TexasCHLforum.com

In the Detroit shooting, where the guy heard someone in the middle of the night banging on his doors (side door first and then the front door), and he shot the person through the door, killing her - if he had been in Texas, would the Castle Doctrine and an "in fear of his life" defense held any water and helped him avert the 2nd degree murder guilty verdict?

The folks at _____________ said that one facet of the Castle Doctrine in Texas has to do with "where an individual unlawfully and with force, enters or attempts to enter your occupied habitation" (underlining is mine) - would the continuous banging on different doors constitute an attempt to enter?

Another snippet from _________________ says "What about defense of property? The use of deadly force to protect property is contained in Texas Penal Code§9.42. This section of the law lays out a couple of scenarios where you arejustified in reasonably using deadly force to protect your property. The first is if someone is committing trespass or interference with your property and you must reasonably use deadly force to prevent arson, burglary, robbery,aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the night time. If someone is unlawfully on your property and attempting to commitany of these crimes, you will gain the legal justification for using deadlyforce."

The Prosecution maintained that the shooter should have called 911 - I guess the strength of that argument would depend on the average response time of the Police in similar 911 call situations.

I'd never want to shoot someone through a door - but I am curious about how our Castle Doctrine might have been applied in the Detroit situation.

Thanks!

texas yankee wrote:In the Detroit shooting, where the guy heard someone in the middle of the night banging on his doors (side door first and then the front door), and he shot the person through the door, killing her - if he had been in Texas, would the Castle Doctrine and an "in fear of his life" defense held any water and helped him avert the 2nd degree murder guilty verdict?

I don't know what part of the castle doctrine has an "in fear of his life" defense, but Texas law doesn't require a homeowner to allow a criminal to break down their door before stopping the home invasion.

For example viewtopic.php?f=26&t=72010&hilit=drunk+ ... 30#p927427" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are real attorneys with a lot real litigation experience on this forum, but I am not one of them. In my uneducated opinion, shooting at an unknown individual outside your home through a door is going to be really hard to defend. I don't think the outcome would be different in Texas. I don't know what this guy's situation is, and I understand he may have been unnerved by someone pounding on his door in the middle of the night, but calling 911 is a reasonable reaction while blindly shooting through the door is not. I can't see a jury here ruling differently. Then again, smarter guys than I may see it differently.

Just to clear, or perhaps muddy the waters, he did not shoot blindly through the door.

He OPENED the steel inner door (yep, he did), and when she jumped in front of the screen door from the left, he shot her in the face through the screen door, which apparently had been beaten on so hard as to dislodge the mounted screen.

Interestingly, yesterday ( or the day before) the female prosecutor swept the jury with the shotgun, with her finger on the trigger, prompting gasps from the jury, and a sidebar with the judge concerning gun safety.

I think he hung himself from what I've seen. He told the officers in a post incident interview that he was....well, a somewhat crude expression for being angry, when he went to the door. On top of that, he was claiming self-defense but also said the shooting was accidental. The prosecutor nailed him on that pretty good when he opted to take the stand.

Can't believe the defense put him on the stand. It could be creative editing, but the bits of his testimony I saw were not beneficial to his case. I am sure they will appeal the ruling, but he is gonna spend time in jail. I have always said you need to barricade yourself inside the house on the phone with 911 and be prepared to take the shot if they break through the secured door. Don't open the door and invite trouble in.

Keith B wrote:Don't open the door and invite trouble in.

Even if a shooting is totally justified, the shooter is almost certainly in for a rough ride. You may well end of acquitted and broke after your ride through the legal system. If there is anyway to keep yourself and your family safe until an officer shows up, that is the way to go. Let them shoot the nut job if at all possible.

In Texas HE would have walked.

Deltaboy wrote:In Texas HE would have walked.

How do you figure that? I might go so far as to say that, in SOME places in Texas, he might have walked, but I don't see any way it would have happened in any of the metropolitan parts of the state.

n5wd wrote:

Deltaboy wrote:In Texas HE would have walked.

How do you figure that? I might go so far as to say that, in SOME places in Texas, he might have walked, but I don't see any way it would have happened in any of the metropolitan parts of the state.

He and his defense did him no favors by having him testify; he did a terrible job of it IMO. As for being found not guilty in Texas, it would depend on many factors, like the location of the trial, jury selection, his defense attorneys, the prosecution, etc. I know locations in Michigan that are much more lenient toward defense of yourself than metro Detroit. There are some states that are way more liberal on gun laws and use than even Texas is. Missouri for one. Had it been in out-state MO he would have had a greater chance of being cleared than some areas of Texas. In the end, from what I saw he made several mistakes, especially in opening the door. Then when on the stand the prosecution blew holes in his self defense story that convinced the jury he was not truly in fear of this girl and the shooting wasn't justified. Not sure how an appeal will go.

Keith B wrote:

n5wd wrote:

Deltaboy wrote:In Texas HE would have walked.

How do you figure that? I might go so far as to say that, in SOME places in Texas, he might have walked, but I don't see any way it would have happened in any of the metropolitan parts of the state.

He and his defense did him no favors by having him testify; he did a terrible job of it IMO. As for being found not guilty in Texas, it would depend on many factors, like the location of the trial, jury selection, his defense attorneys, the prosecution, etc. I know locations in Michigan that are much more lenient toward defense of yourself than metro Detroit. There are some states that are way more liberal on gun laws and use than even Texas is. Missouri for one. Had it been in out-state MO he would have had a greater chance of being cleared than some areas of Texas. In the end, from what I saw he made several mistakes, especially in opening the door. Then when on the stand the prosecution blew holes in his self defense story that convinced the jury he was not truly in fear of this girl and the shooting wasn't justified. Not sure how an appeal will go.

This ^^. For what it is worth, in my opinion the shooting was not justified.........here's why: He opened the door and looked out. There was no trio of hoodie-wearing thugs, nobody with a gun, etc., etc. The person he shot was female. From her voice, that would have had to have been obvious even before he opened the door. He was surprised by a her suddenly appearing, but he shot before he knew what his target was. I just think he was a little too angry, and a little too eager to shoot.

That's just my opinion.........and no, I'm NOT going to let just anybody barge into my home without ventilating them. But the Lord (or the giant pumpkin, or your doorknob, or whatever you believe in) has gifted each of us with a certain amount of discernment, and that discernment is to be used primarily to keep us out of trouble. So, let me tell you all a story from my personal life......

My last long-term relationship before I met my wife was with a young woman whom I'll call "Lisa" (actually her sister's name) for the sake of confidentiality. We broke up after almost 4 years together, and not too long after that she started dating another guy whose name I don't remember, but I'll refer to as BF for the purposes of this recounting.

One night about 3-4 months after we broke up, Lisa and BF were out for a late evening walk in her neighborhood (she lived in one of the very richest areas of Pasadena, mostly "old money" families), at around 10:30-11:00 pm.....a normally very safe neighborhood. They were accosted by a thug with a gun, who ordered them into the overgrown and largely abandoned tennis court behind one of the older mansions. There, they were both raped at gunpoint, multiple times. In her case, not just AT gunpoint, but with the gun. At one point, when he had finished torturing her (BF was tied up) for a while, he put the gun in her mouth and pulled the trigger. It miss-fired. He didn't seem to care, but he didn't try again. He then turned his attentions to BF, setting the gun down for a moment. She took the opportunity to jump up and run for it, and ran off down the street buck naked, badly injured internally, and bleeding heavily.

She ran from door to door, pounding on front doors, begging to be let in. One man responded, opening his door a crack, and she bolted past him and ran to the rear of the house where he and his wife found her cowering on the floor in a corner of their kitchen, covered in blood. They threw a blanket over her and called 911. When the cops came—code 3, because there was still an active rape/assault ongoing with BF as the victim—they caught the bad guy about a block away. He'd heard them coming and tried to sneak away. Police found BF, still bound up in the tennis court, but not nearly as badly torn up as Lisa was.

I found out about it because it happened on a night when I was not on duty in the ER, and police had brought them both to that ER; and a week or so later, one of the ER nurses I worked with asked me if Lisa was doing better. I hadn't heard yet, so I ended up going to see Lisa and getting the whole story straight from her.

Now, given all the self-justification I see from some people in reaction to this news story about the man shooting the woman on his porch........which one of you guys would have shot Lisa for bolting past you when you cracked the door open? And would it have bothered you at all that you had just shot and killed a young woman who had been tortured and raped and who had come to you for shelter?

THINK about that kind of scenario—because it happens all the time, all over the country—before you start justifying what the shooter in the OP did. Maybe I'm wrong here, but personally, I couldn't live with that........and NO, I do not have a problem shooting someone in self-defense.

I just don't think that this case was a righteous self-defense. He had the option to not open the door. He chose not to exercise that option. He had the option to be sure of his target before he fired. He chose not to exercise that option. He already had the knowledge that the person on the other side of the door was female. He chose not to figure that knowledge into his discernment of what was happening. By his own admission, he was angry. I would have been worried, not angry. Why would I be worried and not angry? Because nobody had done anything to me yet, and because it is not hard to think of legitimate reasons for why someone would bang on your door late at night.

So again, which one of you guys would have shot my old girlfriend? Even my wife, who just listened to what I've written here before I hit the "Submit" button, just agreed with me and said, "yeah, he could have just retreated to a safer place with his gun and called 911". He chose not to. He chose badly.

My take on his story is that he had the shotgun in his hand when he opened the door. (I'm not going to argue whether that was a good or bad decision ... OK, it was a bad decision, but he did it anyway.)

Anyway, when he opened the door, initially he didn't see anybody. Then she jumped directly in front of him, startling him. When you're startled, you jump, or tense up. I suspect this reaction caused the gun to discharge (so he also had his finger on the trigger). His initial story, one that got him in trouble, was telling the police that the shooting was "an accident". I don't think he ever intended to shoot her. Of course if the shooting WAS an accident, he can't claim self defense. And so his story changed.

Bottom line ... I don't think he consciously intended to shoot her.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Even my wife, who just listened to what I've written here before I hit the "Submit" button, just agreed with me and said, "yeah, he could have just retreated to a safer place with his gun and called 911". He chose not to. He chose badly.

I want to clarify something here. I do believe in standing my ground. I don't believe in not stepping out of the way of trouble. By "retreated to a safer place", I don't mean surrendering the home. I do mean improving your tactical situation, so that you don't feel rushed into shooting when you don't know what you're shooting at. That might mean nothing more than backing away from the door to the other side of the room, while still covering the door, instead of opening the door. It might mean looking out a window to see what's going on, instead of opening the door. Or, it might mean retreating to another room if that gives you a more tenable position.

He killed a woman because he mistakenly thought he was under attack. He mistakenly thought he was under attack because he made bad tactical decision after bad tactical decision:

1. He didn't get off the X;
2. He had bad intelligence because he made no attempt to observe the porch from some other vantage point;
3. Instead of backing away from the door to give himself some room, he opened the silly thing.

Every one of his bad choices leads to him shooting that girl. Now, was her behavior appropriate? By no means. But she had neither the means of deadly force, nor was she attempting to use deadly force. On the hand, he had the means and the intention of using it if necessary. By throwing out all of his options, he gave himself ZERO tactical room to respond except as if shooting her was necessary. He is 100% responsible for that, even though her behavior was inappropriate. It wasn't shameful because there was a disparity of force. It was shameful because force wasn't necessary at all.

Even if he were found not guilty, he would still bear the moral burden. I'm glad he's not my neighbor.

If she's trying to forcefully enter the house, use of force/deadly force could apply. But banging on a door may not meet the definition of trying to forcefully enter.

As I sit here reading the various accounts of what "happened", it's easy for me to Monday morning quarterback his situation. My plan in similar circumstances would be to ready my weapon, gain some sort of vantage point, and have my wife call 911 after she gets the baby & locks herself in our bedroom.

This guy's mouth was his biggest problem. He had the right to remain silent, but not the ability. It might have been ruled a good shoot if he hadn't kept changing his story.

This is why you keep you trap shut. Tell your story to your attorney and let him present it to the cops, DA, & everyone else.