Limits Of Castle Laws
 

Montana homeowner guilty of killing teen in his garage

Minn. man who killed 2 teen intruders convicted of murder - Washington Times

What do we conclude are the practical lessons about, and limitations of, the "castle" laws?

What do we conclude?

After you shoot em, bury them. Deep.
And some juries deserve getting shot too.

pest control is best left to Terminix's..
agree with guilty verdict..

Rika

From its very title, the "Castle laws", one would think the intent was to keep intruders out. If they breached the safe area, then it might be considered appropriate to defend yourself, family and posessions.

In both of the cases linked the homeowners laid traps and did not bar their space against the invaders. This amounts to premeditation, not defensive action.

Les

Yup. Couldn't get the second story to load. But the first guy was itching to shoot.

Agree with both verdicts. Also, make the first shot count if you are in danger. Had these teens been armed it would have played out much differently.

IMO, it comes down to that legal catch-term, "reasonable." I both cases, the shooter set-up the break-in to entrap the burglars. In both cases, the shooters created an enticement that ordinarily wouldn't exist. In both cases, the shooters claimed "fear" yet they themselves created the circumstances where that "fear" would enter. In both cases, the shooters laid in wait for the sole purpose of shooting the intruders. These were not cases where a homeowner came upon an intruder and shot him. They were cases where the homeowner's sole purpose was to shoot an intruder and they created an unusual situation where an intruder would be more likely to strike their home.

Certainly not defending the burglars, but the castle law is still based on a reasonable action by the homeowner.

Which is why ya gotta bury em deep.

Clearly not self defense. Although there were previous burglaries, a reasonable person would invest in an alarm, or better locks, a deterrent. They decided to set up a premeditated hunt, with intent to kill. Pretty sick IMHO.

I think it's quite clear.

You are required to "reasonably" shoot someone breaking into your home. Reasonably. Shoot once, ask questions. Ask about the intruders hopes and dreams. Life goals. If you still feel threatened, shoot again.


The practice where you and five co-workers empty your whole magazine into a homeless person, reload, and empty that magazine as well, then ask questions, is reserved solely for Law Enforcement Officers.

They were killing the bad guys because the bad guys needed killing. That's what it all boils down to.

Some folks think that people who make a habit of breaking into houses deserve to be kilt. You can put me down on that "affirmative" list.

Some folks think that it's OK to be a low-life scumbag thief devoid of morals who preys on innocent people and who should continue to get away with it with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
They need killin too ;)

My house is my house. Mine. My stuff is my stuff. No one else's.
Anyone breaks into my house and takes my stuff and I'm gonna do what it takes to STOP them from taking with my stuff. Because my stuff is worth more than a life of someone who breaks into houses to steal other people's stuff.

Then I'm gonna bury Them.
Deep like I said.

Stuff more important that people. Check.

I disagree with the verdicts.
You don't go into somebody's home without invitation.
All three of these criminals received exactly what they were deserving.

If you note your bank has lax security, is it okay to rob it?
If you note that a girl at the bar has had too much to drink, is it okay to rape her?

If scumbags were killed more often, there would be fewer people aspiring to be scumbags.

Yes - My stuff is more important to me than the life of a scumbag thief.

Certainly not, but feeling secure in one's own home, and knowing one can leave his loved ones securely at home alone, is far more important than the lives of those who would violate that security.

"Judge Douglas Anderson excluded evidence about the teens’ histories from the trial as irrelevant, including court documents that showed Brady had broken into Smith’s house and garage before. Brady and Kifer were also linked to another burglary the day before they were killed; stolen prescription drugs were found in the car they were driving."

This is the part that ticks me off. The fact that they have a criminal history is irrelevant? Really? These two sound a lot like the drug addict little prick who burglarized my house and shop. I took the high road, got a video of him stealing from me, called the police, he went to trial and pled guilty. His sentence was a $200 fine and 10 days in jail - all suspended. ie he got off scott free even though he was on probation in the next county for theft and was the subject of another arrest before that.
I've thought about it a lot since - yes, I've wanted to kill him, but when I think about it, what does that do? He's gone - out of sight and out of pain, while I'm still left to deal with the aftermath. It would have only hurt myself and our families. The most satisfying scenario would have been to meet him with a good strong piece of pipe instead of the video camera. The thought of him spending the rest of his life trying to pick his nuts out of his spleen while remembering the guy who put them there is much more satisfying to me than putting a quick merciful end to his miserable life.

This.

Using deadly force for self defense should be -- MUST be the last resort. If someone breaks into a home, these steps are what I've been taught to do that will help in the events that occur AFTER the shooting:

1. If you hear someone in your home, and suspect an invasion, retrieve firearm and call 911, if retrieval of phone does not expose you to danger. Keep phone line open.

2. Take up defensive position between perp and the rest of your family, if possible. (Note: this can be difficult if perp is between you and the rest of your family).

3. If time allows, tell 911 operator "Someone has broken into my home, and I am fearing for my life and my family's life." It would also be helpful to describe yourself - what you are wearing, your appearance, distinguishing features - so when the police arrive they can more easily identify you as the homeowner.

4. Yell out the following four sentences: "Who are you? Get out of my house! The police are coming! I have a gun!"

5. You have given the perp fair warning to leave. Do not pursue him in your home. However, if perp enters into your defensive area (most likely your bedroom or your child's room), or is a threat to members of your family not in your defensive area, then defend yourself and your family.

6. When police arrive, throw them your keys through a window, once they have identified themselves as police and you have verified this through 911. (What if the perp has accomplices waiting outside? ) When they enter, place gun down, and raise hands to shoulder height. (Not over your head - that's a sign of guilt) You will be cuffed and read your Miranda rights, and arrested. Say, "This person broke into my house. I feared for my life and my family's life, and I defended myself." SAY NO MORE, except that you will cooperate with authorities, but need to consult with your lawyer.

Things NEVER to say or do:
1. Never say "I want after him." Prosecutors will turn that into "So, you admit that you hunted him down."

2. Better to say "I defended myself" vs. "I shot him." or "I killed him." Again, the prosecutors can use that to show you are a violent person capable to unnecessary force.

3. Your adrenaline will be pumping like crazy - and in those circumstances, you will want to share EVERYTHING that happened with the police. It is better not to do so without a lawyer present. If you share anything with the police, they are required to record it as evidence, which can be used against you, even if what you did was completely within your rights.

The above actions are all about being prepared. There is nothing that is premeditated - but without a plan and being prepared, your chance of survival diminishes rapidly in a home invasion.

-Z-man.

hoodies know how it works...
ink is not even dry and their out...

had you beaten him..
well, he probably wouldn't steal anymore..
as you've now funded his retirement & future vacations..
and are confused as to why your prison..

Rika

I am troubled by the exclusion of the prior break in in at his home

as the pig should not get to limit evidence like that
if the man is on trial for his life/freedom facts should not be with held

but think he did kill unjustly
maybe manslaughter

stuff does not equal the value of 2 lives

I cannot believe you would post this on a public forum.

Listen to the audio of Byron Smith.

It's there in his own words.