TexasCHLforum.com

Anyone catch 20/20 last night? Wow! What a story!

For those of you who didn't see it, here's an overview.

Setting is Long Island New York. Black family moves to a predominantly white neighborhood. The 17 year old son (hereafter called "black son") of the black family enters the mostly white high school his senior year and seems to fit in well. The trouble starts when someone posts on the internet sexually based threats about or directed toward a white female at the high school. The person posting the threats identifies himself on the internet as the black son. Black son maintains that he never posted anything of that nature.

White female has a party and the black son shows up. Black son maintains that he did not know about the postings when he showed up at the party. Enter another character, hereafter called white son. He is a 17 year old son of a well to do family who has smothered him with all kinds of muscle cars. In fact, the cars are his and his dad's hobby. White female asks white son to tell black son that he must leave the party. He does and black son leaves. White female then tells white son about all the threats on the internet and that's the reason she wanted him to leave. White son, who has a blood alcohol of 0.14, goes ballistic and decides he will protect the honor of white female. Black son is on his way home and receives threatening and racially charged phone calls from white son challenging him to come back to the party. Black son also receives calls from friends at the party who warn him not to come back and that there might be trouble later if he is found by white son and his friends.

Black son makes it home and wakes his father to tell him of the incident meanwhile white son and friends show up at the black family's house. What happens next depends on who you believe. (Lot's of unanswered questions about the next part.)

Black father and son leave the house and confront the white youth. Black father is armed with a .32 pistol and black son with a shotgun. White son ends up taking a .32 (only shot fired) to the head and dying at the hospital. Black father maintains that white son grabbed at the pistol and that it discharged as he snatched it back. Surviving friends of white son maintain that black father just came out of the house, took aim, and shot the kid.

Black father is found guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter and could face up to 22 years. Female judge sentences him to 4 years with possible 2 years for good behavior. White father goes ballistic in a press conference outside the courtroom shortly after, even says something to the effect of what would happen if the black father ends up shot .

Case is being appealed.

Lessons/questions here are:
-Alcohol and youth (and some adults at times) don't mix.
-The internet is a dangerous playground for our youth.
-Raging hormones of youth are powerful forces that cloud the ability of youth to reason.
-A firearm should be the last resort of conflict resolution.
-Assuming the story is as black father maintains it, you could still be convicted of manslaughter even though you were lawfully within your right to be armed on your property.
-This being New York, would this have played out in the court system differently in more gun friendly states, those with stand your ground legislation?
-Although the father maintains the shooting was accidental, how would disparity of force played into a defense?

Sounds to me like Black Father and Black Son should have dialed 911.

Black Father should have gotten life on this one no matter which story is true.

Imagine this:
Your hold a CHL permit and your 17 year old son comes and reports to you the same as Black Son did.

What would you do?

The last thing I would do is give my son a shotgun, grab a 32 and go outside. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID

did he call the police at all before the shot was fired?
I didnt read anywhere that he did. That would have at least proved an attempt to defuse the situation.

smyrna wrote: Black father maintains that white son grabbed at the pistol and that it discharged as he snatched it back.

There are no "accidental discharges" in this type of scenario. You, and only you, are responsible for the outcome whenever you point a weapon at another person. The well worn excuse "it went off by accident" doesn't hold water with me. If you point a gun at another person you had better be prepared to accept responsibility for the outcome.

Sounds like extremely poor judgment was used by everyone involved in this incident.

45 4 life wrote:Sounds to me like Black Father and Black Son should have dialed 911.

I totally agree.

Black Father should have gotten life on this one no matter which story is true.

Too many unanswered questions for me to decide, but it sure doesn't look good that he and his son left the house armed although he may have well been within his legal right to do so.

Imagine this:
Your hold a CHL permit and your 17 year old son comes and reports to you the same as Black Son did.

What would you do?

The last thing I would do is give my son a shotgun, grab a 32 and go outside. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID

The guy did not have a permit. Yep. I think emotions go the better of them in this situation and they didn't reason it out.

RKirby wrote:There are no "accidental discharges" in this type of scenario. You, and only you, are responsible for the outcome whenever you point a weapon at another person. The well worn excuse "it went of by accident" doesn't hold water with me. If you point a gun at another person you had better be prepared to accept responsibility for the outcome.

I thought the AD defense was kind of weak. I think a more convincing argument might have been, "I was armed, the kid attacked me and went for my gun and I shot him." If the kid grabbed or swatted at the pistol he was STUPID. But regardless of how it played out, the words of my CHL instructor ring true, "You own every bullet that comes out of your gun," and that seems to be the case here as the guy was convicted of manslaughter.

Other details that emerged...
The father maintains that the kids were on his property during the altercation, however, police photos show a blood pool at the driveway apron in the street. Not good for the black father and son...

Everyone is a loser in this one...

45 4 life wrote:Sounds to me like Black Father and Black Son should have dialed 911.

I agree.

45 4 life wrote:Black Father should have gotten life on this one no matter which story is true.

Why do you say that?

Imagine people are trespassing on your property. You go outside and tell them to leave. They refuse to leave and instead advance toward you. You display a firearm and repeat your legal order to get off your property. They continue to advance in the face of the gun. They grab at you and there's a struggle. Should you get life in prison if you shoot one of them in the struggle?

I agree it may be safer to stay inside your house and wait for the police. But that doesn't mean you should go to prison if you go outside and tell trespassers or thieves to leave.

tarkus wrote:Imagine people are trespassing on your property. You go outside and tell them to leave. They refuse to leave and instead advance toward you. You display a firearm and repeat your legal order to get off your property. They continue to advance in the face of the gun. They grab at you and there's a struggle. Should you get life in prison if you shoot one of them in the struggle?

I agree it may be safer to stay inside your house and wait for the police. But that doesn't mean you should go to prison if you go outside and tell trespassers or thieves to leave.

This is exactly where I am in this case. Sure, black father "could of, should of" done a lot of things, but we have to deal with what he actually did, which was arm himself on his own property which he was well within his right to do.

At this point one of two things happened...
1. Black father shot the kid as a result of verbal provocation alone in which case I think we would all agree he is guilty of murder, or
2. Black father shot the kid as a result of a struggle or physical provocation which changes things tremendously IMO.

If you shoot someone accidently, it is not what the law considers to be "lawful self defense." Self defense is only operative when you shoot someone on purpose because you had to to prevent the person from committing criminal violence upon you. And even this assumes that your actions are those of a reasonable person knowing what you knew at the time. (For simplicity's sake I am leaving out various circumstances where it is permissable to shoot to protect property, since property was not an issue in the case at hand.)

So while, "I was sure he was going to try to kill me and my son.", might be a good reason to shoot (assuming the assailant had means, motive, and opportunity, etc.), testifying that, "He lunged for the gun and when I tried to pull it back it went off by accident.", is essentially a confession to manslaughter.

If it's the truth, then it is what it is and the guy deserves to burn on a manslaughter rap. And given the circumstances, the judge apparently decided to go easy on him.

But if he really did shoot wilfully in what he honestly believed to be the necessity of self defense, and his lawyer advised him to claim it was an accident, I would question the competence of his lawyer.

That's the point I was trying to get across. frankie was just more articulate than I was.

smyrna wrote: White son, who has a blood alcohol of 0.14, goes ballistic and decides he will protect the honor of white female.

Testosterone and alcohol never mix well together...kind of like oil and water, just a lot deadlier.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:testifying that, "He lunged for the gun and when I tried to pull it back it went off by accident.", is essentially a confession to manslaughter.

I agree with you on the self defense part applying only yo intentional shootings. I disagree that this type of incident is a confession of manslaughter. What is the culpable mental state in this case and the culpable mental state required for manslaughter?

In this case, you might argue no mental state, you might argue negligence, and you might argue for reckless. Accidents do happen, which would be the truth if it was no culpable mental state. Under Texas law (I don't know how their laws work) , we have a charge of criminally negligent homicide, and we have manslaughter.

Criminally negligent homicide requires a mental state of negligence. This is defined as:
"A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. "

Manslaughter requires a mental state of reckless, which is defined as: "A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. "

So, was there a risk that the person was aware of, or should have been aware of, and that he ignored? I do not honestly believe that the father was aware of the risk that the person might grab for the gun instead of turning in fear. If he was not a gun person or trained, he probably thought like many movie watchers do that a gun would stop the threat and everyone is afraid of them. Should he have been aware of that possibility? I think so. I think any adult who owns a gun should know that there is a possibility that someone would try to take it from them instead of cowering in fear.

So, I believe it might be criminally negligent homicide, but does not rise to the level of manslaughter, under Texas laws. Since we have criminally negligent homicide as a state jail felony, punishable by two years, and the judge sentenced him to a fairly light sentence, I think the judge agrees with me (assuming there is no similar charge under their state laws).

I think the sentence was fair for the state laws and beliefs. I also think the father should have called 911 but was completely within his rights to defend his property his way. In Texas, no one would have been charged (except for the racial issues being brought into play, and we are not as bad as the northeast on those either).

It doesn't sound like he was any more reckless or negligent than someone who has a car wreck and kills someone.

Gee whiz. A state with a liberal majority and repressive gun laws, which elects folks like Senator Hillary Clinton to represent them, still has racism which ends in killings. Imagine that.

The whole thing is beyond stupid. Nobody, including White Girl, comes out of this one clean.

I both watched this the other night, and remember the thread about this topic when it first happened. good luck finding that thread, btw.
anyway, I had thought that it all happened on his porch, from the other thread. obviously things are A LOT different when they happen at the end of the driveway of Aaron White's property.
I believe that Mr White let his own prejudices influence his actions that night. He said "They were like a lynch mob." The kids were yelling racial slurs, playing to their own prejudices. certainly stirring the pot. the 911 tape of the kids on the way to the hospital saying "we'll get that [racial phrase]" just proves that both sides were motivated at least as much by race, as they were by any system of honor (defending a girl's honor, and defending one's home).
hmmm.
now, at the same time, I'da been miffed if my son had come in, woke me up and told me that a group of "kids" were after him! but once again, confronting multiple assailants is stupid.
I don't think he should get life, because his life is ruined regardless, but he should pay.
Now, Dano Cicciaro was fully culpable for going over there, acting a fool, and in turn getting himself shot. if he hadn't gone over to Mr White's house, altercation wouldn't have happened. if the other boys hadn't gone over there, altercation wouldn't have happened.
Should have called the cops, Mr White says he told his wife to do so, and she did not hear him. whoops. if she had half a brain, she woulda called the cops anyway. course, Mr White shoulda called 911 ESPECIALLY after he shot Dano.

whole thing is a cluster bomb, which some people will use just to reinforce racist beliefs. THAT, to me, is the true tragedy.

Steve makes a good point about the shooter's state of mind and ultimate culpability. From what I have been able to glean about this incident, the guy's state of mind was not as pure as the driven snow, nor was it anything like premeditation. IMO, it was somewhere in between. I think the system pretty much worked as it should have, whether NY or TX.

I watched this episode; I found the tone rather anti-gun all the way around.

It also made this issue more racially-charged than it probably was. This was more an issue of stupidity (on both sides) than race.

None of the actors in this situation are innocent. In spite of their money, the Cicarro family came off rather sleazy. The White family let their past in the old south prejudice them and cause them to act irrationally.

I'm afraid the evidence was stacked against Mr. White, and some of it was his own doing. I know nothing about New York's laws regarding self-defense, but I would have more sympathy for him had he stated that Dano Cicarro grabbed for his gun and he fired intentionally to keep him from taking it and using it against him. The fact that the blood was at the driveway's entrance doesn't look well for him either. It appears most avoidable.

I can understand wanting to protect your family, especially if you believe you see a lynch mob outside. I certainly wouldn't go out there to take it on. A wiser course of action would have been to wait inside the house with the guns ready while talking to the 911 dipatcher. Had Mr. White done that instead, and Dano Cicarro chose to start beating down the door in his drunken state, I think there's a chance Mr. White could have remained a free man, even in New York.

As for the 15-year-old girl that thought Aaron White was making threats toward her, she should have definitely taken action, but not the type she did. You don't ask a spoiled, drunken idiot for help in these instances. You tell your family, go to police, and keep your house guns handy.