Rochester, NY man charged with murder, claims self defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are two different issues here.

First, what is right. Second what is legal. You can argue whether or not confronting and detaining someone is the RIGHT thing to do. What is not arguable is that in New York, it is not LEGAL for a civilian to introduce a weapon into a situation such as this.

In fact, even in Florida with our strong Castle Doctrine, as I read this story, he would be acting illegally. I left my home with a gun once, because I believed a RAPE was taking place IN MY YARD. I discovered that there was, to be polite, a combination of alcohol and sexual fantasy occurring just over my fence. I capitalize for emphasis. I believed a crime of violence was occurring on my property. I was acting to protect life and bodily integrity.

That's the only defining issue. Kids breaking into cars. No life in danger, no reason to introduce firearms. As a civilian, it's not this guy's job to "confront and detain." Once he leaves his role and responsibilities, he's in deep kimche.
 
Evil triumps when men do nothing.Can also be said when men try to do to much more then needed.


My wife and I report any suspicious activity going on outside and yes I may even go outside and yell what are you doing there while we call the police and even let them know we have called the police.



The american way is not risk to my life for the neighbors benz or Audio, thats what the police are for to make a arrest if warranted with out bodily harm to the perp or them selfs.Do you have theft on the car did you leave your laptop on the front seat.The Bottom line it is material stuff No more,No less.
The Last time I checked, I have Insurance on my car and any thing of great Value left inside well then.


I like to see the American Way neighbor that comes to help with this fellows legal fees,Yea sure not going to happen.chances are the man probably at most would get thanks for watching out for my car and good luck with jail,I bet not though.


Now If you where my neighbor being attacked physically,Darn skippy I would get involved physically thats a whole different story.


In conclushion If the guy had retreated and waited for the police IMHO it wouldn't have turned out with such Grizzly out come.
 
Last edited:
I think there should be a lesson here for those who come out with stuff like "I'm gonna shoot any SOB I want if he pi$$es me off because I got my Second Amendment rights and nobody can do nuttin' about it....."

Realize that a claim of self defense (highly dubious in this case) is NOT a means of "getting away with" killing someone. It is a "positive defense" against a charge of murder. In court, that means that it is OK to make a plea of self defense, but a jury or judge may refuse to accept it and convict the accused of murder.

I would say that the shooter is in a lot of trouble and that he brought it on himself.

Jim
 
It is NY. And, regardless of whether a person agrees with the law or not, you *must* know the law. I'm no lawyer, but I think the homeowner will have a very difficult time proving himself not guilty.

I live in NJ and wouldn't dream of pulling a gun on anyone who has not broken into my house *and* who poses an absolute threat to me or my family.

In NJ, you go to jail for unlawfully defending your property. I don't like it, but I live by it.
 
Some other points.

In almost every state (except Texas:D) you may introduce a firearm into a situation for one reason and one reason only: to prevent death or great bodily harm. THAT IS IT. What you wish your neighbor to do is irrelevant. You can think you are in the moral right as much as you wish, but you will be in the legal wrong if you don't have a situation in which death or great bodily harm is imminent.

To use deadly force requires threat. Unfortunately, this is a grey area. What a jury will believe constitutes a threat to me, mid-thirties, army veteran, physically fit, and what constitutes a threat to my girlfriend, or my mother, or an eighty-year old, wheelchair bound, one-armed, asthmatic grandmother are all completely different. A twenty-five year old heroin addict isn't a threat to me, but she might be to my mother or the asthmatic granny.

That's what the Castle Doctrine is intended to do. If someone is in your house, there is considered to be an implicit threat to you or your family. That way, you don't have to figure out who is in your house. The Castle Doctrine doesn't give you a right to use deadly force because someone is in your home. The fact that someone is in your home is considered an imminent threat to your safety. In public, at a restauraunt, for example, someone with a weapon or committing an act of violence is considered a threat. In your home, someone breaking in at 4am is considered a threat. The act of breaking in sort of becomes the equivalent of having a weapon.

More importantly in this case, if you act in a manner that unjustifiably escalates the situation. YOU will be held accountable for what transpires later. Just like a car thief that causes a fatal accident during a chase, if you engage in a course of action that causes a death, murder is the charge. Most states use a definition that includes a reasonable chance, i.e. if you engage in an activity that could reasonably end in a death, and death does occur, your decision to engage in that activity is where the problem lies. If you inject yourself in a situation that you have no reason to be in, if you bring a firearm into a situation that does not require deadly force, most states then consider your unjustifiable escalation to be the problem.

Sorry to go on so long, but to finish...If there is no threat of violence against you or someone else, YOU CANNOT INTRODUCE A FIREARM!
 
Wagonman, I agree with everything you wrote except this. If this is an abbreviation for "Good Guy," it seems misplaced in this instance. I feel for him as well, but "Good Guy?" No.

How does that line go? "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions..." It seems to me that acts, not intentions, define "GG" and "BG."
Click to expand...

One of the elements of a crime is intentionally committing the act.

The Good guy did not intentionally break the law he intentionally tried to defeat a theft.

The Bad Guy intentionally tried to steal another person's belongings.

The Good Guy broke the law and is looking at jail time and I still feel for him.
 
Wagonman...

The good guy DID intentionally break the law. He brandished (apparently) a firearm when there was no justification (apparently). That someone died in consequence of this action is what makes this murder.
 
The Good Guy broke the law and is looking at jail time and I still feel for him.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have no doubt that he intended to do the right thing. His lack of knowledge or understanding of the law is the real problem. A good man did a bad thing and will probably pay for it in a bad way.
 
manslaughter

to me, sounds me like it in this case? Had the good kid have not opened an unlocked car (at 3am) with 2 other good kids, none of this would have happened.

There is the possibility that the kids didn't even open any cars and the kid was coming up to the home owner to explain they werent committing a crime, and HO was just intent on shooting first, asking questions later?

We weren't there, hopefully the legal system will get it right, punishment to those it is due, and not to those who do not deserve to be punished.....

Lets wait and see when all the facts are on the table :confused:
 
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...

It wasn't a gun fight. It was a shooting.

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."
Click to expand...

The statement does not make what he did illegal. The event was witnessed by a peace officer. Horn was not guilty of murder under Texas law and that is the only law that applies in that case. Whereas the law in this NY case is completely different.
 
Horn was not guilty of murder under Texas law and that is the only law that applies in that case.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true. Many people believe that Horn was not indicted due to the cult-like celebrity status he garnered after the shooting. The failure of the grand jury to indict him doesn't mean he's not guilty. Don't go about thinking that conviction or acquittal by a jury, grand or otherwise, is a true indication of guilt or innocence.
 
Last edited:
peetzakilla said:
The failure of the grand jury to indict him doesn't mean he's not guilty. Don't go about thinking that conviction or acquittal by a jury, grand or otherwise, is a true indication of guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

We may think he's morally culpable, and we may not approve of the grand jury's decision, but under the law, it's the only indication we have. Given that someone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the failure of a grand jury to indict someone means that legally, he is innocent.

Whether it's still possible for a second grand jury to indict is another question. I'm not positive, offhand, as to whether or not this would count as double jeopardy, although I don't think it would.
 
...the failure of a grand jury to indict someone means that legally, he is innocent.
Click to expand...

I agree. Technically, legally, he is currently "innocent".

A quick review of Texas law makes it fairly clear, IMO, that his innocence is in the technical legal sense only.


Very much like I expect the situation in the OP to end up the opposite.

Personally, I think he is morally justified in his actions but I believe that legally he's SOL.

I think, logically he shouldn't have done what he did.

I think, morally, he was justified, so long as he didn't go out there with the INTENT of shooting that kid. Morally speaking I have no problem with him confronting the kids and bringing a gun to protect himself. Stupid? Yes. Moral? Yes.

Legally, he's up the creek without a paddle, I think.
 
That's not necessarily true. Many people believe that Horn was not indicted due to the cult-like celebrity status he garnered after the shooting. The failure of the grand jury to indict him doesn't mean he's not guilty. Don't go about thinking that conviction or acquittal by a jury, grand or otherwise, is a true indication of guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

People believe lots of things. The moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, etc, etc.

The fact is that Horn was not indicted because he didn't break Texas law as it is written. The threshold for a Grand Jury indictment is VERY low. All they have to do is think that an offense was committed, then they send it to trial to find out. The defense does not present to the Grand Jury, so it's the prosecutions case to make. They did not even think there was enough to go to trial to find out if an offense was committed, so they returned a no-bill. Simple as that.

I agree. Technically, legally, he is currently "innocent".

A quick review of Texas law makes it fairly clear, IMO, that his innocence is in the technical legal sense only.
Click to expand...

Why put "innocent" in quotes as if to imply that he's really not? A quick review of Texas makes it fairly clear that he did not commit a criminal offense. Saying that he's innocent because of a technicality implies that he was guilty, but got off due to some trivial detail. He didn't "get away with" anything. His actions did not constitute an offense, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
Why put "innocent" in quotes as if to imply that he's really not? A quick review of Texas makes it fairly clear that he did not commit a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

Because I believe he's NOT innocent in a moral sense. You believe he is. Why should either of us be concerned about the others opinion?


Just like I feel that the guy in Rochester is morally innocent but doomed under NY law.
 
And at this point, we've gotten far afield from the original topic, which was the tactics used by Roderick Scott in Rochester, NY. While what Joe Horn did in Texas is really interesting, it has almost no bearing on the legal or tactical situation in New York.

With that in mind, I'm going to close this one. I think we've gotten as much tactical meat out of it as we can. If you guys want to keep up the discussion, feel free to start up again down in Law & Civil Rights.

pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top