It's OK to shoot a hooker if she doesn't have sex...

[tim722]

Originally Posted by BVS

Well the problem with this law, as we can see in this case and in the Trayvon Martin case, is that these laws are so loosely defined is that a person can almost murder anyone as long as they build the right case. I can literally get drunk, have an argument with someone at a party I was throwing in my house, shoot them and claim self defense. Or there's been cases where people shot burglars that were in their yard and then they drug the dead body into the house so that they can claim self defense.

Trayvon Martin was killed on the street not in a home so his case is irrelevant. And you can't shoot a friend at you're party and claim self defense. That is ridiculous. And there are no cases where a burglary victim shot an offender as he was in his backyard and then dragged his body into his home to claim self defense. Not one. Maybe it was tried once but certainly the detectives figured it out in sn hour. Maybe the victim shot him as he entered the home. Maybe the victim shot him as he fled the property which is wrong. You watch too much tv.

[tim722]

Originally Posted by BVS

There was a case here a few years ago where a woman shot a man in her house and she claim self defense castle laws even though it turned out it was someone she knew, the evidence of breaking in was iffy, and there was talk that she may have even been the one that invited him over. BUT it never went to trial, not enough evidence.

That is totally different. She very well may have invited him over to kill him. That is up to the state to decide if she stands trial. But still name one case where a dead burglar was drug back into the house. None.
Had a case today where 19 yr old accidentally shot and killed his 16 yr old brother in the head in bathroom. He then fired gun again through the window to look like someone shot from outside into the bathroom window. Took a whole 15 mins for the dets to figure it out.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

That's fucked up, but so is the sensationalist headline

This. A million times.

[LuckyNumber7]

And so is the sensationalist trolling.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by tim722

Trayvon Martin was killed on the street not in a home so his case is irrelevant. And you can't shoot a friend at you're party and claim self defense. That is ridiculous. And there are no cases where a burglary victim shot an offender as he was in his backyard and then dragged his body into his home to claim self defense. Not one. Maybe it was tried once but certainly the detectives figured it out in sn hour. Maybe the victim shot him as he entered the home. Maybe the victim shot him as he fled the property which is wrong. You watch too much tv.

The law pertinent to the Travon Martin case is Florida's Stand Your Ground law (a close cousin of other states Castle laws) which allows citizens to "meet force with force" when they are attacked so long they are engaged in lawful activity in a place that they have a right to be. It essentially expands the "castle" of the Castle Doctrine to include the body in public. Zimmerman to argue self-defense, won't seek stand-your-ground hearing - CNN.com


Also it seems like under some state laws someone who shot a burglar in the yard would have no need to drag the burglar back into the house- the mere fact that his property was in danger would justify the shooting. That is essentially the situation with the prostitute. The john was not in danger; she was just leaving with money that he felt she has not earned.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by tim722

Trayvon Martin was killed on the street not in a home so his case is irrelevant. And you can't shoot a friend at you're party and claim self defense. That is ridiculous. And there are no cases where a burglary victim shot an offender as he was in his backyard and then dragged his body into his home to claim self defense. Not one. Maybe it was tried once but certainly the detectives figured it out in sn hour. Maybe the victim shot him as he entered the home. Maybe the victim shot him as he fled the property which is wrong. You watch too much tv.

The law pertinent to the Trayvon Martin case is Florida's Stand Your Ground law (a close cousin of other states Castle laws) which allows citizens to "meet force with force" when they are attacked so long they are engaged in lawful activity in a place that they have a right to be. It essentially expands the "castle" of the Castle Doctrine to include the body in public. Zimmerman to argue self-defense, won't seek stand-your-ground hearing - CNN.com


Also it seems like under some state laws someone who shot a burglar in the yard would have no need to drag the burglar back into the house- the mere fact that his property was in danger would justify the shooting. That is essentially the situation with the prostitute. The john was not in danger; she was just leaving with money that he felt she has not earned.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by tim722

Trayvon Martin was killed on the street not in a home so his case is irrelevant. And you can't shoot a friend at you're party and claim self defense. That is ridiculous.

You're really missing the point here. His case is relevant because it falls under the same loosely defined laws. If I throw a party and you and I are the only two left, you're drunk and piss me off and I'm a hothead with a gun, I can shoot you and claim self defense. It would be up to the state to prove otherwise, but the problem is, just like in the Martin case, there are no witnesses to claim you didn't start to attack me in my home.

Originally Posted by tim722

And there are no cases where a burglary victim shot an offender as he was in his backyard and then dragged his body into his home to claim self defense. Not one. Maybe it was tried once but certainly the detectives figured it out in sn hour. Maybe the victim shot him as he entered the home. Maybe the victim shot him as he fled the property which is wrong. You watch too much tv.

You are too naive, this doesn't bode well for a detective. I guess you didn't bother with Google? That kind of thing is ENCOURAGED by gun rights groups, they always say that if you shoot a burglar, make sure 75% of their body is across the threshold, this has since changed in Texas and you can shoot anyone on your property.

[tim722]

Originally Posted by BVS

You're really missing the point here. His case is relevant because it falls under the same loosely defined laws. If I throw a party and you and I are the only two left, you're drunk and piss me off and I'm a hothead with a gun, I can shoot you and claim self defense. It would be up to the state to prove otherwise, but the problem is, just like in the Martin case, there are no witnesses to claim you didn't start to attack me in my home.

You are too naive, this doesn't bode well for a detective. I guess you didn't bother with Google? That kind of thing is ENCOURAGED by gun rights groups, they always say that if you shoot a burglar, make sure 75% of their body is across the threshold, this has since changed in Texas and you can shoot anyone on your property.

You can not just shoot someone because you don't like him. You have to prove you're life was threatened. Granted Zimmerman was an idiot and probably a racist but once he was attacked he was allowed to defend himself according to Florida law.

Google me one case where a homeowner drug a burglar back into his home. Never happened. You are a typical liberal living in a dream world. Just like climate warming is an absolute fact. Prove both.

[Galeongirl]

*your.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by tim722

You are a typical liberal living in a dream world.

I've tried asking nicely. Consider this a formal warning: drop the insults.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by tim722

You can not just shoot someone because you don't like him. You have to prove you're life was threatened.

You're really missing the point detective. If it comes down to a he said vs he said story and one of the 'hes' is dead then how do you prove it? The law is on your side if it's in your property. That's my whole entire point, I'm sorry if you don't get that.

Originally Posted by tim722

Google me one case where a homeowner drug a burglar back into his home. Never happened.

As a detective how can you be so absolute, you should know first hand. How could I google an instance where they got away with it? You're a detective so you know some lawyers, ask them. Ask them about how the law is on their side. You've seen how many gun groups have advocated it right?

[tim722]

Originally Posted by BVS

How could I google an instance where they got away with it? You're a detective so you know some lawyers, ask them. Ask them about how the law is on their side. You've seen how many gun groups have advocated it right?

Wow. You were the one who told me there are cases out there and that I should google them to find out. Bottom line is you were wrong and there are no cases like that.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by tim722

Wow. You were the one who told me there are cases out there and that I should google them to find out. Bottom line is you were wrong and there are no cases like that.

I'm going to try one more time to appeal to your logic side.

I showed you how to google those cases where they tried and failed. BUT if they got away with it, then more than likely there are no articles about it, right? You went through the accelerated path to homicide detective so you must be top of your class, so I doubt you have any cases like this but you're aware that there are people out there that have gotten away with murder because there was just never enough to make a case, right? How many of those made the news? Because if there was no case, then there was no trial, and then there is no story, BUT there are many detectives and lawyers out there that know there's more to the story but just couldn't prove it.

[nbcrusader]

The inane Gawker headline aside (the only place that rewards you for shooting hookers is Grand Theft Auto), it seems there are two real issues here: (i) whether we should allow certain defenses to crimes against person or property and (ii) are changes needed to the current jury system.

In the instant case, a defense attorney successfully applied (misapplied) a legal defense that, in my opinion, the jury should have rejected. How the defense attorney was able to satisfy a jury is beyond me.

Should we have such defenses? To be clear, the burden of proving the defense is always on the defendant. A defendant does not simply raise a defense and then the prosecutor has to disprove the defense. Forensics makes it far more difficult for a defendant to stage the defense by moving evidence or outright lying.

As to the defense itself, the law has always given greater protections for night-time property crimes. Common law defines burglary as “trespassory breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with an intent to commit a felony therein.” I would argue that the right to use deadly force to protect one’s property at night (especially one’s home) is a reasonable deterrent. I’m not sure why we would want to reward the criminal in this situation.

The bad outcome in this case does not justify the changing of a defense, but rather points to potential flaws in a system that we otherwise accept.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by BVS

I'm going to try one more time to appeal to your logic side.

I showed you how to google those cases where they tried and failed. BUT if they got away with it, then more than likely there are no articles about it, right? You went through the accelerated path to homicide detective so you must be top of your class, so I doubt you have any cases like this but you're aware that there are people out there that have gotten away with murder because there was just never enough to make a case, right? How many of those made the news? Because if there was no case, then there was no trial, and then there is no story, BUT there are many detectives and lawyers out there that know there's more to the story but just couldn't prove it.

Against my better judgement, I'm going to side with tim for a moment (kinda). If you'd just post one case where someone tried and was caught trying to drag a body back inside their home, the back and forth can be done with. I'm not sure why the cases in which someone could have allegedly gotten away with it keep coming up, though. It's an unfalsifiable, hypothetical argument