aquinasprime: (WTF)
[personal profile] aquinasprime posting in [community profile] the_2nd
Right now, one of the big news stories in my hometown (Buffalo, NY) is the fact that there was a fatal shooting on Saturday night. There has been little confirmed facts being published and there are tons of rumors/theories flying around. I can't permalink to any articles (they make them unavailable after a few weeks) but you can go to The Buffalo News for details. I'll summarize what has been revealed in the media so far.

On Saturday evening, there was a fatal shooting in a home in Amherst, NY. The victim was a school teacher from Albany, NY. The shooter was the homeowner. The victim was attending a "diaper party" in the area (I think it's supposed to be the male party that happens at the same time as a baby shower). He went outside of the house where the party was sometime in the evening. Around 1am the shooter heard the sounds of someone entering his home. Per the shooter (and his attorney, who specializes in these sorts of cases) he told his wife to call 911, grabbed his shotgun, told the person entering the house that he was armed and to stop. The person didn't stop, so he shot him.

According the shooter's attorney, in NYS a person has the right to shoot if they feel their house is being burglarized.

What no one is clear on is exactly what happened. Why was the victim trying to enter the house? Was he sleepwalking, drunk, did he just go in the wrong house? Was the house he entered locked or unlocked? None of these details have been released (and we may never know the answers to some)and it is causing rampant speculation.

More importantly it has sparked much debate about the homeowner. Did he have the right to shoot someone entering his home? Was the shooting justified? Will he/should he be charged? It is also sparking a discussion of castle doctrine as a whole.

I'm going to be very clear in my opinion. If he did warn the victim that he was armed and told him to stop, and the victim continued to enter the home I do feel the shooting was justified and that the homeowner should not face any charges. I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you have a legal gun in your house, you have the right to shoot someone posting a potential danger to your family or property. And I think a stranger entering your home at 1am is assumed to be a threat.

I'm posting this from work, so I can't go into a deeper discussion now, but I wanted to know what others thought.

Date: 2010-03-31 02:47 pm (UTC)
majoline: picture of Majoline, mother of Bon Mucho in Loco Roco 2 (Default)
From: [personal profile] majoline
At 1 am I would be shooting to kill, I'm sorry. It doesn't matter if my doors were locked or not (because if I were still awake and active they might not be), but if a strange person entered my home and didn't give a good reason and was presumably scary? You'd be staring down the end of my shotgun.

Now admittedly I live in the country, by myself, on a large piece of property and I'm a woman, but I think the same applies equally. If you needed help at that time of the morning, you should knock.

Now, why this person left the house he was at to enter someone else's home? (Plus, that business is strange anyway) I haven't the foggiest idea. But not having castle rights or expecting someone to not have a weapon when faced with potential robbery and death, is in my opinion, not rational.

I mean, is there any circumstance where someone coming in your house at an early hour if you a) weren't expecting anyone and b) the person wasn't known to you that you would interpret their actions as non-nefarious?

Really?

Date: 2010-03-31 02:53 pm (UTC)
pauamma: Cartooney crab wearing hot pink and acid green facemask holding drink with straw (Default)
From: [personal profile] pauamma
Hmm. Hard to say without something more definite about the facts of the case. (And regardless of the appropriateness of criminal charges, a wrongful death civil suit may be appropriate.)

(Also, could you fix the URL in your link? It should read <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/">, not <a href="www.buffalonews.com">.)

Date: 2010-03-31 04:04 pm (UTC)
majoline: picture of Majoline, mother of Bon Mucho in Loco Roco 2 (Default)
From: [personal profile] majoline
(And regardless of the appropriateness of criminal charges, a wrongful death civil suit may be appropriate.)

I guess? If the man had partner/kids, I suppose they would need his death redressed, both in the 'he's dead sense' and the 'he was earning us a paycheck sense'.

Date: 2010-03-31 03:02 pm (UTC)
invisionary: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.  When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist." (Default)
From: [personal profile] invisionary
New York has a limited Castle law, meaning that you are not required to retreat from a threat on your own legal residence, however the burden of proof is on the occupant to demonstrate that there was sufficient threat to justify use of lethal force, and is also responsible for any other damage done on a civil level (say, for instance, you shoot an attacker in a shared apartment building, and the rounds penetrate a neighboring wall and do property damage/personal injury, possibly with negligence charges). So in the eyes of the law, he's got some explaining to do, and we don't have all the facts yet.

I personally think anyone on someone's property uninvited at 1 AM is suspicious, but suspicion doesn't make guilt. I live in Albany and am thus getting much more of the perspective of the dead teacher in this case. If indeed, this guy had lost it, wandered into someone's house, and made a threat of himself the shooter was justified. However, it's quite possible he lost it, wandered into the house, and started making himself a cup of coffee or something, which doesn't justify lethal force - it justifies a call to the men in white coats. In New York, this is the difference between justifiable homicide and manslaughter.

Overall, on castle doctrine, I think New York does it about right, that one has to be able to demonstrate justification for use of lethal force, but if able to do so, should not be held criminally liable. We're not Texas, where trespassing after dark is grounds for blowing someone away - this can and does lead to innocent but deadly mistakes.

Me, personally, would really want to know why there was someone uninvited in my home first before using force, as for all I know that person may need something very different from an extra hole in their body. For all I know it could be a cherished friend that really needed to get off the street right then and hide, and the last thing I want to do is stick a gun in their grill.

Date: 2010-03-31 03:57 pm (UTC)
majoline: picture of Majoline, mother of Bon Mucho in Loco Roco 2 (Default)
From: [personal profile] majoline
However, it's quite possible he lost it, wandered into the house, and started making himself a cup of coffee or something, which doesn't justify lethal force - it justifies a call to the men in white coats. In New York, this is the difference between justifiable homicide and manslaughter.
[...]
Me, personally, would really want to know why there was someone uninvited in my home first before using force, as for all I know that person may need something very different from an extra hole in their body. For all I know it could be a cherished friend that really needed to get off the street right then and hide, and the last thing I want to do is stick a gun in their grill.


This is true! And I would never want to just shoot someone out of hand. However, it seems like this case is not enough reason to reevaluate castle laws, unless Albany has a low enough crime rate that these sort of trespassing laws are causing more innocent people harm overall than not.

(which I honestly don't know, being Mississippian)

Date: 2010-03-31 05:37 pm (UTC)
zorkian: Icon full of binary ones and zeros in no pattern. (Default)
From: [personal profile] zorkian
I'm strongly in support of Castle Doctrine.

When it comes down to it, the police are not going to be fast enough to protect my family and I if someone comes into our house unannounced. I want the ability to handle the threat in a permanent way if I deem that is necessary.

Does that mean I think it's a good idea to walk out guns blazing? No. I'd ask that people verbally warn as well as try to ascertain that the intruder is actually dangerous -- but I'm against that being codified as law. There are going to be situations where you can't safely tell, or where pre-announcing where you are is going to get you hurt.

People say 'oh, accidents can happen' and that's true -- but I don't think that should factor in. If you make it illegal to shoot intruders without a dozen qualifiers, how many lives are you going to lose when the criminal just comes in shooting?

It's pretty cut and dried to me. The intruder was inside of the house uninvited. The family's safety is the most important concern, and I support the person doing whatever they felt was necessary to end that threat against their family.

Date: 2010-04-01 12:02 am (UTC)
majoline: picture of Majoline, mother of Bon Mucho in Loco Roco 2 (Default)
From: [personal profile] majoline
Okay, I thought it was just me. Because I heard, from that article, maybe not a dangerous person did something stupid and got shot and therefore we need to rethink castle laws.

And as a person living alone in the country, just the idea of them being taken away scared me.

Date: 2010-04-02 03:07 am (UTC)
ashcomp: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ashcomp
The referenced article is no longer on the front page of the Buffalo News website, but can still be found here:

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/03/30/1003421/violent-death-of-teacher-rife.html

Date: 2010-04-07 03:48 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] ex_peasant441
I'm for the castle stance. If you're on my property uninvited you pretty much left your rights at the boundary. Which isn't to say that as a reasonable person I wouldn't ask questions first and shoot second, but someone trespassing, especially at night, shouldn't rely on meeting a reasonable person - they should rely on not trespassing.

As for the arguments about people wandering where they shouldn't because of stupidity, drunkenness or mental health, I don't see how that is any different from if they wandered onto a busy road or the railway tracks. A householder in fear for their life is the same as a driver who can't stop in time or can't stop without risking their own and their passengers' lives. Accidents will happen, that is no reason to prevent people having cars. And let's face it, far more people are killed on the roads.