White man shoots very drunk black woman breaking into his house. Charged w murder

[thereisnospoon]

Um ... sure you would, tough guy - I was trying to warn you that YOUR HOUSE WAS ON FIRE!!!

Enjoy the ensuing BBQ!





There are laws in every state with regards to what you may or may not do in order to protect yourself. What If I were deaf? Think for a minute - think about explaining to a jury how you commanded me to "stand down" when I was trying to warn you about your burning house and you blew my head off. What If I spoke no English? Maybe I was at the wrong house and I was supposed to start work that day?

"Sorry I shot your dad, kids! He was making too much noise!"

Not my problem. It is unreasonable to expect a homeowner inside HIS home to determine whether or not a person is deaf.
However, a homeowner has a reasonable expectation of security in their home....It is also reasonable for a person located inside his home to assume a person loudly banging on his door and refusing to respond to "who is there? and what is your business?", to be a bad actor. A reasonable person has no legal obligation to open his door of HIS home to any person. Legally, the resident has a right to self preservation.
You bring up many scenarios which I perceive as you attempting to further an agenda that no one is entitled to protect life and property.
The bottom line is the possibility of a loud and repeated banging on one's door at 3 am with no response to the resident's inquiries being the start of a home invasion are far greater than a deaf guy who doesn't speak English looking for work or to report a fire.
Now, let's cut out the bullshit, shall we?

Yes, let's quit pretending that you own a firearm, because you seem to know very little about them.

I have no clue what state you are in, so I have no way to tell you why you cannot shoot someone on your porch who is not breaking into your house. You yourself might want to check the laws, because I don't believe for two seconds that your state would allow you to do that.

I gave you very valid scenarios for why you should not attempt killing someone without good cause. You might not even be allowed to shoot them inside your house - I know that breaks your heart because you are a bonafide John Wayne type, but the law has the final say - not your pop-gun.

Pretending? Please. An assumption on your part to protect a very weak argument.
The question a jury must answer in a trial is "did the reasonably believe he or she was in fear for their life or property".
To obtain a guilty verdict, the prosecution must PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant acted in an unreasonable manner.
Without being present at the time of this incident or one in the hypothetical, you cannot know the person was not trying to break into the home. Or that the homeowner was NOT reasonable in determining the person on their property was NOT trying to cause harm.
One thing is for sure, there is no such thing as "you cannot"....That's for a jury to decide.
Precisely my point in all of this. The system must be permitted to work.
Oh, in your opinion, is everyone who uses a weapon to protect their life or property a "John Wayne type"?..An actor?
You fear guns...You especially fear law abiding citizens ability to keep and bear arms. What's disturbing is you weep for the bad actors and curse those who would engage in self protection.
We're done here.

 

[Politico]

Damn shame none of you can argue the facts. It's always gotta be about black and white instead of black and white.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Um ... sure you would, tough guy - I was trying to warn you that YOUR HOUSE WAS ON FIRE!!!

Enjoy the ensuing BBQ!





There are laws in every state with regards to what you may or may not do in order to protect yourself. What If I were deaf? Think for a minute - think about explaining to a jury how you commanded me to "stand down" when I was trying to warn you about your burning house and you blew my head off. What If I spoke no English? Maybe I was at the wrong house and I was supposed to start work that day?

"Sorry I shot your dad, kids! He was making too much noise!"

Not my problem. It is unreasonable to expect a homeowner inside HIS home to determine whether or not a person is deaf.
However, a homeowner has a reasonable expectation of security in their home....It is also reasonable for a person located inside his home to assume a person loudly banging on his door and refusing to respond to "who is there? and what is your business?", to be a bad actor. A reasonable person has no legal obligation to open his door of HIS home to any person. Legally, the resident has a right to self preservation.
You bring up many scenarios which I perceive as you attempting to further an agenda that no one is entitled to protect life and property.
The bottom line is the possibility of a loud and repeated banging on one's door at 3 am with no response to the resident's inquiries being the start of a home invasion are far greater than a deaf guy who doesn't speak English looking for work or to report a fire.
Now, let's cut out the bullshit, shall we?

Yes, let's quit pretending that you own a firearm, because you seem to know very little about them.

I have no clue what state you are in, so I have no way to tell you why you cannot shoot someone on your porch who is not breaking into your house. You yourself might want to check the laws, because I don't believe for two seconds that your state would allow you to do that.

I gave you very valid scenarios for why you should not attempt killing someone without good cause. You might not even be allowed to shoot them inside your house - I know that breaks your heart because you are a bonafide John Wayne type, but the law has the final say - not your pop-gun.

Those scenarios are so unusual, they cannot be properly applied to everyday normal occurrence.
I have a scenario for you....
A person in their haste runs out into the street. He trips and falls and is hit by a car. His injuries are severe. However, he gets up and stumbles to the side of the street just as a worker at a construction site is swinging a sledge hammer breaking up a sidewalk. At the moment the worker is making a downward blow to the cement, the injured man falls into the sledge hammer's path and the worker hits the man in the head, killing him instantly.
The man in a inexplicably charged with negligent homicide based on evidence and witness accounts that the worker could have stopped swinging the sledge hammer....The trial begins. The worker is found guilty. Six months later it is discovered by the autopsy that the man would have died from a severe head injury from the original fall and head striking the pavement..in a matter of hours.
Another scenario....Same guy darts out in front of the car. He trips, falls and is hit by a car. The man dies. The autopsy shows head trauma from the fall. Later it is discovered the the person driving the car actually was an enemy of the dead man and through witness accounts and video from security cameras in the area, ran over the man purposely....Is he guilty of a crime?
Last one... A distraught and suicidal man jumps from the roof of a 5 story building. As the falling man passes the third floor a person in an apartment is robbing a resident. The robber shoots at the resident and misses. The bullet strikes the falling man and through an autopsy, is discovered to have killed the man instantly. Is the robber guilty of murder? Or is this not murder because the man was committing suicide and would have dies from the force of hitting the ground from the fall?
Lets take that one step further.
The man jumps from the roof. He falls to the street below. At the moment he lands on the street, a person driving a car runs a red light, hits the man with a force that the man suffers fatal injuries. Now even though the man was in the process of committing suicide, it was determined that the car killed him but would have died from the injuries suffered from contact with the street pavement..a few hours later.
Is the car driver guilty of a crime?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Damn shame none of you can argue the facts. It's always gotta be about black and white instead of black and white.

I invite you to point out where I mentioned race in this thread..
Your turn.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Once again, there is no one size fits all solution for this. The system will work itself out. Guilt or innocence of the shooter will be placed in the hands of a jury of his peers.
That's the way it works.
.

You don't understand how the law works. I doubt very much this will go to jury. The shooter has been charged with murder and he will almost certainly accept a manslaughter plea no matter how innocent he knows he is. This is a favorite tactic DAs use to get innocent people to confess.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[
Once again, there is no one size fits all solution for this. The system will work itself out. Guilt or innocence of the shooter will be placed in the hands of a jury of his peers.
That's the way it works.
.

You don't understand how the law works. I doubt very much this will go to jury. The shooter has been charged with murder and he will almost certainly accept a manslaughter plea no matter how innocent he knows he is. This is a favorite tactic DAs use to get innocent people to confess.

What makes you think DA's getting plea deals has anything to with how the law works?
Trials are not about the law. They are about the lawyers.
And it does not matter what the DA knows, all that matters is what his office can prove.
That's just one reason why DA's seek plea deals. Another is to save the taxpayers a bunch of money.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Not my problem. It is unreasonable to expect a homeowner inside HIS home to determine whether or not a person is deaf.
However, a homeowner has a reasonable expectation of security in their home....It is also reasonable for a person located inside his home to assume a person loudly banging on his door and refusing to respond to "who is there? and what is your business?", to be a bad actor. A reasonable person has no legal obligation to open his door of HIS home to any person. Legally, the resident has a right to self preservation.
You bring up many scenarios which I perceive as you attempting to further an agenda that no one is entitled to protect life and property.
The bottom line is the possibility of a loud and repeated banging on one's door at 3 am with no response to the resident's inquiries being the start of a home invasion are far greater than a deaf guy who doesn't speak English looking for work or to report a fire.
Now, let's cut out the bullshit, shall we?

Yes, let's quit pretending that you own a firearm, because you seem to know very little about them.

I have no clue what state you are in, so I have no way to tell you why you cannot shoot someone on your porch who is not breaking into your house. You yourself might want to check the laws, because I don't believe for two seconds that your state would allow you to do that.

I gave you very valid scenarios for why you should not attempt killing someone without good cause. You might not even be allowed to shoot them inside your house - I know that breaks your heart because you are a bonafide John Wayne type, but the law has the final say - not your pop-gun.

Those scenarios are so unusual, they cannot be properly applied to everyday normal occurrence.
I have a scenario for you....
A person in their haste runs out into the street. He trips and falls and is hit by a car. His injuries are severe. However, he gets up and stumbles to the side of the street just as a worker at a construction site is swinging a sledge hammer breaking up a sidewalk. At the moment the worker is making a downward blow to the cement, the injured man falls into the sledge hammer's path and the worker hits the man in the head, killing him instantly.
The man in a inexplicably charged with negligent homicide based on evidence and witness accounts that the worker could have stopped swinging the sledge hammer....The trial begins. The worker is found guilty. Six months later it is discovered by the autopsy that the man would have died from a severe head injury from the original fall and head striking the pavement..in a matter of hours.
Another scenario....Same guy darts out in front of the car. He trips, falls and is hit by a car. The man dies. The autopsy shows head trauma from the fall. Later it is discovered the the person driving the car actually was an enemy of the dead man and through witness accounts and video from security cameras in the area, ran over the man purposely....Is he guilty of a crime?
Last one... A distraught and suicidal man jumps from the roof of a 5 story building. As the falling man passes the third floor a person in an apartment is robbing a resident. The robber shoots at the resident and misses. The bullet strikes the falling man and through an autopsy, is discovered to have killed the man instantly. Is the robber guilty of murder? Or is this not murder because the man was committing suicide and would have dies from the force of hitting the ground from the fall?
Lets take that one step further.
The man jumps from the roof. He falls to the street below. At the moment he lands on the street, a person driving a car runs a red light, hits the man with a force that the man suffers fatal injuries. Now even though the man was in the process of committing suicide, it was determined that the car killed him but would have died from the injuries suffered from contact with the street pavement..a few hours later.
Is the car driver guilty of a crime?

None of these cases are even remotely similar to the one laid out in the Op, nor are they common, so I have no clue why you decided to use them over mine.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

[
Once again, there is no one size fits all solution for this. The system will work itself out. Guilt or innocence of the shooter will be placed in the hands of a jury of his peers.
That's the way it works.
.

You don't understand how the law works. I doubt very much this will go to jury. The shooter has been charged with murder and he will almost certainly accept a manslaughter plea no matter how innocent he knows he is. This is a favorite tactic DAs use to get innocent people to confess.

What makes you think DA's getting plea deals has anything to with how the law works?
Trials are not about the law. They are about the lawyers.
And it does not matter what the DA knows, all that matters is what his office can prove.
That's just one reason why DA's seek plea deals. Another is to save the taxpayers a bunch of money.

Oy ... you are going to get yourself in a lot of trouble one day.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes, let's quit pretending that you own a firearm, because you seem to know very little about them.

I have no clue what state you are in, so I have no way to tell you why you cannot shoot someone on your porch who is not breaking into your house. You yourself might want to check the laws, because I don't believe for two seconds that your state would allow you to do that.

I gave you very valid scenarios for why you should not attempt killing someone without good cause. You might not even be allowed to shoot them inside your house - I know that breaks your heart because you are a bonafide John Wayne type, but the law has the final say - not your pop-gun.

Those scenarios are so unusual, they cannot be properly applied to everyday normal occurrence.
I have a scenario for you....
A person in their haste runs out into the street. He trips and falls and is hit by a car. His injuries are severe. However, he gets up and stumbles to the side of the street just as a worker at a construction site is swinging a sledge hammer breaking up a sidewalk. At the moment the worker is making a downward blow to the cement, the injured man falls into the sledge hammer's path and the worker hits the man in the head, killing him instantly.
The man in a inexplicably charged with negligent homicide based on evidence and witness accounts that the worker could have stopped swinging the sledge hammer....The trial begins. The worker is found guilty. Six months later it is discovered by the autopsy that the man would have died from a severe head injury from the original fall and head striking the pavement..in a matter of hours.
Another scenario....Same guy darts out in front of the car. He trips, falls and is hit by a car. The man dies. The autopsy shows head trauma from the fall. Later it is discovered the the person driving the car actually was an enemy of the dead man and through witness accounts and video from security cameras in the area, ran over the man purposely....Is he guilty of a crime?
Last one... A distraught and suicidal man jumps from the roof of a 5 story building. As the falling man passes the third floor a person in an apartment is robbing a resident. The robber shoots at the resident and misses. The bullet strikes the falling man and through an autopsy, is discovered to have killed the man instantly. Is the robber guilty of murder? Or is this not murder because the man was committing suicide and would have dies from the force of hitting the ground from the fall?
Lets take that one step further.
The man jumps from the roof. He falls to the street below. At the moment he lands on the street, a person driving a car runs a red light, hits the man with a force that the man suffers fatal injuries. Now even though the man was in the process of committing suicide, it was determined that the car killed him but would have died from the injuries suffered from contact with the street pavement..a few hours later.
Is the car driver guilty of a crime?

None of these cases are even remotely similar to the one laid out in the Op, nor are they common, so I have no clue why you decided to use them over mine.

BINGO!!! You figured it out.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You don't understand how the law works. I doubt very much this will go to jury. The shooter has been charged with murder and he will almost certainly accept a manslaughter plea no matter how innocent he knows he is. This is a favorite tactic DAs use to get innocent people to confess.

What makes you think DA's getting plea deals has anything to with how the law works?
Trials are not about the law. They are about the lawyers.
And it does not matter what the DA knows, all that matters is what his office can prove.
That's just one reason why DA's seek plea deals. Another is to save the taxpayers a bunch of money.

Oy ... you are going to get yourself in a lot of trouble one day.

How so?
By stating the facts?..
Jeeze

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You don't understand how the law works. I doubt very much this will go to jury. The shooter has been charged with murder and he will almost certainly accept a manslaughter plea no matter how innocent he knows he is. This is a favorite tactic DAs use to get innocent people to confess.

What makes you think DA's getting plea deals has anything to with how the law works?
Trials are not about the law. They are about the lawyers.
And it does not matter what the DA knows, all that matters is what his office can prove.
That's just one reason why DA's seek plea deals. Another is to save the taxpayers a bunch of money.

DAs love to overcharge crimes. You kill someone in obvious self-defense and they charge you with murder. They know that once your lawyer explains that rogue juries are very common and a murder conviction means your life is more or less over and then you will accept the manslaughter plea and do say 3 years. That's how the law works, you moron.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

What makes you think DA's getting plea deals has anything to with how the law works?
Trials are not about the law. They are about the lawyers.
And it does not matter what the DA knows, all that matters is what his office can prove.
That's just one reason why DA's seek plea deals. Another is to save the taxpayers a bunch of money.

Oy ... you are going to get yourself in a lot of trouble one day.

How so?
By stating the facts?..
Jeeze

If you truly believe that you posses the authority to execute someone just for knocking on your front door - you are going to get into a LOT of trouble with your firearm.

Good lord! I get fed up with crime too, but YOU are bound by the law like anyone else.

Even pointing a gun at someone can get you time in a federal prison!

Please check your state and federal laws with regards to this issue.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You don't understand how the law works. I doubt very much this will go to jury. The shooter has been charged with murder and he will almost certainly accept a manslaughter plea no matter how innocent he knows he is. This is a favorite tactic DAs use to get innocent people to confess.

What makes you think DA's getting plea deals has anything to with how the law works?
Trials are not about the law. They are about the lawyers.
And it does not matter what the DA knows, all that matters is what his office can prove.
That's just one reason why DA's seek plea deals. Another is to save the taxpayers a bunch of money.

DAs love to overcharge crimes. You kill someone in obvious self-defense and they charge you with murder. They know that once your lawyer explains that rogue juries are very common and a murder conviction means your life is more or less over and then you will accept the manslaughter plea and do say 3 years. That's how the law works, you moron.

First, the insult is for what?
Now, let's take a look at the biggest case of 2013 where a DA did exactly what you claimed and LOST the case with an acquittal....George Zimmerman.
This trial was a waste of taxpayer resources. Why? Because the DA got an indictment for charge overkill. The jury got the case and were left with no option but to acquit. Had the charges fit the actions of Zimmerman, he'd be sitting in prison now.
Please save your conspiracy theories for others who give a shit.
I am debating this issue in a civil manner. If you want to get into a battle of insults, let me know. Your call.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oy ... you are going to get yourself in a lot of trouble one day.

How so?
By stating the facts?..
Jeeze

If you truly believe that you posses the authority to execute someone just for knocking on your front door - you are going to get into a LOT of trouble with your firearm.

Good lord! I get fed up with crime too, but YOU are bound by the law like anyone else.

Even pointing a gun at someone can get you time in a federal prison!

Please check your state and federal laws with regards to this issue.

"If you truly believe that you posses the authority to execute someone just for knocking on your front door"

I neither stated nor implied that.. If you have a bit of difficulty with comprehension, read my post again.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

If you truly believe that you posses the authority to execute someone just for knocking on your front door - you are going to get into a LOT of trouble with your firearm.

I neither stated nor implied that.. If you have a bit of difficulty with comprehension, read my post again.

You're a funny guy!

Tell ya what....You come and bang on my door at 3 am. You get a stern warning to vacate. Then I repeat myself. If you persist, I must then assume you have bad intentions. I then must act in self preservation...
The result would be YOUR problem.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

First, the insult is for what?
Now, let's take a look at the biggest case of 2013 where a DA did exactly what you claimed and LOST the case with an acquittal....George Zimmerman.
This trial was a waste of taxpayer resources. Why? Because the DA got an indictment for charge overkill. The jury got the case and were left with no option but to acquit. Had the charges fit the actions of Zimmerman, he'd be sitting in prison now.
Please save your conspiracy theories for others who give a shit.
I am debating this issue in a civil manner. If you want to get into a battle of insults, let me know. Your call.

Zimmerman trial was nowhere near the same - George was getting beaten to a bloody pulp - his reaction was necessary.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[DAs love to overcharge crimes. You kill someone in obvious self-defense and they charge you with murder. They know that once your lawyer explains that rogue juries are very common and a murder conviction means your life is more or less over and then you will accept the manslaughter plea and do say 3 years. That's how the law works, you moron.

First, the insult is for what?
Now, let's take a look at the biggest case of 2013 where a DA did exactly what you claimed and LOST the case with an acquittal....George Zimmerman.
This trial was a waste of taxpayer resources. Why? Because the DA got an indictment for charge overkill. The jury got the case and were left with no option but to acquit. Had the charges fit the actions of Zimmerman, he'd be sitting in prison now.
Please save your conspiracy theories for others who give a shit.
I am debating this issue in a civil manner. If you want to get into a battle of insults, let me know. Your call.

In the first place, i don't insult people. I'm above that. As for Zimbo, he beat the rap because he had high-class attorneys. Most people don't. When an ordinary schmuck is charged with murder and then offered a manslaughter plea, he takes the plea no matter how weak the case against him is. You can't risk getting a rogue jury in a murder trial.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

[DAs love to overcharge crimes. You kill someone in obvious self-defense and they charge you with murder. They know that once your lawyer explains that rogue juries are very common and a murder conviction means your life is more or less over and then you will accept the manslaughter plea and do say 3 years. That's how the law works, you moron.

First, the insult is for what?
Now, let's take a look at the biggest case of 2013 where a DA did exactly what you claimed and LOST the case with an acquittal....George Zimmerman.
This trial was a waste of taxpayer resources. Why? Because the DA got an indictment for charge overkill. The jury got the case and were left with no option but to acquit. Had the charges fit the actions of Zimmerman, he'd be sitting in prison now.
Please save your conspiracy theories for others who give a shit.
I am debating this issue in a civil manner. If you want to get into a battle of insults, let me know. Your call.

In the first place, i don't insult people. I'm above that. As for Zimbo, he beat the rap because he had high-class attorneys. Most people don't. When an ordinary schmuck is charged with murder and then offered a manslaughter plea, he takes the plea no matter how weak the case against him is. You can't risk getting a rogue jury in a murder trial.

Sorry, Zim was not guilty. He should never have been charged. He had a high priced lawyer? How much duckus did the prosecution have at its disposal?

 

[BDBoop]

First, the insult is for what?
Now, let's take a look at the biggest case of 2013 where a DA did exactly what you claimed and LOST the case with an acquittal....George Zimmerman.
This trial was a waste of taxpayer resources. Why? Because the DA got an indictment for charge overkill. The jury got the case and were left with no option but to acquit. Had the charges fit the actions of Zimmerman, he'd be sitting in prison now.
Please save your conspiracy theories for others who give a shit.
I am debating this issue in a civil manner. If you want to get into a battle of insults, let me know. Your call.

In the first place, i don't insult people. I'm above that. As for Zimbo, he beat the rap because he had high-class attorneys. Most people don't. When an ordinary schmuck is charged with murder and then offered a manslaughter plea, he takes the plea no matter how weak the case against him is. You can't risk getting a rogue jury in a murder trial.

Sorry, Zim was not guilty. He should never have been charged. He had a high priced lawyer? How much duckus did the prosecution have at its disposal?

But Zim remains the killer of a young man who didn't need to die.

I trust that will haunt him forever.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you truly believe that you posses the authority to execute someone just for knocking on your front door - you are going to get into a LOT of trouble with your firearm.

I neither stated nor implied that.. If you have a bit of difficulty with comprehension, read my post again.

You're a funny guy!

Tell ya what....You come and bang on my door at 3 am. You get a stern warning to vacate. Then I repeat myself. If you persist, I must then assume you have bad intentions. I then must act in self preservation...
The result would be YOUR problem.

I stand by my statements.