The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 30, 2019, 05:19 PM   #1
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 1,117
Castle Doctrine, Someone Else's Castle

This story has some interesting implications, can you claim the Castle Doctrine if you walk into the wrong castle: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...trine-defense/

Personally I'd say that no one deserves to be shot for being at home and that the shooter should be responsible for the horrible outcomes of their mistake.
Mainah is offline  
Old September 30, 2019, 06:35 PM   #2
cjwils
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2010
Location: Washington state
Posts: 401
I am not an expert and not a lawyer, but castle doctrine in this case is total BS. There is no doubt that the cop was in the wrong place. If the deceased had a gun in his hand and killed the cop, that would be a better application of castle doctrine, in my opinion. Could castle doctrine possibly apply to both sides in this case? I don't think so.
cjwils is offline  
Old September 30, 2019, 06:47 PM   #3
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
You can claim Castle Doctrine in this situation. Can you win with it? I know which way I’d bet.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 30, 2019, 08:42 PM   #4
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
I doubt arguing the Castle Doctrine would work when you kill someone in their "castle" after you illegally entered!
raimius is offline  
Old October 1, 2019, 01:17 AM   #5
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Despite the widely held misconception that castle doctrine is a license to shoot just because they are in your house (or other place you can legally be) it's not.

It is a protection from prosecution (generally civil) based on the argument that you had a duty to retreat, therefore the shooting cannot be justified.

Allowing the defense to use the argument of castle doctrine does NOT mean the shooting was justified, it just means the defense can make the argument that the defendant thought she was justified, or something similar.

Thinking you are justified does not make a bad shoot into a good one. It MAY mean you are not guilty of murder, but manslaughter instead. And as always there are many, many other things that must be factored into the decision.

That is the jury's job.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 1, 2019, 07:34 AM   #6
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Interesting case but I'll bet the below will be the outcome..jury deliberating now.
Quote:
The judge also announced in the meeting with lawyers on both sides that the jury would be allowed to consider manslaughter in any potential sentencing of Guyger.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old October 1, 2019, 03:19 PM   #7
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
She was charged with murder and, rightfully so IMO.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old October 1, 2019, 04:12 PM   #8
ligonierbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2007
Posts: 2,437
Jury agreed. Guilty of murder.
ligonierbill is offline  
Old October 1, 2019, 04:55 PM   #9
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Looks to me like when the prosecutor decided to play hard ball, the defense went all in and tried to take manslaughter off the table. Guyger testified she intended to kill Jean (taking manslaughter off the table) but that she was justified in self-defense and mistake of fact.

Looks like the jury decided to take her at her word. Interested to see what the sentence is.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 1, 2019, 05:06 PM   #10
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,402
Didn't work.
The jury issued a verdict of guilty.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old October 1, 2019, 07:40 PM   #11
cjwils
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2010
Location: Washington state
Posts: 401
Are cops actually trained that they must shoot to kill? The rest of us are told over and over (if we pay attention) that we can shoot to stop a threat, and that is all.
cjwils is offline  
Old October 1, 2019, 07:46 PM   #12
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
If she had not been sexting her work mate she likely would have noticed that she was trespassing. If she had not been trespassing then none of this ever happens.

If some cop wanders in to my house by mistake and blows my wife away while she is on the couch watching Netflix and downing a bowl of ice cream I think anything less than murder would not be justice.

Turned around the other way if the same cop wanders in to my house and pulls a gun on me then I would feel threatened enough to use deadly force to defend myself.

I can't believe anyone would honestly be on the other side of that issue. Sure the whole thing was a terrible mistake. Making a mistake doesn't make one less accountable.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old October 2, 2019, 07:49 AM   #13
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Are cops actually trained that they must shoot to kill?
Well, I can’t speak for all police officers but I doubt any American police officers are trained that way and I know Dallas PD doesn’t teach that.

This is just my opinion; but it looks to me like the defense was rightly worried that they couldn’t beat a manslaughter charge; but thought the jury would be reluctant to convict Guyger of murder under the circumstances. By testifying that she intended to kill and not just stop Jean when she fired, Guyger took away the manslaughter option since that isn’t available to someone who intended to kill under Texas law. Then her attorneys argued self-defense and mistake of fact to give the jury a reason not to go with murder.

Big gamble and one that didn’t pay off it seems; but her trial team was busy preserving grounds for appeal, so she has that.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 2, 2019, 08:54 AM   #14
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Are cops actually trained that they must shoot to kill?
Yes. If you are going to use lethal force then being fast and effective is in the interest of public safety.

If you look at the police qualification and what they are training the lizard brain to do....It is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively.

They do not train on wounding shots or warning shots.
davidsog is offline  
Old October 2, 2019, 09:03 AM   #15
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Despite the widely held misconception that castle doctrine is a license to shoot just because they are in your house (or other place you can legally be) it's not.
That bears repeating.

Castle doctrine has to do with the elimination of the duty to retreat.

there are other things in law in some jurisdictions the justification of regarding self defense in one's home, but strictly speaking, they are not "castle doctrine".
OldMarksman is offline  
Old October 2, 2019, 04:33 PM   #16
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
They do not train on wounding shots or warning shots.
That makes complete sense. However I would hope that their training includes situational awareness, that seems to be the crux of the matter in this case.

The whole thing is a fascinating tragedy. The victim did absolutely nothing wrong. The officer is obviously devastated, but IMO she deserves to be held to a higher standard of conduct because she was a cop. I don't see a problem with a murder conviction as opposed to manslaughter.
Mainah is offline  
Old October 2, 2019, 06:55 PM   #17
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,402
Quote:
I don't see a problem with a murder conviction as opposed to manslaughter.
From what I have read, the upgraded charge and eventual conviction seem to all come back to two things:
1. The cop's statement indicating that when she drew the gun, she intended to kill.
2. The autopsy results indicating a high likelihood that the victim was kneeling or cowering when he was shot.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old October 2, 2019, 07:47 PM   #18
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
1. The cop's statement indicating that when she drew the gun, she intended to kill.
This is where the words one uses really matter, and matter much, much more than the same words using in casual conversation.

And cops are not "trained to shoot to kill". They use the same terms we use or should use, shoot to stop the threat. We all know that using deadly force and aiming for vital organs can, and often does kill. But we must ALWAYS state that our intent was to STOP, not kill, because, as this woman has learned, a statement to the court of intent to kill is an admission of intent to commit murder.

Either she wasn't properly coached by her defense team, or she stupidly ignored their advice and spoke in apparently the conversational manner she was used to.

Words matter, in court, they MUST be precise, because the court is going to look at them that way, whether you do, or not.

For an example, say you testify that you pulled up to the stop sign, waited a minute, looked both ways, and then drove on. Something people would say, every day.

BUT, since it is testimony, that "minute" must be 60 seconds. IF you did not wait a full 60 seconds, and they can prove you didn't, you have just perjured yourself and therefore ALL your credibility is now suspect, if not entirely gone.

if you had said "I waited a moment..." then that would be different, But, if you say "a minute" you are telling the court you waited the full 60 seconds.

If she had said "I intended to shoot him..." that would be one thing. Saying "I intended to kill him" that is something entirely different in the eyes of the court, and that justifies the murder charge, rather than manslaughter.

When I saw the thread title, I though it was going to be about something else, which hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'll bring it up, now..

Castle doctrine in someone else's castle, where you have a lawful right to be. For example staying with a friend or relative, where you were invited and welcome. As I see it, while its not your castle, its their castle, if you have a legal right to be there, then castle doctrine should apply if you are forced to defend yourself, in their castle.

If you are a valid, invited (or at least accepted) guest, and not an illegal intruder, how could it be otherwise??

This was simply not the case in the shooting under discussion, and would not be the case in any case of "mistakenly" being in the wrong house/apt.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 2, 2019, 07:53 PM   #19
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
2. The autopsy results indicating a high likelihood that the victim was kneeling or cowering when he was shot.
He was probably looking for cover after the first shot missed.

Quote:
Are cops actually trained that they must shoot to kill?
I'm sure this will be revisited with the follow on lawsuit against the city and anyone else with deep enough pockets to matter. (Don't get me wrong, I'd probably sue everyone too.) If they plan on using that as a basis for the suit it will likely not go great.

Generally police are trained to "end the threat". Most police qualifications are for "X"# of center of mass hits. Center mass hits are likely to be fatal or majorly incapacitating.

There is a move among the Black Lives Matter group to train the police to; "Shoot suspects to wound them". To me this is as ridiculous as it sounds. Hit rates are already extremely bad among people involved in gun fights. Trying to wing them in to submission instead of ending their ability to do harm would be near impossible under stress for most people. I'm sure some department will give it go (San Fran PD or Fairfax County, looking your way).
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old October 2, 2019, 08:10 PM   #20
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
"Shoot suspects to wound them". To me this is as ridiculous as it sounds.
Not only is it ridiculous, its doubtful if it is legal. While the police operate under slightly different rules than the rest of us, there is a common thread that in order to use deadly force, you must believe that it is justified. Shooting to wound is seen as a de facto admission that you did not believe deadly force was justified. And if you don't believe deadly force is justified, you are not justified in shooting, at all.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 3, 2019, 06:55 AM   #21
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
The impression I got out of it was that when presented with deadly threats the officer should first consider going "Lone Ranger" and shooting the gun out of the threat's hand.

Definitely no one is going to approve the use of shooting a suspect in the leg to stop them from running away or whatever.

There is no telling though. That group is so nutty as is. They riot over the police shooting armed robbers engaged in an active gun battle with the police.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old October 3, 2019, 07:01 AM   #22
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by ligonierbill View Post
Jury agreed. Guilty of murder.
Sentence-10 years
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old October 3, 2019, 08:16 AM   #23
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
As Massad Ayoob states and teaches/instructs in his MAG classes, the castle doctrine, stand your ground DOES NOT turn your home into an execution chamber because someone has entered it
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old October 3, 2019, 03:08 PM   #24
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
Couple of things. I’ve lived in apartment complexes where every floor was identical and quite often people would come in or attempt to come in my apartment because they thought it was theirs. Easy mistake to make. I find it difficult not to recognize different furnishings though.

I read an article on Facebook out of a Portland news station yesterday on this case and the article stated that the guilty verdict came from the fact this was a racially motivated shooting and the officer had admitted to being a racist in court. I read a CNN article today and racism wasn’t mentioned at all.
rickyrick is offline  
Old October 3, 2019, 03:19 PM   #25
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
.. the article stated that the guilty verdict came from the fact this was a racially motivated shooting and the officer had admitted to being a racist in court. I read a CNN article today and racism wasn’t mentioned at all.
Some of the articles I saw specifically stated that while some of her statements were offensive, they were not racist.

The guilty verdict came from the fact that she murdered a man. The article saying it was racially motivated came from an author with an agenda.

I believe it really is that simple.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11294 seconds with 8 queries