[Brian Pfleuger]

BillCA,

Does the introduction of a second person (the wife) change the arguments for the actions of the husband?

I understand "diminished capacity" in a general sense but, specifically in this case, would the presence of another person eliminate that argument? Would it matter if that other person was also in a "diminished" state.

I still say that the guy inserted himself needlessly into a situation that any "reasonable person" would know had a high probability of becoming dangerous. Yeah, I know, it's his home, his "castle" and all that and I don't totally disagree that he has the right to go in and confront the guy. On the other hand, a "reasonable person" would have called the police, multiple times along the way. The wife when she found the guy, the wife on the way to the bar, the husband or wife at the bar, either of them on the way home, either of them when they got home, either of them after waking the guy up, etc. The fact that they didn't call the police until after the entire event was over, despite having innumerable chances, adds to the idea of "malice aforethought", IMO.

Even in states where one can "assume" dangerous intent from an intruder, I should think that such an assumption is only valid when it has not been shown otherwise. A guy sleeping on the coach somewhat invalidates "assumed danger", IMO. IF you wake him up and start a fight, well, that's blood on your hands. (Granted we don't know who started what... just saying)

I mean, if a guy is sitting on your coach drinking a beer when you get home, a guy you don't know and have never seen, and you stand there and talk to him for a couple of minutes and he's all like "Hey bro, how 'bout them Yankees! Want a beer, bro?"..... well, you can't very well say "Sorry, uh, BRO, this here is a Castle Doctrine state. I'm gonna have to shoot you. Hold real still, I'll try to make it not hurt..."