Was This Shooting/Killing Justified?

[Black Dog]

Well hello Mr. Officer, golly gee, you must certainly know everything about the law. Sorry, all I am is a lawyer. Criminal Defense experience.

My issue has never been about "deadly force," he was a civilian facing a person with a weapon attempting to enter his home. Of course he could use deadly force. All my posts indicate that.

My issue is, was he justified in shooting through the door at the risk of innocent civilians. I still say NO!

BTW I am not impressed by your sample of "life as a cop" experiences. In the first place, that's your job! In the second place, all the situations involved shoot-outs with suspects (again part of the job!) Congrats for surviving, it has nothing to do with this situation.

I am against "gun control," a supporter of Second Amendment rights through and through. But it is stupid crap like this, where a completely untrained person starts shooting wildly and risking innocent peoples lives that feeds right into the needs of gun control nuts. I have a gun, you have a crowbar...I AM IN CONTROL! If you want to come at me I will shoot you dead and not think twice about it. But shooting through a door and hoping to hit something??? NO!

Now we can go round and round about this beating our chests and trying to see which of us is the BMOC, but it won't change the fact that in MY opinion what he did i.e. "shooting through a door and almost killing an innocent teenaged kid" was not justified. Period.

So in other words you were wrong on the law and can't refute anything I pointed out, but you are a lawyer with criminal experience.

You know I can always tell when someone is blowing smoke up my ass.

You have a nice day.

 

[MoSurveyor]

It is a clear case of self defence under the law and is completely justified. As I said if an innocent had been hit that would have been a civil thing, not criminal as no intent to cause harm to innocents was involved. The best he could have been charged with criminally would be negligent homicide or reckless endangerment I would imagine.

To me it doesn't look so clear but we're really not given enough information. How did he know it was someone with a crowbar? Did he see them out a window or peephole? What if it was a drunk neighbor that was trying to fit the wrong key in his lock? The list is endless and we don't have that information. That we know after-the-fact that it was an intruder armed with a crowbar is beside the point. I understand legally that makes all the difference in the world but whether he was really justified (at least as far as we know) is all based on after-the-fact evidence. If he didn't and couldn't see his intruder then, IMO, he was damn lucky he guessed correctly.


I agree. My issue wasn't with the round going through the neighbor's wall.

 

[Captain Adverse]

So in other words you were wrong on the law and can't refute anything I pointed out, but you are a lawyer with criminal experience.

You know I can always tell when someone is blowing smoke up my ass.

You have a nice day.

Not really, since there are 50 states and each has it's own laws regrading when deadly force can be used and what is expected of a citizen in such a situation. When you go to LAW School you learn that. You also learn to address such open questions in a general way taking that fact into consideration, especialy in a forum like this where members come from all over the country and around the world. So no I did not quote "specific law" because I would have had to cite 50 different possibilities and then explain them along with any judicial modifications.

Now unless you claim to be a super-cop who has worked in every state in the union, then you are discussing this through your knowledge of laws of the state where you reside. Right?

I'm sure you enjoy smoking through your ass, but I don't share that particular vice. But thank you for your courteous reply, you have a nice day too.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I could be wrong about this but I think the door frame (but not the outer trim) is the demarcation line for apartments. I know they are for condos since we had to learn how to write legal descriptions for those.

Of course, if the crowbar is stuck in the jamb then it's technically on private property, you're right about that. Still, this whole thing is really pushing the limits of legality, IMO. I've been told by police friends of mine and the family's all my life that if you're going to shoot someone make sure they fall inside the door - and if they don't then drag them there. Of course, that was in a time long before modern forensics. Today, I've been told they look for blood (even splatter) inside the door (in Missouri). If they see that or obvious signs of forced entry they take your statement and haul the corpse off, end of story.

You make several very good points. I am especially intrigued by the "property limits" issue you raised. I failed to notice that this was an apartment complex, which does raise the issue of control vis a vis private apartment vs common use area.

I have also run across laws which seem to require at least the appearance that the "burglar" was actually inside the apartment/home/residence rather than just "on the property" before deadly force is authorized. Of course some states still follow the "home is my castle" ideology and support deadly force if a threat is perceived approaching the dwelling. Good post.

 

[Black Dog]

Not really, since there are 50 states and each has it's own laws regrading when deadly force can be used and what is expected of a citizen in such a situation. When you go to LAW School you learn that. You also learn to address such open questions in a general way taking that fact into consideration, especialy in a forum like this where members come from all over the country and around the world. So no I did not quote "specific law" because I would have had to cite 50 different possibilities and then explain them along with any judicial modifications.

I am not claiming anything other than I know for a fact that ...

You are under no obligation as a non-police officer and civilian to identify that you are armed to an armed intruder. I know for a fact you are under no obligation by law to call 911. I know for a fact you are under no obligation to identify someone trying to break your door in before you stop them. If you were indeed a criminal attorney, you would know this. Instead you sighted falsehoods.

Now unless you claim to be a super-cop who has worked in every state in the union, then you are discussing this through your knowledge of laws of the state where you reside. Right?

I was an officer in Chicago. At the time some of the strictest laws in the nation. So do I really need to know the lesser laws of most of the nation?

I'm sure you enjoy smoking through your ass, but I don't share that particular vice. But thank you for your courteous reply, you have a nice day too.

So again you have no arguments or facts and cannot refute anything I have said. On top of that you now add ad hominems to your repertoire.

Yes I recognize the smoke when I see it.

 

[MoSurveyor]

You are under no obligation as a non-police officer and civilian to identify that you are armed to an armed intruder. I know for a fact you are under no obligation by law to call 911. I know for a fact you are under no obligation to identify someone trying to break your door in before you stop them. If you were indeed a criminal attorney, you would know this. Instead you sighted falsehoods.

The only thing I'm not sure about for Missouri is the part about trying to break the door down. I mean, if they're trying to kick in the door and not succeeding that's one thing. It's pretty obvious what their intent is and there will be evidence to back it up. If they're trying to pick the lock (all you hear is some type of scratching without seeing anything) that could land you in hot water - unless you guess correctly. You are not required to announce and once the door is open you don't have to identify. But that was years ago, I don't know how much the laws have changed since then. I'm still pretty sure you can't shoot someone just for trespassing.

 

[Black Dog]

To me it doesn't look so clear but we're really not given enough information. How did he know it was someone with a crowbar?

Police said the woman had been trying to pry open the front door of an apartment - HPD: Woman trying to break into apartment shot to death in northwest Houston | khou.com Houston

Did he see them out a window or peephole? What if it was a drunk neighbor that was trying to fit the wrong key in his lock?

I think telling the difference between a key or a crowbar would be fairly easy.

The list is endless and we don't have that information. That we know after-the-fact that it was an intruder armed with a crowbar is beside the point.

No it is the point. An armed intruder trying to enter his home is exactly the point.

I understand legally that makes all the difference in the world but whether he was really justified (at least as far as we know) is all based on after-the-fact evidence. If he didn't and couldn't see his intruder then, IMO, he was damn lucky he guessed correctly.

Because it is very hard to figure out...

A He is the only one that lives there.
B They are trying to pry open the door with a crowbar.

I agree. My issue wasn't with the round going through the neighbor's wall.

You are trying very hard to ignore the meat of the case.

 

[Black Dog]

The only thing I'm not sure about for Missouri is the part about trying to break the door down. I mean, if they're trying to kick in the door and not succeeding that's one thing. It's pretty obvious what their intent is and there will be evidence to back it up. If they're trying to pick the lock (all you hear is some type of scratching without seeing anything) that could land you in hot water - unless you guess correctly. You are not required to announce and once the door is open you don't have to identify. But that was years ago, I don't know how much the laws have changed since then. I'm still pretty sure you can't shoot someone just for trespassing.

She was trying to pry the door open with a crowbar. This is considered a violent or tumultuous entry buy any states standards. Considering this was Huston Texas, I am pretty certain it was justified by their laws.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Police said the woman had been trying to pry open the front door of an apartment - HPD: Woman trying to break into apartment shot to death in northwest Houston | khou.com Houston

But as far as we know that's after-the-fact information. If he didn't or couldn't see what was going on then all he was doing was guessing.

I think telling the difference between a key or a crowbar would be fairly easy.

I'm not sure I could do it. Prying on a chunk of wood isn't all that noisy or distinct of a sound. I should know, I'm a DIY'er and have taken lots of boards loose in my time.

No it is the point. An armed intruder trying to enter his home is exactly the point.

I understand that. All I was saying was as far as we know from the information given he made a lucky guess as to what was on the other side of the door.

Let me put it this way, if it were me I would have waited or tried to acquire more information.

Because it is very hard to figure out...

A He is the only one that lives there.
B They are trying to pry open the door with a crowbar.

Again, as far as what we know from the story it's after the fact information.

You are trying very hard to ignore the meat of the case.

No, I'm not. Given the information we have (again, as far as we know it was all after the fact information to him) I would not have even considered acting the way he did.

 

[nota bene]

I can't find any updates on this story and whether the woman has been ID'd now. But from the Houston Chronicle:

Since Texas in 2007 expanded its "Castle Doctrine" - in some states known as "Stand Your Ground" - justifiable killings have steadily increased, from 32 statewide in 2006 to 48 in the 2010, the Chronicle's review shows.

Texas law always has allowed deadly force against intruders and thieves to protect lives and property, but where it once required a duty to try to retreat if possible when facing imminent danger, it no longer does.

"Traditionally, if you felt your life was threatened, you could use deadly force to protect yourself, except if you could get away safely where nobody got hurt, then you were required to do that," said Sandra Thompson, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Texas justifiable homicides rise with 'Castle Doctrine' - Houston Chronicle

 

[MoSurveyor]

She was trying to pry the door open with a crowbar. This is considered a violent or tumultuous entry buy any states standards. Considering this was Huston Texas, I am pretty certain it was justified by their laws.

I've said many times that is was legally justified. I just think the guy was damn lucky he made the right guess as to what was happening on the other side of the door.

 

[Black Dog]

But as far as we know that's after-the-fact information. If he didn't or couldn't see what was going on then all he was doing was guessing.

You are honestly telling me that you could not tell if someone was trying to break into your door?

I'm not sure I could do it. Prying on a chunk of wood isn't all that noisy or distinct of a sound. I should know, I'm a DIY'er and have taken lots of boards loose in my time.

So the sound of cracking wood of the door and/or frame would not be a dead giveaway? You are again saying you could not honestly tell the difference?

I understand that. All I was saying was as far as we know from the information given he made a lucky guess as to what was on the other side of the door.

To be honest there is not that much info to need. She was trying to pry open the door with a crowbar. Texas like Florida is a Castle law state. You are under no obligation to retreat from your home and allowed to use deadly force if you feel you are in danger of grievous bodily damage or death.

Now I will add if he knew her, that is a whole different thing.

Let me put it this way, if it were me I would have waited or tried to acquire more information.

Understood.

Again, as far as what we know from the story it's after the fact information.

True.

No, I'm not. Given the information we have (again, as far as we know it was all after the fact information to him) I would not have even considered acting the way he did.

And you might have been killed. That however is a personal choice and I will not begrudge you for knowing your limits.

 

[MoSurveyor]

You are honestly telling me that you could not tell if someone was trying to break into your door?

So the sound of cracking wood of the door and/or frame would not be a dead giveaway? You are again saying you could not honestly tell the difference?

Yes, if I heard wood cracking I'd take that as enough information, the same as someone trying to kick in the door. But we're not sure he heard that. We're just not given that kind of information.

To be honest there is not that much info to need. She was trying to pry open the door with a crowbar. Texas like Florida is a Castle law state. You are under no obligation to retreat from your home and allowed to use deadly force if you feel you are in danger of grievous bodily damage or death.

I understand laws are different in different states. Missouri is a Castle Law state, too, and has been for a long time (lots of rural, here!). No retreat, no warning needed, nothing like that at all. Once the door is open - or you're sure they're trying to break in - you can shoot at your leisure without repercussions. But there will be evidence at that point that they were trying to break in - like splintered wood (with the crowbar, IF she got that far) or shoe marks on the door from someone trying to kick it in.

Now I will add if he knew her, that is a whole different thing.

All bets are off if that's the case.

 

[blackjack50]

It seems that this kind of incident where a home owner shoots a family member thinking he is being burgled isn't all that uncommon.
Houston man fatally shoots son after mistaking him for burglar | kvue.com Austin
Connecticut man shoots son dead after mistaking him for an intruder - NYPOST.com
Chicago Man Shot And Killed Son He Thought Was Burglar: Chicagoist
Michael Leach: Policeman shoots and kills son because he 'thought he was an intruder' | Mail Online

She wasn't a family member. How many family members try to pry a door open with a crowbar?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I am not claiming anything other than I know for a fact that ...

You are under no obligation as a non-police officer and civilian to identify that you are armed to an armed intruder. I know for a fact you are under no obligation by law to call 911. I know for a fact you are under no obligation to identify someone trying to break your door in before you stop them. If you were indeed a criminal attorney, you would know this. Instead you sighted falsehoods.

I was an officer in Chicago. At the time some of the strictest laws in the nation. So do I really need to know the lesser laws of most of the nation?

So again you have no arguments or facts and cannot refute anything I have said. On top of that you now add ad hominems to your repertoire.

Yes I recognize the smoke when I see it.

Okay, I just spent the last couple of hours researching each states "self-defense" laws...and here's what I’ve come up with.

You state you were a police officer in Illinois. There is no “duty to retreat” requirement in Illinois, and state courts have determined this allows an “expanded self-defense.” So coming from that state you are absolutely correct in all of your statements…if this happened in Illinois or any of the following 30 other states with Castle Defense laws including: Alabama; Arkansas; Arizona; Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Indiana; Kentucky; Maryland; Mississippi; Missouri, Montana; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; Oklahoma; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Vermont; Virginia (case law, no statute); Washington; West Virginia; Wisconsin; Wyoming.

However, the following ten (10) states require that the intruder be IN the home before deadly force is authorized and some have additional restrictions in parentheses: California; Colorado; Delaware; Maine (there must be criminal trespass AND another crime occurring within the home) (Legal implication, forcible entry insufficient alone) ; Massachusetts (must use reasonable force based on the reasonable belief the intruder was about to inflict death or great bodily injury); Minnesota (and there is case law requiring a duty to retreat under certain circumstances, even from the home); Nebraska (and must be protecting himself against the use of unlawful force); New Jersey (and the force is necessary to protect against death or serious bodily injury); New York (and may use reasonable force only); Oregon;

The following nine (9) states conform to some of my stated requirements: Alaska, deadly force may only be used to protect against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, robbery in any degree; Connecticut requires that the dweller must have a reasonable belief deadly force is necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful forcible entry. (Legal implication, you must try to warn intruder off first); Hawaii, deadly force may only be used to protect against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy. (Forcible entry does not give presumption of this.); Iowa, reasonable force (that which a reasonable person in like circumstances and no more) may be used if the alternative entails risk to life or safety. (Legal implication, the threat of force is reasonable to prevent entry and risk to life or safety so a warning would be reasonable.); Kansas, must be under actual attack in order to meet force with force (Legal implication, deadly force was not justified) ; Louisiana, but must be certain the force is necessary to prevent entry or compel the intruder to leave the dwelling. (Legal implication, warning first); Michigan, deadly force only to prevent imminent death, imminent bodily harm, or imminent sexual assault; New Hampshire (may use deadly force in home to defend against ntruder use of deadly force); North Dakota (Must show that the use of force other than deadly force would expose the individual to substantial danger of serious bodily injury).

Now, in no case is a person "required" to call 911, however to preserve a solid self-defense plea, it is always advisable if possible.

Is this a better answer?

 

[Black Dog]

Okay, I just spent the last couple of hours researching each states "self-defense" laws...and here's what I’ve come up with.

You state you were a police officer in Illinois. There is no “duty to retreat” requirement in Illinois, and state courts have determined this allows an “expanded self-defense.” So coming from that state you are absolutely correct in all of your statements…if this happened in Illinois or any of the following 30 other states with Castle Defense laws including: Alabama; Arkansas; Arizona; Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Indiana; Kentucky; Maryland; Mississippi; Missouri, Montana; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; Oklahoma; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Vermont; Virginia (case law, no statute); Washington; West Virginia; Wisconsin; Wyoming.

However, following eight (10) states require that the intruder be IN the home before deadly force is authorized and some have additional restrictions in parentheses: California; Colorado; Delaware; Maine (there must be criminal trespass AND another crime occurring within the home) (Legal implication, forcible entry insufficient alone) ; Massachusetts (must use reasonable force based on the reasonable belief the intruder was about to inflict death or great bodily injury); Minnesota (and there is case law requiring a duty to retreat under certain circumstances, even from the home); Nebraska (and must be protecting himself against the use of unlawful force); New Jersey (and the force is necessary to protect against death or serious bodily injury); New York (and may use reasonable force only); Oregon;

The following eight (9) states conform to some of my stated requirements: Alaska, deadly force may only be used to protect against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, robbery in any degree; Connecticut requires that the dweller must have a reasonable belief deadly force is necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful forcible entry. (Legal implication, you must try to warn intruder off first); Hawaii, deadly force may only be used to protect against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy. (Forcible entry does not give presumption of this.); Iowa, reasonable force (that which a reasonable person in like circumstances and no more) may be used if the alternative entails risk to life or safety. (Legal implication, the threat of force is reasonable to prevent entry and risk to life or safety so a warning would be reasonable.); Kansas, must be under actual attack in order to meet force with force (Legal implication, deadly force was not justified) ; Louisiana, but must be certain the force is necessary to prevent entry or compel the intruder to leave the dwelling. (Legal implication, warning first); Michigan, deadly force only to prevent imminent death, imminent bodily harm, or imminent sexual assault; New Hampshire (may use deadly force in home to defend against ntruder use of deadly force); North Dakota (Must show that the use of force other than deadly force would expose the individual to substantial danger of serious bodily injury).

Now, in no case is a person "required" to call 911, however to preserve a solid self-defense plea, it is always advisable if possible.

Is this a better answer?

Yes. Much better. My faith is restored, lol.

This happened in Houston Texas, and I am a CCW carrier in Florida, so I am pretty familiar with the laws. I also knew a little about a few of the other 8 to 10 you mentioned, but not near as familiar.

I understand why you think it may not be justified. It is even with no arrest going before a grand jury. So if other evidence is found, it could very well be unjustified. As it sits now though, according to Texas law, it was justified.

PS: The honesty with which you put that reply forth is such a novelty here. Just thanks.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Yes. Much better. My faith is restored, lol.

This happened in Houston Texas, and I am a CCW carrier in Florida, so I am pretty familiar with the laws. I also knew a little about a few of the other 8 to 10 you mentioned, but not near as familiar.

I understand why you think it may not be justified. It is even with no arrest going before a grand jury. So if other evidence is found, it could very well be unjustified. As it sits now though, according to Texas law, it was justified.

PS: The honesty with which you put that reply forth is such a novelty here. Just thanks.

No problem and I apologize for my off the cuff responses. There was really no excuse for being uncivil just because I felt too lazy to do the complete research.

Thank you for your generous reply.

P.S. Note an error that I corrected in my post after you had already "quoted" me. There are Ten (10) and nine (9) states in the two categories that followed the majority list.

 

[Black Dog]

No problem and I apologize for my off the cuff responses. There was really no excuse for being uncivil just because I felt too lazy to do the complete research.

Thank you for your generous reply.

P.S. Note an error that I corrected in my post after you had already "quoted" me. There are Ten (10) and nine (9) states in the two categories that followed the majority list.

Yea no problem.

I understand. I have had others call me out for the same thing, hehehe.

 

[DAKitty]

This is from the Houston Chroncile and it happened on June 18, 2013. QUESTION: Is this shooting justified? Was the resident's life in jeoprody? To me the resident was justified because one does not wiat to make certain they will be attacked instead one has to make the life or death decision.

Did he shoot someone with the means and the apparent immediate intent to cause him harm?
Yup.
Good shoot.