Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If B&E's have been a regular occurance around him he might get some symphathy there. But it will come down to how the castle doctrine is inturperted by the DA and the grand jury. There are parts of the 911 tape that probably won't go in his favor.the shooter made to the police. once a jury hears that call, he's going to jail for a long time
The Mexican gov't will probably protest just because they could have been illegals.We will know if these guys were illegal, when the Mexican gov't steps in and demands this guy get thrown in jail. Much like the border patrol officers were.
OK, the info. from the story. The dispatcher warned him, "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over." Disregarded. He readily admits, "I DON'T know if they are armed or not . . " Also states "I'm gonna shoot! I'm gonna shoot!" (sure reads like pre-meditation to me, bordering on vigilante/blood lust) Told over ten times: "DO NOT go out of your house!" Disregarded. Then shouts out, "Boom, You're dead!" (NOT, the appropriate, "Don't move, drop your weapons, lie face down . . " etc.) Again, reads like pre-meditation. Yes, the state allows the Castle Doctrine, for YOUR property. Typical justified use of lethal force? "The IMMENIENT and UNAVOIDABLE risk and/or danger of DEATH or GRAVE BODILY HARM to the known innocents." He was warned repeatedly to STAY PUT! He shot and killed 2 people over a simple B & E. Yes, they had priors, for drugs. What, maybe possession? Were they to be considered armed and extremely dangerous? (Armed with what, a bag of loot?) Not sure if this guy was after some media attention, but sure seems to me he may be headed for "3 hots and a cot" unless he can pony up some BIG money for some serious defense attorneys. If he had stayed put, got their description/vehicle ID, the cops could have done their job, the insurance would have covered the loss, and everybody would still be breathing. Out.
That was the dispatcher's opinion, not necessarily supported by law.The dispatcher warned him, "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over." Disregarded.
At that point, prior to them confronting him in his own yard, he didn't know. But there was indication he saw one of them holding a crowbar, and he may have discovered they were armed once he was outside.He readily admits, "I DON'T know if they are armed or not . . "
That's going to be tough to argue around.Also states "I'm gonna shoot! I'm gonna shoot!" (sure reads like pre-meditation to me, bordering on vigilante/blood lust) Told over ten times: "DO NOT go out of your house!" Disregarded.
Could be that he meant that phrase to scare them into cooperation - after all, he is not a trained professional. He might have meant to scare them, but they attacked him rather than back down.Then shouts out, "Boom, You're dead!" (NOT, the appropriate, "Don't move, drop your weapons, lie face down . . " etc.)
Although he was told to stay inside, he was the only person on site, and may have felt compelled to take protective action. The order to stay inside was not necessarily legally binding, and was made by someone not on site and not able to fully evaluate the circumstances. Once the guy was outside, he may well have faced immanent risk of harm or death. Going outside may or may not have been bad judgement, but it was his legal right, and he may be able to justify this action.Typical justified use of lethal force? "The IMMENIENT and UNAVOIDABLE risk and/or danger of DEATH or GRAVE BODILY HARM to the known innocents." He was warned repeatedly to STAY PUT!
They were armed with at least a crow bar, and we don't know what else. Some places allow the use of deadly force to halt a crime in progress. Don't know if that applies here, but he certainly halted a crime in progress.Were they to be considered armed and extremely dangerous? (Armed with what, a bag of loot?)
it doesnt apply to the LEO`s so it also doesn`t apply to citizens either ,a crow bar IS a DEADLY WEAPON ,say if you have a knife LEO training says shoot if 20-30 feet away with deadly force not a tazer and they were found in His yard ,they were shot at 15 feet away this means they were approaching him ,not the other way around . think about itdisparity of force
"Disparity of force" sure doesn't apply in Arizona. There have been rulings on this, including the use of guns against rock-throwers. Deadly force is deadly force. Period. If someone uses deadly force against you, regardless of whether its throwing rocks, weilding a crowbar, or carrying a gun, you are legally allowed to use deadly force in self defense. There is no requirement that the forces be equal.... but what about "disparity of force?"
Irrelevant. You are entitled to defend your home and your property whether someone else recognizes it as your home/property or not. I don't need a NO TRESPASSING sign on my home to legally justify defending it. However, this does not mean you can shoot all trespassers. There still has to be the "immediate danger" aspect.So, where the lines of demarcation between yards clearly marked? Did the criminals have to cross over a marked boundary?