also. I have the right to defend my property. If the guy would have charged at me, I would have fired on him too. For all that guy knew the BG could have had a knife.
Click to expand...

In Texas at night, maybe. I wouldn't. However, this happened in New York. You obviously did not have the benefit of reading mikejonestkd's Post No. 5, which was posted at the same time as yours.

To my knowledge, there are two states that permit the use of deadly force to protect property, other than castle situations when you are inside your dwelling or car: Georgia, and Texas at night. I am not at all sure that someone "going through cars" would meet the standard of necessity. One would have to ask a local attorney.

Whether the deceased was a good kid or not is likely not going to prove relevant to the outcome.

As peetzakilla said, the shooter has a tough road ahead.

This is disturbing; someone has died, and someone has been charged with murder. Both could have been easily avoided by following David Armstrong's advice. This should serve as a reminder that we all need to know the laws in our jurisdictions before arming ourselves.

Here's some relevant advice from another thread on this forum:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3420416&postcount=73
 
So then you know the details of how the thief lunged at the homeowner? Fill us in. Can you say with absolutely certainty and fact that the homeowner was not in danger?
Click to expand...
I think we can say with near 100% certainty that if the homeowner would have stayed inside and called the police he would not have been in danger. Once again we have an example of the GG turning what was a simple robbery into a gunfight, when there was no need.
 
Thats why god gave us fingers and man made telephones for things like this.I would have called the police why try to protect a outside material object.


The Home owner was not in immediate danger until he put him self in a position to be in danger by trying to protect a material object that most of us have insurance for.


Was he wrong for defending him selfs, well thats up to the jury know but I dont see this turning out so well for the home owner.


Parents need to take control of there children unless they snuck out while parents sleep but there is solutions for that as well.
 
maybe instead of debating this we should take up a collection for the home owners defense?

I suspect in the end he will wish he had just yelled out the door he was calling the cops and stayed inside.
 
I think we can say with near 100% certainty that if the homeowner would have stayed inside and called the police he would not have been in danger. Once again we have an example of the GG turning what was a simple robbery into a gunfight, when there was no need.
Click to expand...

Or we can say if the thief had actually been acting like a good kid and not committed a provocative and illegal act that with 100% certainty he wouldn't have put himself in the position that night to be confronted with any authority let alone the homeowner of the place he attempts to burglarize.


There was no "gun fight".

The homeowner confronted the thief (still no mention of gun). Thief moved towards homeowner. THEN there was discharge of the firearm.

If you want to skew the story and continue to imply the guy went out guns a'blazing, you're only doing all homeowners with firearms a disservice.

Since it is NY, no doubt there are plenty of 'sit and wait' subscribers. Obviously this homeowner didn't drink that tainted koolaid. He went out to stop the thieves. From the info provided, it sounded like he did.

Then a thief made a move towards him.


I'm saying, I want to see the facts and events that took place. Because I can very easily put myself in that homeowners shoes. In fact I have chased people out from our property, from inside our trucks. I have called the Constables while tailing these criminals and we have filed reports. We don't sit and wait to be victims multiple times a year. All this time I've had a weapon and there hasn't seemed to be problem since the bad guys are running the other way.

I don't buy in to the "because a weapon was present that person was wrong" bologna. We don't buy into 'wait to be a victim'. We are the good guys. And good guys stop bad guys from doing bad guy things.

Demonizing homeowners...simply pathetic.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, the SMART and PRUDENT move would have been to stay inside and call the police with a good description of the perps.


Legal or illegal, there was no good reason to go outside.

Why on earth would you EVER insert yourself into a lethal force situation unless you are defending an innocent person? It's just plain stupid.


This is VERY similar to the recent case in Texas, the man whose name escapes me.
 
Joe Horn. And I made reference to it earlier.

He was no billed by the jury.

Homeowners can insert themselves in any dang place they want in regards to their property. Its too bad the rest of the nation has seen fit to mentally cripple anyone who stands up for right.
 
I always thought the 21 foot rule was a good one to follow.
Click to expand...

FYI - there have been recent cases against police where the Tueller rule hasn't been convincing to juries if the dead guy isn't waving a clear weapon and also some DA came up with expert testimony against the Tueller rule and then not allowing presentations of video explanations like Surviving Edge Weapons.

Someone can google the debate but I think you can't count on a jury necessarily buying a Tueller defense if you aren't being charged by the Headless Horseman.
 
Joe Horn. And I made reference to it earlier.

He was no billed by the jury.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, Joe Horn.

He was exonerated because he became some sort of cult-like hero.

He was guilty of murder. He told the 911 operator "You wanna bet? I'm gonna kill them."


Now, I can't say this guy was of that mind set, I hope he wasn't, but I can say that he had no more business going outside than did Joe Horn.

Like I said, legal or illegal it was CERTAINLY stupid.
 
Ah yes, Joe Horn.

He was exonerated because he became some sort of cult-like hero.

He was guilty of murder. He told the 911 operator "You wanna bet? I'm gonna kill them."


Now, I can't say this guy was of that mind set, I hope he wasn't, but I can say that he had no more business going outside than did Joe Horn.

Like I said, legal or illegal it was CERTAINLY stupid.
Click to expand...


There is no law against 'stupid'.



I still would like to know the motivation for "no business going outside" comes from. Why do you say that?
 
Last edited:
That's what trial is for. Joe Horn did what many frustrated, burglarized, vandalized, victimized homeowners have probably in the deep down recesses of their minds have felt at some point or another. I'm not saying Joe Horn was right, cause I think he was flat out wrong for shooting the guys in the back. I have no problem however, with confronting the criminals when he saw it happening.

Geography matters in regards to local attitudes and the general public opinion at large. What one segment of the country finds acceptable is not necessarily well received in another area.

My husband is from Rochester NY. There is some sense of familiarity.
 
Last edited:
Joe Horn did what many frustrated, burglarized, vandalized, victimized homeowners have probably in the deep down recesses of their minds have felt at some point or another.
Click to expand...

So did Bernard Goetz, and Charles Bronson in " Death Wish "

regardless of the state of residence...death is not a just punishment for stealing an ipod or pocket change out of someone else's car...

Latest reports state that the youth did not advance before being shot, that may play our poorly for the homeowner.
 
FYI - there have been recent cases against police where the Tueller rule hasn't been convincing to juries if the dead guy isn't waving a clear weapon and also some DA came up with expert testimony against the Tueller rule and then not allowing presentations of video explanations like Surviving Edge Weapons.

Someone can google the debate but I think you can't count on a jury necessarily buying a Tueller defense if you aren't being charged by the Headless Horseman.
Click to expand...


Which is basically to say all elements of the confrontation matter when drafting the defense. From the setting to the weather to the people to even the tiniest detail.

In this day where there is a massive mindset that 'gun = bad' it's already an uphill battle. You know the media isn't doing the gun owner any favors.
 
He went out to stop the thieves. From the info provided, it sounded like he did.
Click to expand...

Actually, according to the report, he went out to detain persons who had "been going through cars". Not something a civilian can employ a gun for in most jurisdictions or under most circumstances. He evidently didn't know that.

Then a thief made a move towards him.
Click to expand...

"Made a move"? At that point he had a duty to retreat. If he could not retreat, he could not use deadly force unless the other person was about to use deadly force. He evidently didn't know that, either.

We are the good guys. And good guys stop bad guys from doing bad guy things.
Click to expand...

It's likely that just about every defendant believes that! However, it remains to be established who the "good guy" is. The court will not assume that because a man was outside with a gun and has seen a lot of westerns he is "the good guy."

Going way back before the common use of firearms, learned judges faced the problem of determining when an otherwise felonious act of homicide might not constitute a crime. Self defense is such a circumstance, but how does one determine who was defending and who was attacking, determine whether the "bad guy" happened to win, etc. How would one determine who is the "good guy?"

The law that peetzakilla posted evolved over time from The English Common Law that was developed to address those questions in a just manner. There have been changes--in some cases the old duty to retreat has been removed, and in others the castle doctrine has been lost and sometimes reinstated, but in general, a man with a weapon is not going to be remembered as a "good guy" if he kills someone without a weapon out doors.

Joe Horn. And I made reference to it earlier. He was no billed by the jury.
Click to expand...

No, by a grand jury. I'd be interested in knowing that, since he has not been tried and found innocent in a trial court, whether a future grand jury could still indict him. I understand that there is no statute of limitations.

Joe's actions were seen as morally lacking by a lot of people, and I think he may someday be remembered as the man who gave the antis the ammunition they needed to limit our rights.
 
Though I do not agree with the home owners route he took but who knows how many kids are saved now though right????????????????????????? He can play that card also ??

The fact that this underage school age kid had the gun and was committing a felony by having it and that said gun is no longer on the streets is a good thing. I mean if you think about it in terms of , who knows if this kid would of brought it to school and shot other kids with it. This guy may have a chance swinging a jury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top