Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,218 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here's a scenario for you, based around an actual recent court ruling. I will describe the shooting event, you decide whether or not it was a justified shooting, and after that I will describe the outcome of the case and link to the story.

The situation: Your family owns several homes that they rent out. The family way of dealing with renters who are behind on their rent is to send out you or other members of your family to "persuade" those renters to bring their payments up to date.

You also are not very popular with your co-workers in the office in which you work. In fact you, and your work habits, are so disliked that these co-workers claim that you spend so much time dealing with your family rental business, that you only spend about half of the time you are at work actually working for your paycheck. Your employer eventually has a criminal embezzlement charge filed against you for the time you said you were working for him, while you were really working for your family.

The shooting: You go to deal with a deadbeat tenant. You confront the tenant and tell them to either pay up or grab their stuff and get out - an illegal eviction under the laws of your state. You punch the tenant and the two of your struggle on the ground before someone breaks it up and forces you apart. You grab some of your tenant's property and throw it across the street, demanding your tenant get their stuff and vacate the premise. The verbal argument heats up, with the tenant telling you that they know where you live and that they might sent their friends after you.

The tenant then grabs what later turns out to be a bb gun and brandishes it at you. You draw your very real gun and fire. The tenant is killed.

The court: Your are charged with Murder, unlawfully evicting tenants, and that criminal embezzlement charge of working half time but charging your employer for full time work.

You plead to unlawfully entering the home. You argue that the resulting shooting was self defense. The embezzlement, "Maybe we can work that out", you say.

Questions to ponder: Can you justify a claim of self defense if you have started the conflict and have not attempted to withdraw from it?

Can you justify a claim of self defense if you have illegally entered someone else's home and refused to leave when asked to?

Ready for how it came out?

scroll

-

-

-

-

The judge gives you 3 years of probation, 40 hours of community service and you are required to reimburse your former employer $225

Sound like a pretty good deal? I thought so. Read this article and maybe it will all make sense:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,182 Posts
Not here.....
1. If you provoke the situation .... per the law you cannot claim or even argue self-defense.
2. You cannot enter even a rental .... if not invited, as it is their residence whether you own the place or not it's their domicile. If you enter their place illegally, you are automatically considered by the law to be a threat to the occupant. They could shoot you in self-defense.

The case with the employer, should have never been combined with the others in court. That wouldn't happen here, I'm sure of that. The cases would have been separated, and if they hadn't, it would have been over-turned on appeal. Our State Supreme Court has decided that in several cases. They are not directly related... only indirectly.

He'ld be toast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
If that had been you or I we would have never seen the light of day except through bars what a joke. Sounds like some good ole boy politics to me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,294 Posts
A lot going on there. My guess is that, because the physical altercation had stopped by the time the decedent brandished what appeared to be a deadly weapon, the brandishing would be viewed as a threat rather than a defensive action, and the shooting therefore justified.

I'll bet she gets hammered in the civil suit, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
California man...geez! Sounds like a travesty of justice for sure. But hey, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
If that had been you or I we would have never seen the light of day except through bars what a joke. Sounds like some good ole boy politics to me
Just remember the wheels of justice turn much differently for those that work in the system than for the average citizen. The public defender was right, What a joke!!!.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
You confront the tenant and tell them to either pay up or grab their stuff and get out - an illegal eviction ... You punch the tenant and the two of your struggle ... The tenant then grabs what later turns out to be a bb gun and brandishes it at you. You draw your very real gun and fire. The tenant is killed.
Sounds fairly straightforward to me. Deliberately create a confrontation, deliberately commit battery, then claim aggrieved status when the person refuses to have any more of that. Won't wash. The batterer caused the situation, committed the battery, then killed the guy for refusing to continue being battered and unlawfully kicked to the street (evicted).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,343 Posts
Nope. The shooter did not have a 'guilt-free' shoot. He was a provocateur. He should be charged with murder, perhaps voluntary manslaughter.

Don't let your anger get the better of you or you will pay the price. IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
Nope. The shooter did not have a 'guilt-free' shoot. He was a provocateur. He should be charged with murder, perhaps voluntary manslaughter.

Don't let your anger get the better of you or you will pay the price. IMO.

Same here in NH.. If you are the initial aggressor, you cannot claim self defense. Some jail time is forthcoming I believe....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
depending on the wording in the lease, the owner and his agents may have permission to enter the premis. again, depending on the lease, local law, and amount of time the tennant rent the apartment, the owner or his agent may or may not have the right to remove a person uncovered by the lease. once a person threaten the use of deadly foce and the other believe that threat and that threat is credible and the person has the right and privelege to be on that premis, i believe that person has the right to use deadly force to defend themself.

as far as the charge of embezzlement, i doubt that charge could be sustained in a criminal court, maybe a civil soloution
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
When I first read your summary, I thought "ah, Mafia". So my first surprise when I read the article was discovering that no, this person does not give the impression of being a part of la cosa nostra. So, to borrow from contemporary classification, I consider the defendant to be a "Mafia-inspired" landlord.

My second surprise, which ended up not being a surprise at all given the outcome, was that the landlord and the tenant are both women. There was a study a few years ago that showed that women are more likely to avoid convictions than men for the same crime, and are twice as likely as men to avoid incarceration for the same crimes if convicted. The so-called "gender gap" doesn't really apply to wages anymore, but it certainly does to criminal conviction and sentencing.

When I talked to my lawyer about the question of "what do I do if I'm ever involved in a self-defense shooting", his response was, essentially, that when a woman shoots somebody, it is more likely to be perceived as self-defense (unless it obviously isn't, of course) than if a man were to shoot somebody in the same circumstance. This is true of people perceived as "frail" (elderly, disabled) across the board.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
894 Posts
So much easier to just file eviction papers and let the LEOs handle it. Legally. Eviction procedures are usually spelled out clearly. In most leases I've seen, landlord can enter only for repairs or showing the property. Otherwise it is a trespass. If the tenant says get out, you have to get out.
Landlord hit the tenant. That is battery and gives up using self defense as justification for shooting. However, the tenant can now shoot the landlord and claim SD.

If you can not run a business legally, get out of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Worked out well for the landlord in this instance. IMHO, the landlord was not justified in striking the tenant, as the tenant did not make the initial strike. Although the tenant did threaten the landlord, no action was taken by the tenant to make good on that threat. In the end, the landlord came into another individual's domicile, struck him, and then shot the tenant as he attempted to scare off the aggressor (the landlord). The landlord certainly escalated the situation and this shooting could have been prevented by going through the proper methods of dealing with a bad tenant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,268 Posts
All-around stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stirling XD

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
There's no accounting for law & legal interpretation, but it has the sound of a gender-biased decision. Or just a California thing, I don't know. Apparently whoever pulls an evil gun first is more evil than the person who pulls an evil gun second, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. Still, it didn't sound like a very good case to prosecute because of the threats by the tenant leading up to their drawing a weapon, and I don't think it makes clear where the final incident occurred -- in the yard, on the street, actually in the residence, etc. Brandishing a firearm *after* the physical altercation had been broken up and the parties separated is not really a protective/defensive move, unless they were still trespassing/being belligerent..which sounds likely given the inference of the type of folk under discussion.

All this, of course, assuming the media version is even remotely accurate -- we're probably talking more about a hypothetical based loosely on real events.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
Morally in my mind= Bad shoot.

Legally (In her state)= good shoot.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,508 Posts
First it will depend a lot on state law. That said, it is hard to really make a determination on what is published in papers or reported on the news. Without having sat in the courtroom and hearing the testimony, we don't really nkow all the facts presented.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top