Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Interesting case in my hometown. It is sometimes put forward on the Internet that the Castle Doctrine is an impenetrable forcefield and magic cure that protects you when you open fire. You can shoot someone in your house no matter what, you can shoot through doors at unknowns. Maybe the unknown is a drunk but you are protected. Etc. We have old and recent threads to that effect.
But consider Ray Lemes (google him for a lot of stories). Here's one:
http://www.ksat.com/news/27125560/detail.html
Lemme's shoots Glass who was running from him or advancing. Entering the home or not entering the home. Lemme dashed out of his house to engage.
He wanted to detain the BG, told him to stop, according to some.
One shot was in the back.
Note some stories mention hollow point bullets.
Glass was claimed to be disoriented by the prosecution. He thought he was entering his sister's house a block away. He was intoxicated.
His lawyers claim the Castle Doctrine. The castle doctrine protects your house, all the shell casings were found in the street.
The parents abandoned a civil suit a few months ago.
------------
So, the castle doctrine may not be an automatic pass as some indicate. In this case, it seems (couched in caution by not hearing all the testimony and not being there), that shooter might have violated the strict tenets of the law.
Would it protect if the guy was in the house? It seems to me that the DA might still argue that the threat perception wasn't there in some case and that you still will go to trial. But who knows?
But consider Ray Lemes (google him for a lot of stories). Here's one:
http://www.ksat.com/news/27125560/detail.html
Lemme's shoots Glass who was running from him or advancing. Entering the home or not entering the home. Lemme dashed out of his house to engage.
He wanted to detain the BG, told him to stop, according to some.
One shot was in the back.
Note some stories mention hollow point bullets.
Glass was claimed to be disoriented by the prosecution. He thought he was entering his sister's house a block away. He was intoxicated.
His lawyers claim the Castle Doctrine. The castle doctrine protects your house, all the shell casings were found in the street.
The parents abandoned a civil suit a few months ago.
------------
So, the castle doctrine may not be an automatic pass as some indicate. In this case, it seems (couched in caution by not hearing all the testimony and not being there), that shooter might have violated the strict tenets of the law.
Would it protect if the guy was in the house? It seems to me that the DA might still argue that the threat perception wasn't there in some case and that you still will go to trial. But who knows?