Father shoots 17 year old daughters BF in her bed. She told dad she didn't know him.

[captdave77]

To complete the analogy, we'd have to assume that the passenger in the car waved the pedestrian into the crosswalk.

Are you just trolling today?

Here the analogy was in response to this:

Death seems a little severe. What ever happened to an ass whipping for something like that.

You seem hell bent on saying this is a deserved vs undeserved argument. Sometimes poor decisions result in ****ty outcomes.

 

[captdave77]

I'm just stirring the pot, but isn't that really the whole argument? Just because he had the right to shoot an uninvited person in his home, did the situation warrant it? Does the Castle Doctrine care about circumstances other than the fact that there was an uninvited [by him] guest in his home, hence, an intruder?

In his belief and based on the information provided by his own daughter, he was stopping a forcible felony by holding the perpetrator at gunpoint. The person who moments ago was, based on best information possible, raping his child made a move toward the night stand.

It sucks but it is not criminal.

 

[sparked1]

In his belief and based on the information provided by his own daughter, he was stopping a forcible felony by holding the perpetrator at gunpoint. The person who moments ago was, based on best information possible, raping his child made a move toward the night stand.

It sucks but it is not criminal.

I happen to agree, but it only takes a slightly different account of things, by the girl in particular, to change everything.

 

[Bear44]

So what if the kid shot him? The kid "reasonably believed" his life was in danger and, considering he was invited over by an occupant of the home, he "reasonably believed" that he was there lawfully, yeah?

You're correct. The kid was a legal occupant of the house (depending on how the law views the daughter's invitation) and had the right to defend himself. The only real bad guy in this was the idiot daughter for lying to her father. Both the father and the kid had reasonable cause to use deadly force. However, the kid is the one that refused to follow the armed home owner's orders. He is deserving of a Darwin Award for that. He didn't deserve to get shot, but he is the one that ultimately caused it. I doubt he thought it was OK with Daddy for him to be in the house and he sure as hell needed to do what he was told when he got busted.

 

[Bear44]

There's no doubt about it. I just wonder if going straight to "death penalty" in a situation like that is always the correct course of action. I wasn't there, so I don't know.

If there is no doubt that he thought his daughter was in imminent danger, going straight to "death penalty" was the ONLY reasonable decision.

 

[Bear44]

I asked that question actually. And if both parties were innocent of any wrongdoing, then that's a tough one.

That's exactly why there is a "Reasonable Cause to Believe" clause in the law.

 

[Bear44]

I identify myself as someone capable of raising a daughter who isn't promiscuous and who has self respect. Sorry if that puts me in a different category than you

So, have you actually done that?

 

[Bear44]

If the kid had shot the father, I'm pretty certain he'd be charged with at the very least manslaughter if not 2nd degree murder and I'd rather not be on the jury. I'd be perfectly fine with being on the jury as the case stands right now if the father is charged for anything.

I think it all depends on whether or not the daughters invitation was legal. If the kid was committing a crime by being in the house, he has no right to self defense, but if he was there legally I believe he could have used deadly force.

 

[Bear44]

The stand your ground law negates that argument.

I don't see how SYG applies here.

 

[Bear44]

Do you think the daughter should be criminally charged for the boy's death?

That's actually a possibility. I'm not sure what she would be charged with, but her lie directly caused this kids death.