Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 81 Posts

· Banned
Joined
·
3,553 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_castle_doctrine_shootings.html

Last updated December 5, 2008 6:55 a.m. PT
By SHELIA BYRD
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

JACKSON, Miss. -- A convenience store clerk chased down a man and shot him dead over a case of beer this summer and was charged with murder. A week later, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store followed and fatally shot a man he said tried to rob him, and authorities let him go without charges.

Police say the robber in the second case was armed, while the man accused of stealing beer was not.

Just the same, the legal plights of the two clerks highlight the uncertain impact of National Rifle Association-backed laws sweeping the nation that make it easier to justify shooting in self-defense.

In 2006, Mississippi adopted its version of the so-called castle doctrine, which lifts requirements that individuals first try to flee before using deadly force to counter a threat in their homes, vehicles or, in Mississippi's case, at work.

Gun rights advocates who have helped pass the law in 23 states since 2003 say it removes an unfair legal penalty for people exercising a constitutional right in a life-or-death emergency, though some police and prosecutors are skeptical of self-defense claims under the law.

An Associated Press review found a growing number of cases but no clear trend yet in how the law is applied or how cases will be resolved in court.

All a defendant has to do is establish a threat, and usually the other witness is dead. That shifts the burden to prosecutors and police investigators, who have to gather evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force wasn't justified, according to a report released this summer by the National District Attorneys Association.

"It's very difficult to prove a negative," said Steven Jansen, president of the NDAA. "It might be a little too early to get the overall effect through the court process because we're just seeing the cases enter the court and finding out how the judges are going to rule."

Sarbrinder Pannu, the first clerk, alleged that James Hawthorne grabbed beer from a cooler and left without paying for it. Police Lt. Jeffery Scott said Pannu followed Hawthorne outside the store and shot him twice.

Surinder Singh, president of the Jackson Indian Storeowners Association and a spokesman for Pannu, said Mississippi's law gives you the right to protect your property.

"For them, it's a case of beer. For us, it's our property," Singh said. "That person didn't have respect for his life. He put his life against one case of beer."

Police and prosecutors disagreed and charged Pannu with murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle. Pannu has not entered a plea and has declined to be interviewed.

About a week after Hawthorne was killed, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store chased and fatally shot a clown mask-wearing robber outside the store after he stole cash from the register. The clerk wasn't charged.

Police didn't release the clerk's name because he wasn't charged. As with Hawthorne's shooting, the case will be presented to a grand jury, though police said the second clerk was justified because he felt a clear and present danger.

"The first thing about it is that you want to fairly apply the law," said Scott, who helped investigate both shootings and pointed out that the second robber was armed. "The problem is that there's an exception to every rule."

Castle doctrine laws drew national attention when Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, shot and killed two men in November 2007 after he saw them crawling out of the windows of a neighbor's house, carrying bags of the neighbor's possessions. Horn claimed the shooting was justified by Texas' law, and a grand jury declined to indict him.

Cases this year have included a man in San Antonio who shot and killed an intruder who climbed through his bedroom window and a Lexington, Ky., man who shot through his house's front door, killing a man who had been beating on it. No charges were filed in either case.

A woman in Missouri, which enacted its castle doctrine last year, could still face charges for shooting her former boyfriend after he came through the window of her home. A coroner's jury in Adair County ruled that Jackie Gleason committed a felony when she killed Rogelio Johnson in May. Prosecutors said the jury might not have understood the law and have asked the state attorney general to review whether to file formal charges.

The law's rapid rollout across nearly half the nation is largely the result of lobbying by the NRA. Most of the state laws, including Mississippi's, are patterned after Florida's.

Michael Edmondson, who works in the state attorney's office in Palm Beach County, said castle-doctrine claims have increased since the law took effect three years ago.

"You would rarely see a case prior to the change of the statute here in Florida," Edmondson said. "I can recollect a half dozen cases in the last year or so. Some successful. Some not."

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, dismissed concerns about the law being misused or misinterpreted, saying all cases are reviewed by law enforcement authorities.

The laws have become popular in a country that's grown increasingly anxious, said Mat Heck, prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County in Ohio, where a castle doctrine law went into effect in September.

"There really is a change in perception of public safety after 9/11," Heck said. "Citizens are just anxious. They fear attacks, not only from the terrorists abroad, but from residents here in our own country."

A lack of confidence in the justice system and the perception that defendants' rights overshadow victims' are other reasons cited in the NDAA report.

Heck said his state's law pertains to a person's home and car, and is only applied when someone has unlawfully entered.

"We tried to make it somewhat restrictive so it wasn't like the old wild, wild West," Heck said.

Pannu is free on $50,000 bond and has returned to work at the store, where jugs of candy clutter the cashier's counter and pictures of Pannu standing with $1,000 winners of scratch-off games are posted on the bulletproof barrier that separated him from Hawthorne on Aug. 17.

"The real debate is 'Can you kill a man for shoplifting?'" said Dennis Sweet, a Jackson attorney representing Hawthorne's family in a lawsuit against Pannu and A&H Food Mart.

"The guy was in his truck leaving," Sweet said. "He posed no danger."
 

· Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,347 Posts
The Castle Doctrine laws all require a reason to fear for your safety, NOT THE SAFETY OF A BOTTLE OF YOUR BEER!
The AP writer is a biased idiot.
So far the only effect of the Florida castle Doctrine has been to prevent prosecutions of innocent citizens defending themselves, prosecutions that never get past a jury, its stated reason. A couple dozen attempts to use it by criminals have failed miserably.


http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

Florida "Castle Doctrine" Protects the Innocent

Puts Judiciary on the side of crime victims
News media gets it completely wrong


On March 23, 2005, The Florida Senate passed SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" unanimously, by a vote of 39 YEAS to zero NAYS. They know something about this bill.

On April 5, The Florida House passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of 94 YEAS to 20 NAYS, a margin of better than four to one.

On April 26, Governor Jeb Bush SIGNED SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" into law (Chapter No. 2005-27) It takes effect on October 1, 2005.

The news media nationwide started in immediately with its “Gunshine State,” blood in the streets, Dirty Harry, vigilante, irrational mass murder nonsense, mythologies, lies and blatant unethical behavior.

A great deal of erroneous information has been written, published and spoken about Florida's new "Castle Doctrine" law.

Claims that the new law will turn Florida into the Wild West are not only an insult to intelligent people but give a patently false portrait of what the bill actually does.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

SO -- is this the impression you got from the news? Why not? Aren’t media people impartial purveyors of objective facts, with no bias or spin, faithfully and accurately reporting the news? Everyone who believes that’s an accurate description of the news media please raise your hand. See? No hands go up. Despite their protests otherwise, the news media has, in general, and especially with respect to gun issues, become an outrageous purveyor of agenda-driven nonsense on the dark side of the force.
 

· Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
105,358 Posts
When was the last time the media people iwere mpartial purveyors of objective facts, with no bias or spin, faithfully and accurately reported the news?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,765 Posts
Good the more dead scumbag thieves the better. A store owner should be able to defend his case of beer. That represents a part of the keepers livelihood. Someone who would try to steal that should be fair game.

Look if people knew that if they got caught swiping something the homeowner/owner/shopkeeper had a right to shoot them, so that they KNOW the potential consequence of their actions could be the forfeiting of their life, as opposed to the way it is now almost everywhere where the consequence might be a night or two in jail, the through the revolving door, then there would probably be a marked decrease in crime.

Peoples property is worth another persons life if that person is trying to steal said property, and it doesn't matter what the monetary value. That is my opinion. Others are free to agree or disagree.

I would favor laws stating that any and all property may be defended against theft, and that deadly force is an acceptable means. Now whether an individuals particular ethos would allow you to kill some scumbag stealing something from that individuals home, place of business, or their car, that is up to the individual....
 

· Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
105,358 Posts
Well, if the person was obeying the law, then he would not have been shot. It was the perp's choice.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
Yeah, I agree that the Castle Doctrine was probably taken too far in that store clerks situation. I don't think shoplifting justifies lethal force. It is different when a criminal enters your home to steal things though. If this happens, then I think you are totally justified in using lethal force because you have no idea if this guy is planning to kill you or not.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,765 Posts
Yeah, I agree that the Castle Doctrine was probably taken too far in that store clerks situation. I don't think shoplifting justifies lethal force. It is different when a criminal enters your home to steal things though. If this happens, then I think you are totally justified in using lethal force because you have no idea if this guy is planning to kill you or not.

Ok, well, if shoplifting doesn't justify lethal force in your eyes....what if you hear someone in your house, and you go out and see a guy walking out your front door with your TV in his arms....Lethal force? I mean, afterall, if he is walking out with your TV, then he probably isn't planning to hurt you, he just thinks he deserves your TV more than you do...

I think shoplifting should justify lethal force. There was a story on Fox news last night, about two brothers who happen to both have gotten shot while working at convenience stores (both were stereotypically Indian or some such extraction, but they weren't clear whether they were working in the same stores). One was shot 3 times, one once, both were alive but one was just hanging on. Convenience store clerk is a very dangerous job...if a shoplifter gets away with it once, who is to say he won;t be emboldened to show up again, this time wanting more than beer?

I think that this is at the very core of the problem with crime in this country, there is very little possibility of serious repercussions if you even get caught. Lets face it, police put an extremely low priority on theft...basically if you are a victim, they MAY come out to accept a report, but then nothing will ever get done with it, they will staright up tell you your chances of recovering the property is slim to nil. They are way too busy showing up in order to clean someones blood up after not actually protecting them to deal with your TV and DVD player.

Thieves know if they get caught, its a misdemeanor with maybe some communtiy service, and thats a big maybe. Then right back out to victimize the next guy....
 

· Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
You cannot use deadly force unless you have the reasonable belief deadly force will be used against you. Period. And in most jursidictions, you don't get to pick what is "reasonable"; you are judged against what the fictional "Reasonable Man" would have done. No merchandise is worth a human life, even if it is a criminal's life.

I bet you believe Bernie Goetz also acted permissibly, too.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
5,986 Posts
The Castle Doctrine laws all require a reason to fear for your safety, NOT THE SAFETY OF A BOTTLE OF YOUR BEER!
.

So you can shoot in defense of your car if it is being stolen, it is your private property, but you can't shoot in defense of your beer, private property.

Care to explain where we draw the line here?

More more crook gone. Big deal.
 

· Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,347 Posts
So you can shoot in defense of your car if it is being stolen, it is your private property, but you can't shoot in defense of your beer, private property.
That's OCCUPIED VEHICLE. if its empty and parked, you better take your gun to the range for target practice, tempting as it may be....

Some interesting scenarios come to mind if the law allowed it: "Whyncha take a six pack Joe, for old time's sake. Consider it a peace offering. I forgive you for what you did with my wife........
KABLAMMMM!
 

· Banned
Joined
·
5,986 Posts
That's OCCUPIED VEHICLE. if its empty and parked, you better take your gun to the range for target practice, tempting as it may be....

Some interesting scenarios come to mind if the law allowed it: "Whyncha take a six pack Joe, for old time's sake. Consider it a peace offering. I forgive you for what you did with my wife........
KABLAMMMM!
We had a two-timer in California. He came up to a kid, a 15 year old, and stole a slice of Pizza out of his hands and ate it.

The kid saw a cop and told the cop "that guy just stole my pizza".

Third-strike, found guilty. 25 years to life.

Now, I'm all for the dirt-bag staying 25 years for that third-strike, but the libs, which apparently you would agree with, revised the entire 3rd Strike law just because of this clown.

I say if somone attempts to steal anything of yours you can use deadly force.

But hey, I'm in the minority in just about everything on these liberal boards.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
5,986 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
No, in nearly every jurisdiction you can only use deadly force to confront deadly force. Texas has relatively liberal laws in this regard, but you still can't pop someone running down the street with your TV no question asked.

The Texas Penal Code reads as follows:
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

I surmise it would be very difficult to prove to a jury that allowing the police to recover your stolen property is not an alternative a "reasonable man" would contemplate or that putting a slug in a fleeing burglar's back was the only option available to the shooter that wouldn't open him to risk of death.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,765 Posts
You cannot use deadly force unless you have the reasonable belief deadly force will be used against you. Period. And in most jursidictions, you don't get to pick what is "reasonable"; you are judged against what the fictional "Reasonable Man" would have done. No merchandise is worth a human life, even if it is a criminal's life.

I bet you believe Bernie Goetz also acted permissibly, too.
If you are speaking in regards to my post....Boy some people can be pretty freakin' dense.

Well, you are wrong. Period. It depends on what jurisdiction you are in...the Castle Doctrine says that if someone is in your house, you can use deadly force...you have no duty to retreat. That means that the mere presence of an invader in your domecile is reason enough, you don't have to show he had intent or motive to harm you. His presence in your domecile is intent enough.

You not be able to legally shoot someone fleeing down the road with your TV, but I never said it was legal...I said it should be.

And you may THINK, in your world, no merchandise is worth a human life, but in my opinion, any piece of ones property is worth someone elses life. As I said in another thread....if someone is in my house stealing a pencil from my desk, or in my driveway stealing my car...it is my belief that that property is worth their life. I didn't imply in any way that that though process is a legal avenue....or that in that instance I would shoot them (since it is not legal in my jurisdiction. I am merely lamenting the fact that it is not legal.

You think that some scumbags life is worth more to ME than my vehicle, or my TV, or any othe piece of my property? Nope. F' Em. As I said, one less scumbag, and maybe a bit more civility in the world.

If you think any of YOUR property is not worth someones life, then that is your belief system. Not mine.

I will follow the laws in my jurisdiction regarding the use of deadly force if I am God forbid, put into that situation. But I don't have to like them.

Bernie Goetz...yeah, got no problem...he blew away some scumbags...IIRC (I was pretty young when it happened) the only tragedy is he didn't kill them all.

Look when the police in your community tell you to carry some singles in your front pocket, so if you get stuck up you have something to give the CRIMINAL...there is something grossly wrong (this is standard advice from Rochester police to new employees working in downtown Rochester, and hour down the road from me). If citizens have to take back the streets the police and the criminal justice system won't then so be it....The liberals have made the US (mainly the urban areas) a criminals paradise, and that is too bad....
 

· Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
102,230 Posts
No, in nearly every jurisdiction you can only use deadly force to confront deadly force. Texas has relatively liberal laws in this regard, but you still can't pop someone running down the street with your TV no question asked.

The Texas Penal Code reads as follows:
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

I surmise it would be very difficult to prove to a jury that allowing the police to recover your stolen property is not an alternative a "reasonable man" would contemplate or that putting a slug in a fleeing burglar's back was the only option available to the shooter that wouldn't open him to risk of death.
Risk to the owner during recovery is one of the keys. If you (in the opinion of the jury) reasonably believed tht you'd be exposed to death or SBI if you used less than force and deadly force - you walk. Now - if you just ignore the villain and let him go (some would say that is the moral choice, after all it is only a bit of property that money will replace, not worth a life), no recovery attempted, then obviously you aren't at risk. But if you are a disabled old soldier, and don't care to let the husky young doper just leave with something you WORKED for....

Let's put it that my experience (which included over thirty years as an attorney and over 20 doing criminal defense for the majority of my practice's case load, though I'm now retired - and resigned so I'n NOT an attorney any more) suggests that in my part of Texas, there wouldn't be much problem in having the jury come back with a verdict of "Ms. District Attorney, what did you go to wasting our time for? Not guilty, and you better hope you don't draw an opponent next election, 'cause we'll all voite for him if you do".
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,765 Posts
It's not every day that you see a guy so angry and eager to kill someone as pzjgr is.

Hey pzjgr, why not come back after you've actually shot someone over a bottle of beer or a tv set and tell us how it feels, eh?

Some people's kids... :rolleyes:

Dude, where do you get that??? Where, EXACTLY WHERE, in my post do you see me saying I am eager to kill soemone??? You point it out...

What I said for those of you that have brains with the same density as tungsten carbide is that I believe peoples private property is worth defending, and worth using deadly force over. I also stated I understand the law.

Do I profess to know exactly how I would react to such an instance? Never did, and I don't think anyone would know exactly until they are faced with the situation. I guess I feel comfortable saying that assuming that it was perfectly legal and acceptable for me to defend my private property with deadly force, I don't think I would lose sleep over shooting a crack head in my home trying to abscond with my TV. The lives of crack heads or thieves just don't mean that much to me. But I am a bit of a fascist, I will admit....
 

· Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Well, you are wrong. Period. It depends on what jurisdiction you are in...the Castle Doctrine says that if someone is in your house, you can use deadly force...you have no duty to retreat. That means that the mere presence of an invader in your domecile is reason enough, you don't have to show he had intent or motive to harm you. His presence in your domecile is intent enough.
Read my above post. Even in Texas, which has probably the most expansive Castle Doctrine, there are still limitations. You cannot just shoot someone for being in your home, there must be reasonable fear.

And "domecile" is actually spelled d-o-m-i-c-i-l-e.


You think that some scumbags life is worth more to ME than my vehicle, or my TV, or any othe piece of my property? Nope. F' Em. As I said, one less scumbag, and maybe a bit more civility in the world.

If you think any of YOUR property is not worth someones life, then that is your belief system. Not mine.
Never supposed a criminal's life to be worth more to you than your vehicle. The person catching the slug, his crying mama, the news channels and potential jurors may value it differently, though.

It may be my belief system, but its also the belief system of most legal jurisdictions. You may not have to agree with it but you're probably going to have to deal with it


Look when the police in your community tell you to carry some singles in your front pocket, so if you get stuck up you have something to give the CRIMINAL...there is something grossly wrong (this is standard advice from Rochester police to new employees working in downtown Rochester, and hour down the road from me). If citizens have to take back the streets the police and the criminal justice system won't then so be it....The liberals have made the US (mainly the urban areas) a criminals paradise, and that is too bad....
Don't get me wrong, I 100% support self-defense and would probably apply it in the situation you describe above, but thats because I would imagine the threat of deadly force/imminent harm would be in the air. Sending some 230 grain love towards a guy with a coathanger standing next to your car is a little different scenario.
 
1 - 20 of 81 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top