Pa. 'castle doctrine' shooting was love triangle

[jpak]

http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_18468040

WASHINGTON, Pa.—Police say the fatal shooting of a New Mexico man who reportedly entered a southwestern Pennsylvania home by force was related to a "love triangle."

<snip>

But Blyth says Pando had dated a woman who lived at the home, and that the woman, her current boyfriend and her two children where there when Pando kicked in the door hours after police had been called to remove him from the residence.

The chief says police know who the shooter is, but says Washington County prosecutors are trying to determine whether the shooting was justified under the state's so-called "castle-doctrine" law.

<more>

[Hangingon]

1. unrec - this is old news.

[elocs]

4. If you UnRec old news you will have a very busy time at DU. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Those unable...

...to constrain themselves from allowing their glands to rule their brains become naturally 'deselected'. More evidence of the species purifying its own gene pool.

As the media has discovered, the only plus side to these incidents is the advertising supported reporting of them.

More popcorn anyone?

:popcorn:

[RamboLiberal]

3. so kicking in a door is still a violent action

And self-defense may be warranted. Many murders and assaults are of this variety. The police and DS will decide if justifiable homicide.

[ileus]

5. Lesson here...don't kick in doors unless you desire to die.

[Taitertots]

6. Gun protects woman and children from violent attack, sounds like castle doctrine works n/t

[benEzra]

7. Looks like in this case, the Castle Doctrine protected the would-be victims, as intended..

Generally speaking, when a "if I can't have her, nobody can" type shows up at his ex's house and kicks her door in, he's not there to apologize for prior abuse; he's there to assault or kill her and/or her new significant other.

Or do you believe that self-defense should be disallowed if the victim once dated the man who is trying to kill her? :eyes:

[Tesha]

9. Someday, we'll eliminate the death penalty in this country.

Both the public *AND* the private one.

Tesha

[pipoman]

10. So you'd be fine leaving the victim unable to defend herself

to satisfy your personal morality?

[Tesha]

12. The penalty gun people want to hand out often far outweighs the crime.

I'm opposed to the death penalty whether the penalty is
handed out by the state our by some yahoo "defending his
castle".

We routinely mock the sort of justice that is handed
out in Middle Eastern states but they only cut your
hand off for theft; gun folks insist on shooting the
thief and as has so often been stated here, one always
"shoots to kill".

Tesha

[pipoman]

14. So now this intruder was a thief?

Again I ask, are you fine with leaving this woman (or anyone else minding their own business) to the intentions of a person willing to kick in a door to gain access to that person? Guess what? He wouldn't be dead if he had minded his own business, huh?

[Tesha]

15. I used "thief" as an example. Surely you understand the concept.

The point is that *IN JUST SOCIETIES*, the punishment
should be proportional to the crime committed.

But here in the gun forum, the punishment for *EVERY*
trespass against a gunner is death.

Tesha

[pipoman]

17. This argument is so familiar, where have I heard it before?

Hmm, oh yeah, now I remember...it is exactly the same 'my morality trumps your rights' argument used by fundies who oppose reproductive choice...exactly..

[benEzra]

23. Please. That is just disingenuous.

The point is that *IN JUST SOCIETIES*, the punishment
should be proportional to the crime committed.

But here in the gun forum, the punishment for *EVERY*
trespass against a gunner is death.

First, self-defense is not "punishment"; it is the use of countervailing force to stop someone from assaulting you. Less-than-lethal force (e.g., pepper spray, Taser) can be used at a lower threshold than potentially lethal force can; the later can generally only be used if the attacker illegally puts you in imminent danger of death, serious bodily injury, or a forcible felony, or is illegally forcing entry into an occupied home (or in some states with anti-carjacking statutes, an occupied vehicle).

Self-Defense Law 101:

(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

In ANY state, if you shoot somebody just because you "feel threatened," you will go to prison for manslaughter to second-degree murder, depending on the mitigating circumstances, regardless of any Bradyite BS to the contrary.

I used "thief" as an example. Surely you understand the concept.

You used "thief" in a thread talking about an abusive ex who reportedly kicked in the door where "his woman" had taken refuge from him. That type of home invasion has nothing to do with stealing, as you well know.

I would not shoot someone to protect property; that's what I have insurance for. But someone who violently forces entry into a knowingly occupied home is rarely after mere property, which is why the law allows for self-defense in such cases.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. What would you do in such a situation as the one in the OP.

A person with an extensive history of violence and who is obsessed that you be his mate, even if you are terrified of the idea, has just kicked in your door. He yells, "If I can have you nobody will." He is holding a Bowie-style knife with a ten inch blade.

Now what do you do?

In my experience here on this forum those who are anti-self-defense never answer such a question.

[PavePusher]

31. How do you propose to guarantee they are only there to steal thing....

and not to harm people?

How much are we allowed to resist people who only want to steal property?

What are your credentials that entitle you to dictate to others?

[eqfan592]

44. You see, Tesha, jpak, and others seem to be of the thought...

...that it's up to a victim to put their life on the line to ensure that a criminal is given every chance to not turn out to be homicidal. It seems in their minds every criminal is a warm, fuzzy teddy bear just looking for a hug....

[Tesha]

51. Nonsense.

(I can't speak for jpak, but) I simply feel that one
doesn't immediately gain the right to administer the
death penalty because some asshole has barged into
your home. And yes, I'm willing to risk a certain amount
of harm *BEFORE* I decide to take someone's life.

You obviously feel differently.

Tesha

[eqfan592]

59. That is your right.

However, I hold my own life and my families lives to be too valuable to place them in the hands of a potentially violent criminal that has broken into my house. And please note that no matter how much you want to try and characterize the use of lethal force as an "execution" that simply isn't the case. Shooting somebody, even center of mass, isn't an instant death sentence as you seem to think it is. The intent is to put a stop to the threat, which may or may not result in the death of said threat.

Mind you I have zero desire to EVER have to use my firearm against another human in any way, shape or form. But when it comes to my family and a possible threat to it, I will remove such a threat using whatever means I deem necessary at that time.

EDIT: Also, I love how you said my statement was "nonsense" yet you confirmed (at least to a degree) that my statement was indeed accurate in the very same post.

[PavePusher]

64. There is no legal or moral imperative that requires me to suffer any injury from an intruder....

before using overwhelming force to stop them.

Unless, of course, you can cite to such....

[X_Digger]

45. Did you disappear?

Come baaaaaaaaaaaaaack..

[Union Scribe]

47. Ooops, I think Tesha's failboat capsized.

[Tesha]

52. Frankly, many of the pro-gun "arguments" in this forum aren't worth replying to.

Yours just provides a convenient place to state that.

Tesha

[eqfan592]

60. In other words...

...yes, his/her failboat did capsize. ;)

[one-eyed fat man]

68. If you are attacked, what is your plan?

Rely on the tender mercies of your attacker and plead with him not to disfigure your face so you may have an open casket at your funeral?

[spin]

18. A thief breaks into my home when I am not there ...

Determining if anyone is home is fairly easy. If all an individual wants to do is steal items, he has no reason to enter an occupied home.

A home invader is a far larger threat. He either intends to harm me or my family or he is a total fool.

[Kennah]

49. It can easily be a crime to either shoot to kill or shoot to wound

A really precise, and legal, intent would be shooting to stop.

[jpak]

11. Ouchy!

:thumbsup:

:hi:

[benEzra]

13. Self-defense against a vicious attack in your own home isn't the "death penalty"...

and equating the two undercuts legitimate arguments against the death penalty.

What you're saying is that you wish the victims had let the abusive ex have his way with the woman he considered "his" instead of successfully defending themselves from him, yes? Because armed self-defense against an abusive ex kicking in your door is worse than letting yourself be killed by him. Or something.

[Tesha]

16. It's fun watching you folks try to argue how your beliefs...

...have anything to do with justice, democracy, or
Democratic ideals.

Tesha

[spin]

19. Is justice allowing a home invader to slaughter you or your family?

Be aware that if I find an intruder in my home, I do not plan to immediately shoot him. However if he fails to follow my instructions or becomes aggressive, I plan to defend my family. If he gets through me, he endangers those I love.

Remember if all an individual wants to do is to steal my stuff, he can wait until my home is unoccupied. I have every right to assume that if he enters my home knowing that people are present, he plans to injure or kill.

[Tesha]

20. So this is like "Minority Report" where you can punish based on what you "know"...

...the criminal is going to do in the future?

It must be an awesome power you possess!

Tesha

[benEzra]

21. Ex-boyfriend KICKS IN THE DOOR of the home where his ex now lives.

after the police had hauled him forcibly away only hours before. I'm sure his intention was to politely offer his ex an apology for his prior behavior; there's no way he possibly meant her any harm. :eyes:

Look, pretty much every blue state in the union allows you to use potentially lethal force to stop a violent home invasion like this one, including Massachusetts and California. You can pretend that forcing homeowners to submit to whoever illegally kicks in their door is "democratic", but it is not.

And it is your right to choose an ultra-submissive response for yourself and your family to such invasions, as is your right, but you have no right to compel others to submit to an attack in that way. Self-defense is a deeply personal choice recognized by the laws of all 50 states, and it will remain so.

[spin]

22. A person who enters an occupied home is dangerous ...

It doesn't require the skills of a soothsayer to know this.

I live in a fairly large old home that was once a hotel. There are often a number of people in the home as we have occasional roomers who need temporary help and who stay with us. I am a light sleeper. If I hear a really unusual noise or one of our dogs is sounding an alarm, I leave my bedroom to check the situation out. I have a snub nosed /38 revolver in the pocket of my shorts.

Fortunately I have never found an intruder in the home. If I do encounter someone strange I determine who it is and what he is doing in the house. Usually it is just a guest of one of our roomers or my grand children.

However, if I did encounter someone who had evil intentions, I plan to give him instructions and if he follows them, I will just hold him for the police. If he turns aggressive, I will attempt to stop his attack using force. If he turns and runs out the door, I'll let him go.

I possess no awesome power nor am I heroic or a cold blooded killer. I am just an armed homeowner with a family to be worried about.

If I were the only person in the house and I knew there was an intruder, I would stay in the bedroom and call the police on a cell phone. I would make some noise and turn my bedroom light on to alert him to the fact that I was present. If the intruder broke my door down, I would determine that he was indeed a person who had no right to be in my home and I would shoot him without hesitation.

I'm curious about what you would do in the your situation.

[X_Digger]

25. It doesn't take a department of pre-crime to know that someone kicking in your FUCKING DOOR

isn't out to sell you girl scout cookies.

Fucking duh.

[Nailzberg]

28. Although I'd be cool with coming home to find a broken door and several boxes of thin mints

[X_Digger]

36. mmmm.. tagalongs. n/t

[tortoise1956]

46. Peanut butter...

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

[gejohnston]

43. The lemon ones and

some boy scout popcorn would be good too. I'll fix my door for that.

[PavePusher]

32. Yet you seem to prognosticate that they are not there to do violence.

What are your precognition credentials?

What limits would you impose on self-defense? What actions may I take? What tools must I use/give up? How long must I wait before taking any action? How much injury must I suffer befoer taking action.

Can you/will you answer any of these questions?

[SteveM]

35. You should read up on Gandhi and his views on self-defense. nt

[gejohnston]

30. To me you are arguing for a sort of

soft police state like UK. CCTV everywhere, resisting an attack in a manner not authorized by the Crown is assault, no probable cause to collect DNA evidence etc. So democratic it is feudal.

[SteveM]

34. So, from on-high, you like to get your jollies, but can't argue your point?

That is obvious. What is not obvious is whether or not you really care about gun-control, a better society, peace, etc. ....or whether or not you just prefer having fun and poking at people; the issue stimulating such gratification being secondary. So, which is it?

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Self defense is not a matter of 'justice'. It's a basic human right.

[X_Digger]

24. Fuck the victim, eh?

She should take a beating, possibly death-- just so that you can stay perched on your moral high horse?

Her kids? Screw the little bastards, they can learn to take their lumps like a good little victim, right? At least they won't have any moral ambiguity over the death penalty-- assuming they live that long.

:sarcasm:

[SteveM]

33. You have a point on the "public" ones, but...

the last "elimination" is asking for government policies and programs to prohibit self-defense, lethal or otherwise. How would you effect these?

[Tesha]

37. Perhaps gun folks (and police?) need effective but non-lethal weaponry?

I suspect with all of our technlogy, we can do better than the
same technology that's been in use for about ten centuries.

I'm thinking, for example, anaesthetic sprays, etc. that could be
used in a "fire on warning" mode without running the risk of
killing your spouse/kid/the neighbor's dog.

Tesha

[gejohnston]

38. wind direction could be a problem along with ceiling fans etc.

That is the problem with mace or pepper spray. Oh yeah, those are often illegal in not so gun friendly places as well. How about phasers with a stun setting?

[Tesha]

39. If by phasors you would accept laser-induced electrically-conductive channels through air,

such weapons are being investigated and hold some promise.

The point would be to remove the defender from being both judge,
jury, and executioner.

Tesha

[gejohnston]

40. laser induced?

would it be a easer?

The point would be to remove the defender from being both judge, jury, and executioner.

I fail to see the logic in your vigilante meme. Quite likely, it is absurd to the point of being stupid (and that is an understatement) as it is hackneyed. There is nothing to judge or to weigh fact. Defending ones life or limb is just that. It is immediate and rather obvious. There is no fact find after the fact. That is the function of the jury. The judge is simply a referee for lawyers. As for executioner, the choice is really up to the attacker. The defender has no real choice in the matter.

What you dream for is not justice, democracy or any other lofty ideal. You think it will be those things, but that is not the reality.

[gejohnston]

42. You mean this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolaser One of these could also be lethal.

I take it you are not a Trekkie. One thing I must point out: In the military there is no such thing as "non-lethal" or "bullet proof." The terms are "less than lethal" and "bullet resistant". There is a reason for it. A taser can be lethal, just as the RCMP and the Vancouver Airport. I am old enough to remember when microwave ovens were thought of as lethal weapons for someone with a pacemaker.

[eqfan592]

50. You really need to drop that phrase.

Implying somehow that a person defending their home and, for all they know, their own and their families lives is not acting as "judge, jury, and executioner" in any way, shape or form. That implies that the intent of self defense is to dole out "justice" of some sort, which it is not. The intent is to stop the threat using the most effective and reasonable means necessary, up to and including use of lethal force in certain situations.

[Tesha]

53. Any time you have an opportunity to retreat but you choose to shoot instead, you are indeed...

...acting as "Judge, Jury, and Executioner".

I understand why you need to feel that isn't true,
but the sad fact is that if you could have retreated,
it is unmistakeably true.

Tesha

[gejohnston]

61. I don't understand how you feel where you get "unmistakably"

I am trying to understand why you feel the need to feel that it is true. The sad fact, it is not. You keep repeating the "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" cliche. That tells me that you have not really thought about such things deeply.

How does not defending yourself make a more just society? How does it make a less violent society and not embolden predatory sociopaths?

I understand why you need to feel that isn't true,
but the sad fact is that if you could have retreated,
it is unmistakeably true.

[eqfan592]

62. Big +1.

I just have to wonder how turning ones back on a potentially violent criminal makes society a better place....

[gravity556]

63. Retreat? To where?

Home is pretty much the furthest you can run. And if someone kicks in the door, particularly a violent ex, only a fool would presume they're there to just "have a friendly chat". And the 5 or 10 minutes it takes the cops to get there is plenty of time for a violent nutjob (the door kicking ex) to murder everyone in the house. The individual who kicked in the door had already appointed himself "judge, jury and executioner" for the innocent people that he kicked down the door to get to. The innocent folks inside certainly didn't ask for their door kicked in. The guy who shot the violent assailant (who had appointed himself judge, jury and executioner of the people inside the house) simply filed an appeal.

How about rape victims? Should they just cooperate, lie back and try to relax? Serious question-in your view, is it better for a woman to comply with the rapist and hope that he doesn't kill her or is it better for her to defend herself and shoot her assailant until he stops his attack?

[Blown330]

65. What's sad...

...is the fact you don't understand that it is the criminals CHOICE to choose a situation where he engages a person to become his "judge, jury, and executioner".

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Again with the false dichotomy of 'justice' versus self defense.

You are trying to paint the victim as a vigilante. Not going to fly.

A vigilante commits an overt act to go out and inflict harm on someone deemed 'guilty'. Protecting yourself from an attacker, is not.

This victim in particular even called the cops the first time. 'Justice' doesn't even enter the picture here. It is not a question at hand.

[one-eyed fat man]

69. In the most anti-gun cities and states

poor defenseless criminals are protected from tear gas, pepper spray, stuns guns and such.

At least one state, makes it illegal to use a pepper spray with a DYE that makes the attacker easy to identify!

[Glassunion]

58. "How about phasers with a stun setting?"- We already have that.

A .380 is a .45 set on stun.

[gejohnston]

66. I thought .25s were stun?

[Glassunion]

67. Maybe for a small cat.

[benEzra]

41. We have (and carry) less-than-lethal weapons; they are not mutually exclusive.

I carry one of these, always, in addition to a firearm, as well as when I'm *not* carrying a firearm. And it's made by an evil gun company (Kimber), no less.


http://www.nelsontactical.com/products/kimber-pepper-blaster-p-275.html?zenid=kmsn93fsmi7f9dk38cqh19dfl5

It's vastly better than fists and feet against an altercation, but it is not effective enough to counter an assailant with an edged or impact weapon, or a firearm for that matter, nor is it worth much against multiple assailants, assailants with cover, or assailants wearing protective clothing/accessories.

There are reasons why police almost always employ less-lethal weapons in the presence of actual armed backup, because they don't often work. This one is much more effective than a standard spray and poses much less risk of backspray, but it is still severely range-limited, has a capacity of only 2 shots, and a significant percentage of the population will only be inconvenienced by it, not incapacitated.

Firearms are, as Massad Ayoob once put it, "the gravest extreme," i.e. imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony. You cannot legally shoot someone on the basis of some vague sense of "feeling threatened," contrary to the implication of some here. Carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility, and one that we take very seriously. I wouldn't expect you to agree with my choice (after all, if you agreed with it, you'd hold a CHL yourself), but I certainly hope that someday you can respect my right to choose on the issue, as long as I do so responsibly (which I do).

[Union Scribe]

48. Wow, you can't imagine "anaesthetic sprays" being misused

as badly if not worse than guns are? Holy date rape, batman.

You should also be aware that tasers and OC sprays are not legal everywhere. The law here, for example, would allow me to carry a gun if I applied, but I can't order a stun gun from anywhere and have it shipped here unless I was a cop.

[beevul]

54. Arranging things so that all would be thieves/home invaders...

Arranging things so that all would be thieves/home invaders KNOW going into it, that their life is absolutely no risk in doing whatever it is they seek to do...

Sounds about the same as creating zones where a shooter KNOWS going into it that the likelyhood of meeting resistance is next to nil.

Except that it goes a step farther:

It seeks to set those conditions in the homes of people.

And thats a place where nobody but the homeowner has any business setting those conditions for his/her self, and his or her life.

That you place the emphasis on those who come in uninvited, for whatever nefarious purpose, rather than on those who in thier home minding their own business and have every right to act on a threat AS a threat...

It is simply disgusting.

And it is the point which justice is farthest from.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Survival of a home invader is not my concern.

Survival of my family, and myself, is. Let the home invader preserve his own life with a career change.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. So you are willing to excuse the attacker who kicked in the door?

Because he once dated the woman he should be allowed to attacker her? You do realize that you are siding with the criminal in this case?

[Hoopla Phil]

26. Another jpak thread goes down in flames.

yup

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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