Deadly force gone awry (Castle Law Suckage)

[jpak]

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110618/OPINION01/306180027/Deadly-force-gone-awry?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CHome%7Cs

Ringing neighbors' doorbells and running away is a classic childish prank. But what may have seemed just a harmless game of “ding-dong ditch” could have cost Jacob Eberle, 12, his life. Jacob took 50 birdshot pellets to his back, neck, jaw and right arm when a neighbor, Michael Bishop, was not amused.

Mr. Bishop has been charged with attempted murder, and at his arraignment Friday, his lawyer said that his client was remorseful and meant only to scare the children away. What happened to Jacob was an accident, the attorney said.

But some have rushed to defend Mr. Bishop, calling the pranksters “thugs” and perhaps believing that Kentucky's deadly force law, also known as “castle doctrine,” gives a property owner the inalienable right to shoot first. But KRS 503.080 lays out very specific circumstances in which a property owner may legally use deadly force to defend his home, vehicle or place of business. For example, he or she must believe that lethal force is necessary.

The shooting occurred in Louisville's Glenmary subdivision. One version is that the boys rang Mr. Bishop's door bell, but another is that Jacob and his friends were walking up to Bishop's door, saw him with the shotgun and were running away. Jacob's parents, meanwhile, have filed suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages. In it, they allege that Mr. Bishop shot “without justification or cause” and claim that his actions were “outrageous due to evil motive and reckless indifference.”

<more>

[hlthe2b]

1. Those that would defend this man's actions make me ill...

and I can only hope there are rational people on that jury that will deliver his very deserved sentence.

[aikoaiko]

2. you should be applauding the fact that the "castle law" is correctly not being applied.

And as the article states, the law is specific about the circumstances where it would apply. The article creates a straw man by saying some people "perhaps believing that Kentucky's deadly force law, also known as “castle doctrine,” gives a property owner the inalienable right to shoot first."

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Castle law does not cover that sort of gun usage.

He did a criminal act and deserves to be punished.

Another jpak fail.

[jpak]

4. but..but..but..."some say" the kids were thugs attacking the castle and they must litter the streets

yup

[ileus]

5. I don't think anyone wants kids to litter the streets. proper disposal is important...

[GreenStormCloud]

8. The law is the law. Your rants and imagining have the same relevance...

...as does a crazy talk radio program. Another massive fail for you.

[oneshooter]

10. If "some say" then proove it, or retract it. n/t

[S_B_Jackson]

19. The only one saying that, jpak, is you.

This was a criminal use of a firearm. The shooter has been correctly charged, and should be convicted.

[AlinPA]

28. There must have been witnesses, so the shooter loses any attempt at "Castle Doctrine"

protection. Without witnesses, he could claim it, but shooting a 12 year old? He lost.

[Logical]

6. Most gun owners and gun advocates will consider this guy an idiot and will hope he.....

gets sent to jail for it. It hurts the gun cause and the castle doctrine does not apply to this fool.

[PavePusher]

7. Unrecced for your lying title.

Hopefully this man goes to jail for the rest of his life.

[Hangingon]

9. +1 nt.

The untrue subject lines should be stopped.

[oneshooter]

11. unrec, because it's jpak. Who can't be trusted to tell a truth.

[rl6214]

12. (Castle Law Suckage)

Still haven't grown up and figured out how to post as an adult yet, huh?

unrec for juvenile shtick

[Euromutt]

13. Would you do us a favor and look up what "Castle Doctrine" ACTUALLY ENTAILS?

There's an apocryphal story about Abraham Lincoln posing the question how many legs a calf has, if you call the tail a leg. When his interlocutor answered "five," Lincoln pointed out that the correct answer is "four" because calling the tail a leg does not make it one.

In a similar fashion, just because somebody claims justification for his actions under Castle Doctrine does not mean Castle Doctrine actually applies.

What Castle Doctrine entails, as a rule of thumb, is that a person who has gained forcible entrance to your residence (i.e. he has to have broken into your house, not just wandered into your yard) may be reasonably presumed to possess both the means and intent to inflict physical harm on you. That's all it does.

[TPaine7]

14. I hope you wrote that for lurkers and other bystanders. Otherwise your pearls will be trampled. n/t

[Euromutt]

16. Hope springs eternal

But if it helps make it clear to any lurkers that jpak is utterly full of shit, I'll consider that a positive outcome.

[krispos42]

15. The shooter has been arrested and charged with attempted murder.

Sounds like the "Castle Doctrine" law isn't in play here.



Or are you arguing that he shot because he thought the law would defend him?

[right2bfree]

33. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go get em Mr. DA!!!!

[rl6214]

38. I wish every gun crime would be prosecuted instead of plea

bargained away just to get a conviction on another charge, then give the appropriate sentence. Go after the gun crimes, not the innocent gunowner.

[lawodevolution]

17. Let's see Jpak claims this is a case of misused castle doctrine but if you bother to read

You find out that castle doctrine correctly does not apply hear.

Unrec for shameless lie.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. If only we could apply Truth In Advertising standards to your posts.

[DWC]

20. If you violate the law

You will pay the price in both the criminal and civil justice systems.

Note, the gun user Mr. Bishop is facing serious felony charges and civil litigation, NOT the gun itself.

Sounds to me like there are bad/stupid/crazy people in the world and the justice system is working.

Semper Fi,

[Hoyt]

21. Story does indicate how irresponsible and blood thirsty some gun owners/advocates can be.

And last line in the link is dead on: "Far too often in the heat of a moment, a gun in hand causes logic to take flight."

[ManiacJoe]

22. In any sizable population, it is a given that

you will have a few bad actors. Some populations have a higher percentage than others.

[Hoyt]

23. Yea, but the gunners here tell us how responsible they ALL are. They all ain't.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

26. There are also a LOT of irresponsable car owners, are you one of them? n/t

[eqfan592]

27. Nice dodge....

....but you specifically said how you hear us saying how ALL gun owners are responsible when in fact the only time I have EVER heard such statements made were by people such as your self in a weak attempt at humor.

Yes, there are gun owners that are not responsible. But that is not by itself a good reason to heavily restrict them beyond how they already are. You can't start treating people like criminals until they've actually committed a crime. It's not how a free society works. End of story.

[ergot]

29. Can't you read your own words? I quote verbatim:

"Yea, but the gunners here tell us how responsible they ALL are."


You wrote it and 5 minutes later denied doing so. You have a serious problem.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Keep trying, Hoyt. You'll get that moral panic jumpstarted any day now:

[rl6214]

31. Noooo

actually the claim is how much more responsible concealed carry licence holders are.

Your post would be the same as saying ALL your posts use proper English and "they all ain't"

[right2bfree]

34. Most are not responsible at all.

[rl6214]

39. "most are not responsible at all"

OK, you can surely cite a study or something that proves this point out, right?

[pipoman]

42. Only an idiot would actually believe such tripe...

[right2bfree]

35. Its easier to pull a trigger then ring a doorbell. This man HAS to be made an example of...

the myth of the "law-abiding gun-owner.

Yuppers.

[gejohnston]

37. just like the myth of the law abiding nongun owner

or the myth of the law abiding anti gun activist. http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/

[rl6214]

40. Right, right along side the myth of the adult that is not a pedophile

because every adult is just a child molester waiting to happen.

[right2bfree]

32. I only wish I could be on the jury. This guy would never ever pack a gun again...

after he spent ten years in prison.

Yuppers!!

[gejohnston]

36. my guess is that he will plead out and avoid trial.

Either way, I see it still being a felony.

[rl6214]

41. Who said he was ever "packing" a gun?