Was This Man Wrongfully Convicted???

[struth]

care to provide a link to that law?

it’s called the Castle Doctrine

 

[struth]

He's just baiting a trap... looking for someone to defend the white guy, looking for racism, it's everywhere ya know?

nah i really think he’s that stupid

 

[Blues Man]

it’s called the Castle Doctrine

And that's a little different in each state.

Any building on your property is still part of your home.

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place

His detached garage is a legally occupied space.

 

[struth]

And that's a little different in each state.

Any building on your property is still part of your home.

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place

His detached garage is a legally occupied space.

which state says that your abode is an out building? and is this state one of those?

 

[Blues Man]

which state says that your abode is an out building? and is this state one of those?

legally occupied space.

Any building on his property is a legally occupied place.

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place

 

[struth]

legally occupied space.

Any building on his property is a legally occupied place.

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place

sure, but a detached garage or outbuilding isn't occupied.

Legally occupied place might be the persons place of business while they are there, or if they were in the garage when the B&E took place.

I can't be in my home watching TV, then go to the detached building and shoot someone that has broken in as the facts in this case showed.

 

[Mac-7]

You can't just unexpectedly open fire on trespassers. The response has to match the threat.

Who is telling the story?

The man, the kid, or an impartial witness?

 

[Mac-7]

A Grand Jury doesn't CONVICT anybody. All they can do is recommend an indictment.

If the reporter is a journalism school grad he may not understand the function of a grand jury

And may not even after you explain it to him

 

[Blues Man]

sure, but a detached garage or outbuilding isn't occupied.

Legally occupied place might be the persons place of business while they are there, or if they were in the garage when the B&E took place.

I can't be in my home watching TV, then go to the detached building and shoot someone that has broken in as the facts in this case showed.

It was legally occupied as soon as he walked into it because he owned it.,

 

[struth]

It was legally occupied as soon as he walked into it because he owned it.,

hahaha sorry that’s not how it works

 

[MizMolly]

Ohio Man Who ‘Didn’t Say Anything’ Before Shooting Into Car and Killing Two of Three Teens Found Smoking In His Garage Was Convicted In Their Deaths, Faces Life Sentence

An Ohio grand jury found a 65-year-old Dayton man guilty of murder in the shooting deaths of two Black teenagers last week, Dayton Daily News […]

finance.yahoo.com

"An Ohio grand jury found a 65-year-old Dayton man guilty of murder in the shooting deaths of two teens last week, Dayton Daily News reported. The Montgomery County Common Pleas Court jury convicted 65-year-old Victor Santana of four counts of murder, four counts of felonious assault and one count of attempt to commit murder.

On the night of Aug. 28, 2019, Harrison, Henderson and Gibson, who was 19 at the time, snuck into a detached garage behind Santana’s home to smoke marijuana in a car they thought was abandoned. Gibson said Santana opened the door to the vehicle in the dark and fired without warning. “He didn’t say nothing at all,” he testified. Gibson hid under the car and escaped after Santana left the scene."

Sounds to me that this guy got a raw deal....Anytime someone is on your property without permission; you should have every right to kill them where they stand.....Unfortunately, the Stand Your Ground law in his state was enacted after this shooting and didn't apply to this case...Hopefully he can win this on appeal....I had a couple of kids sneak onto my property to hang out and drink and smoke weed...since the back of my property is adjacent to the community lake; kids try to hang out there...I told them to leave; but thinking back, I could have easily just shot them...luckily, they were not armed...and ran off.....

Yea, you may have some who will say "oh, they were kids and kids make mistakes" -- but in my opinion, kids stop being kids when they commit crimes like this....if you as a parent allow your kids to sneak onto other people's property, allow them to drink and do drugs -- you should be charged with some type of crime -- that parent should be held accountable....This type of stuff didn't happen in the past...kids didn't just disrespect the law and disobey their parents and authority like this.....these 2 boys had to learn that lesson with their life -- hopefully other kids will take heed and make better choices...

They committed a crime but didn’t deserve to die unless they were threatening, which doesn’t seem likely.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

You can't just unexpectedly open fire on trespassers. The response has to match the threat.

Amen. If the kids weren't armed, what reason was there for that man to take out a weapon?

God bless you and the families of the victims always!!!

Holly

 

[Papageorgio]

This thread has sure bombed for buffy.

 

[DudleySmith]

Not guilty. No elderly person is obligated to risk their own lives just because some punks won themselves Darwin Award. Sitting in the dark after breaking into somebody's garage and car in the dark isn't something some elderly guy needs to stop and hold interviews with the criminals about to see what their intentions, life stories, and favorite movies are. No way to tell if they're armed or not, and certainly no way to tell if one has time to call anybody first and all that other dumb shit.

The age of the car makes no difference; poor people have a right to own ratty cars and not having them vandalized and stolen like anybody else has a right to what property they can afford. It's pretty simple: Don't break into dark buildings and fuck up other people's stuff and you will avoid getting shot for being an idiot nine times out of ten. This guy got convicted because he didn't
t have much money and he was hispanic and the criminal punks were black.

 

[Blues Man]

hahaha sorry that’s not how it works

That's exactly how it works.

It was his property and the right to self defense doesn't only exist in the place where you sleep.

Was it reasonable for a 65 year old man to be in fear for his safety when 3 young men break into his garage

the answer is a resounding FUCK YES.

 

[struth]

That's exactly how it works.

It was his property and the right to self defense doesn't only exist in the place where you sleep.

Was it reasonable for a 65 year old man to be in fear for his safety when 3 young men break into his garage

the answer is a resounding FUCK YES.

no that’s not how it works. You don’t have a right to get out of your bed, go to an out building and shoot a trepasser dead

 

[Blues Man]

no that’s not how it works. You don’t have a right to get out of your bed, go to an out building and shoot a trepasser dead

You do if you reasonable fear for your safety and this 65 year old man who saw 3 young men break into his garage reasonably feared for his safety.

 

[struth]

You do if you reasonable fear for your safety and this 65 year old man who saw 3 young men break into his garage reasonably feared for his safety.

that’s not the castle doctrine, that’s normal self defense, and no it wasn’t reasonable

 

[Blues Man]

that’s not the castle doctrine, that’s normal self defense, and no it wasn’t reasonable

Yes it was. Any 65 year old man would feel his safety was threatened if 3 young men broke into his garage. It would be foolish of them if he wasn't in fear for his safety.

He had an absolute legal right to be in his own garage which is part of his home even if it is a detached building

 

[struth]

Yes it was. Any 65 year old man would feel his safety was threatened if 3 young men broke into his garage. It would be foolish of them if he wasn't in fear for his safety.

He had an absolute legal right to be in his own garage which is part of his home even if it is a detached building

being in fear of your safety, and fear of your life are two different things.

The facts in the article highlight the guys were in a car, in the garage, and he opened the car door and confronted them, and simply shot them. That's not fear, that's murder.