Home owner kills intruder and found guilty despite Castle Doctrine !

As I said, in the eyes of the law it's one thing to defend yourself, its another to deliberately create situations in which to defend yourself. One of those is legal, the other is not.

If a girl is dressing sexy and walking home and is attacked and defends herself by killing her attacker then that is self defense. If a girl deliberately dresses sexy and walks down the street at night alone with the sole purpose of attracting attention so that she can respond with lethal force then she would be charged with homicide if she admitted to that.

Bottom line is that you cannot purposefully place yourself in situations like that. If you stumble upon a situation like that its one thing, if you deliberately create that situation its another. You cannot purposefully make yourself a target in order to exercise your right to self defense, that is illegal under almost all circumstances and it should be. We don't need the general public running around as vigilantes like that. It would cause way more problems than it would solve.

If we allow such things then we would give the general public free reign to deliberately start picking a fight with people. For example, lets say I know my neighbor is a gangbanger who is selling illegal drugs and should be locked up. So one day I see him outside and I walk up to him and start verbally harassing him constantly until he gets so aggravated that he punches me in the mouth. At that point I have been physically assaulted, I pull out my concealed 9mm and shoot him dead. It's his fault for choosing to punch me he could have been a man and just walked away. But I knew he was a gangster and they don't roll like that which is why I started talking trash to him so he would hit me so I could justify pulling out my gun to kill him. Would you say I was innocent or guilty?

I would be charged with murder and for good reason. Take that exact same situation and omit the part about me talking trash to him on purpose and I would be justified and cleared under most laws for my right to self defense. Include the part where I deliberately harassed him with the intent of making him hit me so I could shoot him and I would be in federal prison.

Its all about the context of the situation.

 

That's up to what you decide to say. If you decided to park your car in the worse neighborhood you could find to take a nap with the deliberate intention of attracting a robber so you can kill them they yes you did bait them and you would be charged.

Usually they don't, thats the issue. Thats why I said the only thing that got the guy in trouble in this article was the fact that he openly admitted he left his garage open with the intent of attracting attention. If he wouldn't have said that then he wouldn't have been charged.

He was in his home minding his own business but deliberately tried to attract the trespasser. Again, the only thing that got him in trouble was the fact that he admitted to it. If he wouldn't have said anything about deliberately leaving his garage open in order to attract unwanted attention then he would have been cleared under the Castle Doctrine law. That law becomes void when you deliberately use it to kill someone. You aren't allowed to bait people. If you are going to bait people then don't say thats what you are doing and you will more than likely be fine because as you said, how does anyone know the difference?

I was just using that as an example of how things could start going if we made it legal for people to "bait" other people into traps. Verbal assault is a petty offense, one that will usually never get anyone arrested. Physical assault is an actual offense. Even if I walked up to you for no reason and started cussing you out, if you hit me I could call the cops and they would arrest you. They may get me for verbal harassment or something but you would get the worst of the two punishments.

I am, the context of this situation is simple. If the homeowner didn't want to get in trouble then he shouldn't have admitted to his reasoning behind leaving his garage door open. Leaving your garage door open isn't a crime, leaving your garage door open with the purposeful intent of attracting a trespasser so that you can exercise your right to lethal home defense is a crime. The only way anyone is going to know the difference is if mention it. The homeowner probably thought what he did was within his right which is why he admitted it. He should have just kept quiet.

I am a STRONG advocate of 2nd Amendment rights and the right to use deadly force to defend ones home and other property. What I do not support, and neither does the law, is deliberately trying to attract attention to yourself in order to use that deadly force. Again, that is, and should be, illegal.

You simply can't do that, and if you choose to do so, then don't tell anyone that's what you are doing.

 

Castle Doctrine laws aren't as cut and dry and many people believe and/or wish they were. You can't just shoot somebody who is in your yard for no reason like some people think. In order for the Castle Doctrine law to come into effect you must first prove that you were actually defending your property and had a viable reason for shooting that person. If you don't like your neighbor and he accidentally pushes his lawnmower on your side of the invisible line that separates your yards you can't just walk outside and shoot him dead.

It's all circumstantial. Although the Castle Doctrine does cover your entire property in most cases that doesn't mean you are allowed to just shoot anybody who happens to step in your yard. You have to prove that you were threatened in some way and/or that they were committing a crime. And no, simply trespassing isn't a crime that will hold up in court.

Many people misinterpret what that law actually entails. It's not actually a green light for open season on anything or anyone that happens to stumble across your front yard.

 

Maybe. It depends.

This particular case got the homeowner convicted not because he shot the kid without first asking questions but because he openly admitted that he baited the kid into coming over there in order to kill him.

Depending on the circumstances, shooting somebody in your garage without asking questions isn't a crime at all.

What got this homeowner convicted was him admitting he set a trap, NOT him killing the kid. If there was no baiting involved and the exact same scenario occurred then the homeowner would likely have been covered under the Castle Doctrine law and his killing of the teenager legal.

 

I wasn't using that post as an example to this particular topic, I was simply answering that posters question because I believed they may have been confused about how the Castle Doctrine law works.

 

Again, depends on the circumstances. The biggest thing a homeowner has to do is convince the police that they felt threatened in some manner. The authorities will then take a look at the circumstances and make a conclusion as to whether or not the homeowner actually could have felt threatened or not. Various factors come into play here. Homeowners age, gender, physical condition, was the family home, was it dark outside, is crime rampant in the area, etc. Tons of variables come into play here. Its not a cut and dry law.

But yes, under certain circumstances the Castle Doctrine does allow a homeowner to use deadly force against an intruder, no questions asked.