|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 30, 2019, 05:19 PM | #1 |
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. |
September 30, 2019, 06:35 PM | #2 |
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.
|
September 30, 2019, 06:47 PM | #3 |
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.
|
September 30, 2019, 08:42 PM | #4 |
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!
|
October 1, 2019, 01:17 AM | #5 |
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. |
October 1, 2019, 07:34 AM | #6 | |
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:
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|
October 1, 2019, 03:19 PM | #7 |
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 - |
October 1, 2019, 04:12 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 20, 2007
Posts: 2,437
|
Jury agreed. Guilty of murder.
|
October 1, 2019, 04:55 PM | #9 |
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. |
October 1, 2019, 05:06 PM | #10 |
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. |
October 1, 2019, 07:40 PM | #11 |
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.
|
October 1, 2019, 07:46 PM | #12 |
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. |
October 2, 2019, 07:49 AM | #13 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 2, 2019, 08:54 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,322
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 2, 2019, 09:03 AM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
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". |
|
October 2, 2019, 04:33 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 1,117
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 2, 2019, 06:55 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,402
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 2, 2019, 07:47 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 2, 2019, 07:53 PM | #19 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
October 2, 2019, 08:10 PM | #20 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
October 3, 2019, 06:55 AM | #21 |
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. |
October 3, 2019, 07:01 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
October 3, 2019, 08:16 AM | #23 |
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. |
October 3, 2019, 03:08 PM | #24 |
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. |
October 3, 2019, 03:19 PM | #25 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|