SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine...

This is a discussion on SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine... within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by lyz_grace If I understand correctly, the guy who ended up dying was the one NOT screwing around. The shooter was the mistress. ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49
Like Tree30Likes

Thread: SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine...

  1. #31
    Ex Member Array dbglock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Durham, N.C.
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by lyz_grace View Post
    If I understand correctly, the guy who ended up dying was the one NOT screwing around. The shooter was the mistress. Not defending the victim, just clarifying. I have an extremely hard time lending sympathy to "tragedies" resulting from immaturity and infidelity.
    No, the shooter was the wife's bf. He shot the husband for coming onto his property upset about his behavior. The wife witnessed the whole thing, saying the husband was making no aggressive move toward the shooter. The jury refused that argument.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,226
    Quote Originally Posted by jryan630 View Post
    503.080 Protection of property
    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

    why i love ky
    While I agree with that principle, avoidance is always a better course to avoid a senseless killing. To kill because one legally can only fuels the Antis.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  4. #33
    Member Array lyz_grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by dbglock View Post
    No, the shooter was the wife's bf. He shot the husband for coming onto his property upset about his behavior. The wife witnessed the whole thing, saying the husband was making no aggressive move toward the shooter. The jury refused that argument.
    Yah... we're on the same page. "Mistress" = third party = boyfriend. Previous comment made it sound like the boyfriend died. Bad choices all around. Sorry for the confusion :)

  5. #34
    Ex Member Array dbglock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Durham, N.C.
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by lyz_grace View Post
    Yah... we're on the same page. "Mistress" = third party = boyfriend. Previous comment made it sound like the boyfriend died. Bad choices all around. Sorry for the confusion :)
    Hmmm ... I've never heard a male referred to as a "mistress" but ... it's a free country!

  6. #35
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Why let facts ruin a good anti story? I mean, do the EVER let trivial things like FACTS get in their way?
    After reading the report by the DA, there were a lot of "facts" in that story that weren't even close to the real story. According to the wife's initial report, he WAS moving towards the shooter, and kept coming after being told to stop. The shooter says he believed that seeing the gun would be enough to make him leave. There was also nothing in the report about the shooter saying "I have a gun and I'm not afraid of your husband."

    So not only did they leave facts out, they completely made things up to make it sound better to the anti's.

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaplain Scott View Post
    I posted the original story here a couple of weeks ago or so. The NYT article conviently left out the facts that the homeowner initially ordered the dead husband to NOT come in, and that he had a gun, and the dead gun came on anyway. Then he was shot once, and then he continued on towards the guy who then fired two more times..........
    Wow, those "facts" change a lot. That's not even the same story that the article told. I wonder how that even went to trial?
    Walk softly ...

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,342
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    Wow, those "facts" change a lot. That's not even the same story that the article told. I wonder how that even went to trial?
    It didn't. Go to trial, that is.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  9. #38
    Member Array steffen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    396
    If you take all of the names and possible motives out of this story you are left with a very simple situation. A man who was attempting to commit felony aggravated assault while trespassing was killed by his victim in self-defense.

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,342
    Quote Originally Posted by steffen View Post
    If you take all of the names and possible motives out of this story you are left with a very simple situation. A man who was attempting to commit felony aggravated assault while trespassing was killed by his victim in self-defense.
    Actually, if you take out all the heresay... you have an even simpler situation... "A man who was trespassing was killed by the landowner." Now how reasonable is it?
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,342
    Of these two stories, the latter explains the prosecutor's stance on the matter... he was precluded from prosecution because the burden of proof was entirely on him... the dead man walked to the house... what his intent was, we do not know... he's dead, after all.


    I'm not saying the law is bad... it certainly isn't any worse than the laws that let criminals off on technicalities. But it does allow for someone to preplan a murder.. and not be prosecuted...

    In hundreds more cases; the law, as it exists, will be used in a much more clearly "just" manner...
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  12. #41
    Ex Member Array CaveJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by DroidGeorge View Post
    Arkansas doesn't use 'Castle' or 'Stand your ground'. However our law is written (and I am paraphrasing) :

    1.You have the Constitutional right to defend yourself.
    2. However if you can back out of a situation you MUST do that.
    3. However if YOU think that it will jeopardize your safety in the process of backing out of the situation.
    4. Have at it.



    George
    Point 2 is my only issue with SYG laws, they don't require you to leave a potential altercation. So in theory you can stand there, watch a gun come towards you slowly and shoot him when he gets there much later.

    That can be horribly abused and it doesn't apply to castle doctrine in the home.

  13. #42
    Member Array DroidGeorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Smith, Arkansas
    Posts
    151

    Re: SIGH: So this is how they try to take away castle doctrine...

    Definitely not for home, or as they recently modified the law breaking into your property (you no longer have to wait for someone to break in the house).

    The law states it is your Constitutional right to protect yourself, and as long as you show some common sense and don't go looking for a fight, or can safely disengage from using lethal force, you are legal. But within keeping yourself self safe, you must show some discretion. If the BG is 20 feet away with a knife you must warn him and can draw on him. If he approaches still and you do not see an out he's toast. But if he backs off your call 911 and report the incident.

    George
    Smile. It makes people wonder what you are up to

  14. #43
    Ex Member Array CaveJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by DroidGeorge View Post
    Definitely not for home, or as they recently modified the law breaking into your property (you no longer have to wait for someone to break in the house).

    The law states it is your Constitutional right to protect yourself, and as long as you show some common sense and don't go looking for a fight, or can safely disengage from using lethal force, you are legal. But within keeping yourself self safe, you must show some discretion. If the BG is 20 feet away with a knife you must warn him and can draw on him. If he approaches still and you do not see an out he's toast. But if he backs off your call 911 and report the incident.

    George
    I just think the abuses could happen where people could drive away for example but don't, allow the altercation to happen then are covered by not having to retreat. Maybe it's something that won't happen often, but it could, who knows?

  15. #44
    Distinguished Member Array Chaplain Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,693
    Kalispell: Judge won't give wife restraining order against ex-lover who shot husbandNew Development:

    Bottom line--judge says there is no evidence that the shooter is a danger against the wife and denies her request for Protective Order.
    lyz_grace likes this.
    Scott, US Army 1974-2004

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    - Ronald Reagan

  16. #45
    Member Array Blackheart6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    232
    After reading the comments, I'd hate to have to face a jury in NY for any gun related event. And I found it interesting that the husbands father was quoted saying his son was 40 going on 25. That spoke volumes to me about his maturity level/ decision making capabilities. I imagine he had a history.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

arkansas cast;le doctrine
,

arkansas castle doctrine

,

arkansas castle doctrine law

,
arkansas castle law
,

castle doctrine arkansas

,
castle doctrine good bad
,
castle doctrine good or bad
,
castle doctrine in ny
,
castle doctrine law ny
,
castle law arkansas
,

georgia castle doctrine

,
georgia castle doctrine fleeing
,
georgia castle law
,
iowa castle law
,
ny castle doctrine
Click on a term to search for related topics.