Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
57. "it's up to the police to rebut that presumption"
Wed Apr 9, 2014, 06:43 PM
Apr 2014

I know. But in the course of questioning should he let slip that he did not believe he was in danger, or said something like "I didn't see a gun, but they were trying to run out the window and I wasn't about to let them get away, I'm sick of these punks ect ect"

Well then he might be in trouble. And rightfully so. Indeed, if he wants to avoid prosecution, he should keep his mouth shut.

Real world example and this is about as innocuous as it gets: A friend found a teenager trapped in his garage. How was he trapped, you ask? He was wheelchair bound; one of the heavy motorized kind. He could get the garage door open but once he was in and looking around, he got his wheelchair wedged between some junk, and it was much too heavy for him to move on his own. Apparently, he was stuck there for quite some time until my friend got home and freed him.

He possibly could have been a threat if he had a gun or something, I guess, but it would have been pretty barbaric to fetch a gun and kill him. And even under Texas' loose castle doctrine, I doubt a reasonable jury would have concluded that he would have had a reasonable fear of bodily harm from this person.

But maybe they would have, it is Texas and the kid was black. Thankfully we'll never know because said friend did not, in fact, shoot him.


I realize the teens in this story were not wheelchair bound, but the point is reasonable bodily harm is determined by all facts, including whether they were armed. It is not irrelevant. It is very relevant.

If my friend drove into his garage and found the kid in the wheelchair pointing a gun, that would have changed the circumstances.

My own case was finding and elderly woman, who somehow broke the door to our laundry room overnight. I opened the door and smoke billowed into my face and I thought 'fire'. Then she came out from behind the darkness. Startled the crap out of me. I still didn't kill her though.

PS - The smoke was crack

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Unless there's something else we don't know brentspeak Apr 2014 #1
Yes. 840high Apr 2014 #2
If he shot at them after they exited the house exboyfil Apr 2014 #3
"Might be", did the home owner have a reasonable expectation they were going outside to get weapons marble falls Apr 2014 #7
Will be exboyfil Apr 2014 #20
Ever been to Detroit? The cops have neighborhoods they've announced they will not patrol..... marble falls Apr 2014 #37
The Detroit Police Chief encourages homeowners to protect themselves BeatleBoot Apr 2014 #4
Because their police department is so christx30 Apr 2014 #14
Breaking into someones house to steal warrant46 Apr 2014 #56
And one can avoid death christx30 Apr 2014 #60
Although to be fair--- warrant46 Apr 2014 #61
Drunk guy, late at night in Detroit christx30 Apr 2014 #62
Where I live Northern Wisconsin A/K/A Wistucky warrant46 Apr 2014 #63
were they armed? the robbers i mean leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #5
Does it matter? IronGate Apr 2014 #6
Yes Ash_F Apr 2014 #8
I think if I had been the homeowner, YarnAddict Apr 2014 #10
OK, but you would still be subject to the laws of the state you live in, afterward. Ash_F Apr 2014 #12
No. IronGate Apr 2014 #11
Wrong. /nt Ash_F Apr 2014 #13
Then show us the law that says it matters if an intruder is armed or not. IronGate Apr 2014 #15
You should not use wikipedia as a source. Ash_F Apr 2014 #16
And you should understand that any unlawful intrusion into a home IronGate Apr 2014 #17
And you should understand how a subclause works Ash_F Apr 2014 #18
Which is exactly why he was fully justified in using deadly force. IronGate Apr 2014 #19
It is relevant to whether he would have reasonable belief of bodily harm at the time Ash_F Apr 2014 #21
Excellent answer. IronGate Apr 2014 #22
If somebody kicks down your door, I think its safe to assume you're in danger of being harmed. 7962 Apr 2014 #24
Maybe. I can think of one case as precedence that agrees with you. Ash_F Apr 2014 #35
You really should have quoted the next bit.. X_Digger Apr 2014 #40
Oh my dog, read post #18 /nt Ash_F Apr 2014 #41
I did.. you seemed to miss the point. X_Digger Apr 2014 #43
It is not convoluted legalese. It is plain English . Ash_F Apr 2014 #44
Do you dispute my simpler sentence? X_Digger Apr 2014 #46
sigh Ash_F Apr 2014 #48
I know what a rebuttable presumption is, thanks. X_Digger Apr 2014 #51
"it's up to the police to rebut that presumption" Ash_F Apr 2014 #57
It's reasonable that two 19 yr olds could beat a 47-yr old to death NickB79 Apr 2014 #72
15 year olds. /nt Ash_F Apr 2014 #73
The OP says 19 yr olds NickB79 Apr 2014 #74
See post 69 /nt Ash_F Apr 2014 #75
Should the homeowner have to ascertain that before defending himself? X_Digger Apr 2014 #39
It depends. Ash_F Apr 2014 #42
No it really doesn't. X_Digger Apr 2014 #45
No, but it also doesn't mean you can shoot them no matter what and get away with it. Ash_F Apr 2014 #47
Where's this 'on my property' business?!? This is about someone breaking and entering your home. n/t X_Digger Apr 2014 #49
While you are getting sidetracked... Ash_F Apr 2014 #50
Err.. Home Invasion includes B&E in MI.. X_Digger Apr 2014 #55
All break-ins are home invasions; but not all home invasions are break-ins Ash_F Apr 2014 #58
HI 1st degree requires an occupant. 2nd, 3rd do not. X_Digger Apr 2014 #66
Not all state's castle dotrine the same someone else Apr 2014 #53
Even in Texas, you have to show you had no other reasonable way to get your TV back Ash_F Apr 2014 #59
The homeowner is 100 percent right in this case. yeoman6987 Apr 2014 #77
Well it is a good thing you aren't. Ash_F Apr 2014 #79
"Does it matter?" meanit Apr 2014 #23
I could care less about guns, IronGate Apr 2014 #25
did it matter whether trayvon martin was armed or not ? leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #27
What does Trayvon Martin have to do with this thread? IronGate Apr 2014 #29
The homeowner meanit Apr 2014 #65
did it matter whether trayvon martin was armed or not ? leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #26
Trayvon Martin didn't home invade anyone or do anything illegal. IronGate Apr 2014 #28
being armed or not does matter in that situation and this one leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #33
When someone breaks into your home while you're there, IronGate Apr 2014 #36
I am far from a gun nut... awoke_in_2003 Apr 2014 #64
That's my old neighborhood Dyedinthewoolliberal Apr 2014 #9
Yes it is. yeoman6987 Apr 2014 #78
Sounds like a legit use of force rollin74 Apr 2014 #30
Ahhh, but Trayvon Martin. IronGate Apr 2014 #31
Then why is the shooter in custody? philosslayer Apr 2014 #32
They broke into an occupied home, IronGate Apr 2014 #34
Probably to establish the facts surrounding the shooting NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #68
The biggest criminals are the ones running Detroit. nt valerief Apr 2014 #38
No, the ones who are, and have run, Michigan philosslayer Apr 2014 #52
Uh, the state of Michigan runs Detroit. nt valerief Apr 2014 #71
We're they shot in the back while fleeing! upaloopa Apr 2014 #54
Someone who decides to invade my home, SevenSixtyTwo Apr 2014 #67
Update: Suspected intruder killed by homeowner was 15 years old SpartanDem Apr 2014 #69
I suppose the owner considered his life of some value. ileus Apr 2014 #70
and 15 year olds can kill Niceguy1 Apr 2014 #76
Hopefully a lesson is learned here yeoman6987 Apr 2014 #80
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Teen shot dead and anothe...»Reply #57