Stick to the specific case. A young man chased a fleeing suspect and gunned him down.
I’m not talking about general anything. I’m talking about a specific incident.
Ok, unwind back through the commentary you spun from your own comparison of two incidents, which I responded to and was met with tangents until we got to this comment.
Of course not. That would be crazy. But you likely can if you reasonably believe that person is armed and presents an imminent danger to you/others.
The last sentence is not quite (100%) true. There is a presumption of reasonableness, but it’s not quite “no questions asked.”
“What happened here”
“Guy broke in to my house”
“Have a good night”
This is exactly how it would go. The fact someone entered your home illegally is the presumption of reasonableness.
But, in any case, Id consult a lawyer before giving any statements.
That father and son who killed the supposed jogger tried claiming self defense. It didn’t work.
They’re also on camera, their own camera, clearly not defending themselves or their property, but hunting the guy instead. One of these is not like the others.
I wouldn’t be too sure about that if the shootee is Dementia Dan or Tiny Tot.
Here’s a real-life example(of an investigation still happening):
There is a presumption of reasonableness BECAUSE someone entered your home illegally. But that doesn’t mean no investigation, or that there are no circumstances that could make your action unreasonable.
You can’t defend yourself after people who looked like you did stuff to people who looked like your victim. If a Black man wants something you have, the proper response is to let him have it.
He didn’t call the police for 4 hours after he killed the guy. That’s not a normal case of shooting a home intruder.
1 Like
I understand(although it doesn’t appear that he mentioned that…that was found through investigation). But it’s still not a “no questions asked.” There’s going to be some investigation. There is a presumption of reasonableness, but it’s not a “he broke in, so I shot him”…”have a good night” thing.
That’s because they chased an unarmed pedestrian down with cars and shot him to death while filming it.
This is actually an important case, unlike getting to the bottom of anyone’s understanding or lack of basic self defense concepts. Let’s try to stick to it.
A few things to note.
The reason suspicions initially arose is because he took an estimated four hours to call in the shooting. Rigamortis was already setting in.
He was in an abandoned home, and ultimately arrested by a gang task force.
If you google around, you’ll find that Watters approached and entered his abandoned home specifically to shoot the man. Castle Doctrine didn’t apply because he inserted himself in to the threatening situation, not the other way around.
The fact he was arrested by a gang task force is an interesting twist too, especially since he took four hours to call in the shooting.
That particular region of Texas sees a lot of activity from a certain type of club whose members are often caught up in territorial disputes over methamphetamine production and sales, and who have direct cartel connections as enforcers along drug routes.
Surmising, but based on his appearance and the admittedly limited details, a cook house or “storage unit” was being robbed, he made a gangland killing and took four hours to hide evidence before framing the murder as defense.
In any case, entering the abandoned home and engaging circumvented legal intent of castle doctrine. He wasn’t under threat until he entered the house, and there were no material possessions to guard against the theft of.
I don’t believe he has been convicted yet, however.
1 Like
They claimed he went for their guns when confronted. Also, in the Chicago case, an unarmed man was chased and shot to death. Hmmmm….
The McMichaels never seemed to consider the possibility that someone might interpret their armed presence as a threat and respond accordingly.
Did you know that it has been common for murderers to clam self-defense for thousands of years? As strange as it sounds, they don’t always want to acknowledge that they just killed someone for no good reason.
In Chicago a man physically attacked some one and was shot.
In Georgia a man was stalked, approached, confronted and shot.
Can you spot the difference?
And your point is? That self defense claims are subject to interpretation of laws? I wish I had been saying that all along.
No. He assaulted a woman, was shot, then ran away, was pursued, caught, and shot dead.
No. He was pursued, chased, caught and then shot dead.
Yes.
If someone punches your mother can you legally shoot them dead the next day on their front porch? At what point does a situation cease being one of self defense?
1 Like
Is this what happened?