Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ZultanQ wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:


It is very easy to prove that he is guilty of trespassing.

Last I checked, trespassing was not a capital offence.

In castle doctrine it is completely legal to use lethal force against someone who is trespassing if you believe they are there to cause harm to you or your property.

No, castle doctrine doesn't make it legal to shoot someone because you think they'll harm your property. It's for self-defense if you reasonably believe you or someone else are at risk of death or grievous bodily injury.

Well perhaps it's the fault of my poor wording, but where I live it is most definitely legal to shoot someone if they are attempting to steal your car for example.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

That may be the case in Texas, but in a lot of castle doctrine states, it's not.

And how do you know he's not white? Plenty of Turks are.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I'm an advocate for being able to defend your home and your life, but I still don't think that it was necessary for the homeowner to kill him whether or not the person had bad intent.

He was in a position to prevent escape, armed, and had the element of surprise. The homeowner could have at least tried (Although I do understand that he has absolutely no obligation to by law) to hold the person at gunpoint while waiting for police to arrive.

Not necessarily true. As mentioned before, depending on your state/local laws "Castle doctrine" might not apply to someone who is going to steal something.

I simply believe that in this case the person did not need to die, and that the homeowner did intend on killing someone that night.

Especially given that the shooter "did not believe the police would do anything about the break-ins".

Vigilantism, pure and simple.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:
Where is your evidence that he was just there for hugs and kisses?

Innocent until proven guilty, I'm afraid.

That is for convicting people, not for trusting them. This guy appears decidedly untrustworthy.

Medium of Death wrote:It's a good thing we're profiling people by stereotypes now. A faster and more effective way to blame the victim!
...
Although what bearing him being a Turkish German has I don't understand.

None really. It's just a counter point for the people who seemed to be presuming innocence based on the positive German stereotype. But in fact Turkish immigrants have quite a bad rep in Germany, with Turkish gangs being associated with a lot of street crime and trafficking.

Of course that doesn't mean all Turkish people should immediately be labeled criminals. Though this guy is sneaking around at night, with a flashlight, in a house which keeps getting robbed... Maybe he's just being ironic?

Kanluwen wrote:Without seeing video footage it's hard to say for sure, but it does not really look like he's there to steal anything.
It does not appear that he is looking around, but rather facing straight ahead towards where the door to the interior of the house or the garage door control panel would be . Nothing about his posture suggests furtiveness or the kind of edginess that one would expect from an individual who knows they are somewhere they do not belong.

Also notice that he's not looking into the car windows(at least in this photo), which is part of the shooter's claim as to "what caused them to think this was the burglar".

I agree that without seeing the video it's hard to say what he's doing or where he is looking. But if you have a look around on the internet you can see pictures of the outside of the house. The front door is in plain sight to the side of the garage. There is no reason I can think of for him to be in there, especially so far inside. He's clearly not just peeking inside, he's trespassing.

As for his posture... I agree he looks quite relaxed and natural in the photo. Perhaps that is as much an indicator that he has done this kind of thing before. After all he has just walked into someone else's property at night. The only way I would be so brazen is if I'd been invited in, or I knew what i was doing.

 Smacks wrote:


As for his posture... I agree he looks quite relaxed and natural in the photo. Perhaps that is as much an indicator that he has done this kind of thing before. After all he has just walked into someone else's property at night. The only way I would be so brazen is if I'd been invited in, or I knew what i was doing.

Or perhaps he just heard someone come out to the front and was just about to tell them that he came to check why their garage was open when he was shot, without warning, several times.

Again, if you have any proof to offer with regards to a criminal past then please share it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I'm an advocate for being able to defend your home and your life, but I still don't think that it was necessary for the homeowner to kill him whether or not the person had bad intent.

He was in a position to prevent escape, armed, and had the element of surprise. The homeowner could have at least tried (Although I do understand that he has absolutely no obligation to by law) to hold the person at gunpoint while waiting for police to arrive.

Not necessarily true. As mentioned before, depending on your state/local laws "Castle doctrine" might not apply to someone who is going to steal something.

Definitely. Always check your local laws when preparing to potentially kill someone

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


He was born in Germany, he's German. He is of Turkish descent but that's not the same as being Turkish, in fact it's the same as an American who had ancestors 100 years ago in Ireland saying that they're of Irish descent. That doesn't make the American Irish and it doesn't make him any more Turkish than German. By referring to him as a Turk rather than a German you are bringing race into it.

The difference being, and it has no bearing here, that Germans (especially Bavarians) tend to use the whole "go back where you came from" thing, since most Turks are Muslim, and don't like German laws, and want more Islamic laws in place, etc. (in my time there, it was quite evident that there was NO assimilation into German society/culture being done. Then, these kids who were born in Germany to Turkish immigrants decide, well the Germans hate me, so I'll go to my home country and head to Turkey. Where, they're promptly met with, "you are german GTFO" and they head back to Germany, pissed off, and even less likely to want to assimilate into the established society/culture that Germany has. While things aren't at U.S 1960s civil rights levels, there is a definite tension whenever you see a Turkish person, or group of Turks present.



Does this mean that this kid, whether he was of Turkish descent was up to no good that night? No, of course not. The kids' a fething exchange student. In all the dealings with exchange students that I've had in my years in school, they were always the best behaved and got some of the best grades.. German schools aint gonna send the class feth up over the pond on exchange, it'd probably sour the exchange relationship a bit.

I still want to know what the hell that kid was doing in the guy's garage. Even if there was a "tell the guy his door is open", I'd go to the front door and ring the bell.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Or perhaps he just heard someone come out to the front and was just about to tell them that he came to check why their garage was open when he was shot, without warning, several times.

Again, if you have any proof to offer with regards to a criminal past then please share it.

I don't really see what your point is. I don't need proof to say he is acting suspiciously. That's pretty much a fact. And there is no good reason for him to be there at all.

Your explanation for him being in someone else's garage at night is contrived and far-fetched at best. You're saying he came to check why the garage was open (which is really none of his business in the first place). But then instead of knocking on the door, or calling out, or just closing the garage, he decides to sneak inside and look around with a flashlight? How is that helping?

I'm not sentencing him to death, I'm just being pragmatic. Based on what we know, the simplest (and therefor most probable) explanation is that he went in there to steal stuff and got shot. Occam's razor right there. That doesn't mean some wild conspiracy theory isn't possible, it just isn't as likely.

 Hordini wrote:
That may be the case in Texas, but in a lot of castle doctrine states, it's not..

After reading the statute, I'm pretty surprised how loose Texa's castle doctrine law is. You can legally use lethal force to prevent a burglar from fleeing your property. I guess it's Texas and I shouldn't be surprised but nonetheless.

I haven't read every state's law but in most castle doctrine laws I've read, you must reasonably believe that you or another are in imminent physical danger. I think castle doctrine laws, written thusly, are right and proper. The Texas statute I find kind of horrendous, truthfully - that lethal force could be legally justified on someone running away from you.

In this case, both by the state laws in which it occurred and by my moral judgement, the man is a murderer and his wife an accessory. As Breotan noted, there are special circumstances as well - in many states his "lying in wait" would qualify him for the death penalty.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Definitely. Always check your local laws when preparing to potentially kill someone

I know this was meant in jest, but I assure you, I carefully read the Iowa statute governing use of lethal force before I ever went to check on a suspicious noise with a gun in my hand.

I think Texas had a case where a guy was cleared for shooting a guy robbing a neighbors house...

 d-usa wrote:
I think Texas had a case where a guy was cleared for shooting a guy robbing a neighbors house...

That would indeed be covered under 9.43 (2)(a) in Texas, if the neighbor had ever asked him to keep an eye on the place. Lethal force would be permitted to protect a third party's property if you had reasonable reason to protect it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyway, this sort of thing can't be covered by legislation. It's a social issue. A certain number of Americans live their lives in fear of home invasions, burglaries un-addressed by the police, and so on, and feel they have to defend their selves with deadly force. The castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws encourage them.

Yes, I agree entirely.

The castle doctrine and killings like this are born of the same cultural problem, the same paranoia. Which is the same issue that in part leads to so many Americans feeling the need to own guns and carry them at all times (note the distinction between wanting a gun for hobbies and hunting, and feeling the need to own a gun to keep yourself safe).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZultanQ wrote:
For every article where there is a white victim, there are tons of other articles about whites hurting non-whites. Does that means that whites commit more crimes against non-whites? No, since statistically black on black crime specifically happens in much higher rates than white on black crime. But it doesn't get reported in big controversial news stories like this. Blacks killing each other can't help it because they are underprivileged, but when whites kill blacks they do it because they are malicious racists. There can be no other reason.

The actual reason this crime is being reported is that the particulars of this crime are really unusual - there aren't too many instances in which a guy has laid a trap for a burglar believing that the castle laws would protect him. Add in the highly political nature of castle laws and you've got a story with legs.

Your conclusion that it is actually because the victim was not white, is just bizarre. I mean, most sites aren't even reporting the ethnicity of the victim, let alone making it a feature of the case. It is quite likely you have serious issues with race, and I think you need to spend a long time trying to work through them.

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyway, this sort of thing can't be covered by legislation. It's a social issue. A certain number of Americans live their lives in fear of home invasions, burglaries un-addressed by the police, and so on, and feel they have to defend their selves with deadly force. The castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws encourage them.

Yes, I agree entirely.

The castle doctrine and killings like this are born of the same cultural problem, the same paranoia. Which is the same issue that in part leads to so many Americans feeling the need to own guns and carry them at all times (note the distinction between wanting a gun for hobbies and hunting, and feeling the need to own a gun to keep yourself safe).

Would you say in this case that the homeowner was acting as a result of paranoia? Was he paranoid of being robbed again or just wanting revenge for the previous burglaries?

I find all of the "you would call out or ring the bell" bizarre. The story says this occurred just after midnight. Do you usually go around yelling at people's houses or ringing their doorbells after midnight? Of course if you were worried they'd accidentally left their garage open (and with valuables on display right there, to boot) you might look inside to see if someone was working on something late before you risked waking people sleeping inside.

What an awful story.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Would you say in this case that the homeowner was acting as a result of paranoia? Was he paranoid of being robbed again or just wanting revenge for the previous burglaries?

I would assume paranoia. But if the pre-meditated murder he committed was out of a desire to gain revenge for the theft of some property, well that's a whole lot worse.

 sebster wrote:
Yes, I agree entirely.

The castle doctrine and killings like this are born of the same cultural problem, the same paranoia. Which is the same issue that in part leads to so many Americans feeling the need to own guns and carry them at all times (note the distinction between wanting a gun for hobbies and hunting, and feeling the need to own a gun to keep yourself safe).

No. Things like castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are born of very real examples of people going to jail for defending themselves from someone who is genuinely trying to kill them.

I don't think he's arguing against those laws per se. He's noting a cultural problem associated with those laws, where people have decided that shooting first and asking later is A-Okay to such an extent, that they don't bother thinking about it at all.

Things can be replaced. People can't. Getting so mad at burglaries that you bait your house so you can kill someone? That's pretty far off the deep end, and it's not like people killing people in the name of self-defense when what they really did was murder isn't exactly new. Yeah, there's stuff like Matthrew Pinkerton out there, where a guy gets unfairly charged for legitimate self defense, but we see news reports like the one in the OP fairly often.

There's a nasty habit where people go beyond self defense to revenge, as we see in this case. Unfortunately, not really sure much can be done about that but charge those who cross the line.

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't think he's arguing against those laws per se. He's noting a cultural problem associated with those laws, where people have decided that shooting first and asking later is A-Okay to such an extent, that they don't bother thinking about it at all.

Well, he said the castle doctrine was born of a cultural problem, so it certainly sounds like an argument against the law.

Things can be replaced. People can't. Getting so mad at burglaries that you bait your house so you can kill someone? That's pretty far off the deep end, and it's not like people killing people in the name of self-defense when what they really did was murder isn't exactly new. Yeah, there's stuff like Matthrew Pinkerton out there, where a guy gets unfairly charged for legitimate self defense, but we see news reports like the one in the OP fairly often.

There's a nasty habit where people go beyond self defense to revenge, as we see in this case. Unfortunately, not really sure much can be done about that but charge those who cross the line.

That is about all you can do, yeah. I'm not sure why that's such an issue, though. People always like to go, "ehrmagerd, castle doctrine/stand your ground encourages people to murder!" when it really doesn't. There are limits to the laws, and people who go beyond those limits get charged. That seems like a working system to me. Moreover, we curiously don't really see that argument in the case of other laws where Action X is legal up to a point. I don't see the .08 blood alcohol limit being cited as the reason why people drive drunk.

 Seaward wrote:
No. Things like castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are born of very real examples of people going to jail for defending themselves from someone who is genuinely trying to kill them.

Thankyou, I'm quite aware of the number of controversial self-defence killings there have been. Christ knows enough of them have been debated over and over again on dakka.

Thing is, if it was purely about self defence, then castle laws would simply strengthen self defense laws. But many states, mostly notably Texas but including plenty of others, allow the use of deadly force to protect one's property.

That goes way beyond concern over people being prosecuted for killing people who were genuinely trying to kill them... instead it is all about the legal right to shoot someone who is stealing stuff from your home.

 Seaward wrote:
People always like to go, "ehrmagerd, castle doctrine/stand your ground encourages people to murder!" when it really doesn't.

Encourages to kill, yes. Murder being a felony, and self defense laws being there to prevent murder charges, that's just silly hyperbole If we had no self defense laws, there'd be a big reason not to kill intruders, but I don't think that outcome is anymore desirable.

Not being American, a way to have prevented this tragedy does come to mind.

That aside, sebster mentions the way many people in the US seem to have this cultural perception that random people are going to break into their homes and try to kill them. Does the data support that happening at a higher rate than in other developed nations? Having taken a brief look into it, it appears that reliable data on the subject does not exist (for example, one source suggests that in over 40% of murders the relationship between the victim and the murderer is unknown). Differences in crime reporting across countries also makes comparison difficult, and there is generally no category at all of "home invasion." There does seem to be some unreliable data used for partisan purposes, though.

Break ins by armed - with a gun mind you - burglars are statistically not that common, but its also generally rare to have a house broken into while people are home (frankly, that's just bad burglaring).

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't think he's arguing against those laws per se.

No, I am arguing very much against those laws. Well, the castle laws vary state by state, and I'm not bothered by the ones that merely enhance and clarify self defense protections (those are a good thing), just the ones that allow individuals to use deadly force to stop someone taking their car.

Laws that allow that are, I think, very much a product of a cultural problem.

And before anyone includes me of America bashing, similar laws have been argued for here in Australia, because of a very similar cultural problem.

 djones520 wrote:
Important life lesson. Don't wander into someones garage after midnight if you don't want a buckshot sandwich.

I really don't want to blame the victim or anything but seriously. If it's in someone's garage, no matter what IT might be, it's probably a good idea to leave it alone.

Back when I lived in a town, as opposed to now in which I live in the middle of nowhere, there were a few times I just left my garage open overnight. One time in particular was because I'd been dismantling an old fridge and working on a washing machine and I wanted to pool of degreaser, freon, synthetic lubricants, and paint stripper I'd created to dry up some or at least stop stinking as horrendously. The next day I went out, the puddle had shifted into sort of a viscous putty which was much easier to scrape up and dispose of and didn't stink as badly. None of my hammers or power tools were gone. My girlfriend's bike was still where she left it. AND NO ONE CAME TO MY DOOR TO TELL ME MY GARAGE WAS OPEN.

I understand the thought process of "maybe someone left this thing here and they might need it in the morning" or whatever. It's a good thought process to have and be aware of, right up there with "yo dawg you dropped this." but there's a line.

That's not to say the guy that did the whole baiting in the first place was an ass... just don't go sniffing around in other people's garages.

 Seaward wrote:
Moreover, we curiously don't really see that argument in the case of other laws where Action X is legal up to a point. I don't see the .08 blood alcohol limit being cited as the reason why people drive drunk.

Probably because no one is pushing to increase the BAC limit for drunk driving, and there is universal agreement that driving while drunk is bad.

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't think he's arguing against those laws per se.

No, I am arguing very much against those laws. Well, the castle laws vary state by state, and I'm not bothered by the ones that merely enhance and clarify self defense protections (those are a good thing), just the ones that allow individuals to use deadly force to stop someone taking their car.

Laws that allow that are, I think, very much a product of a cultural problem.

And before anyone includes me of America bashing, similar laws have been argued for here in Australia, because of a very similar cultural problem.

Why do you have a problem with those, out of curiosity?

It seems to me that if you engineer a situation to provide yourself with what you think is a legal pretext to kill someone with impunity, then when you do in fact kill someone as planned, it is likely to amount to premeditated murder.

Using the "castle doctrine" for the excuse is the equivalent of the police shooting someone for "resisting arrest".

We can easily imagine various scenarios in which people go into someone else's property without permission. At one end of the spectrum, a pilot has to bail out and lands in your garden. At the other end of the spectrum, a ravening heavily armed psychopath goes into your house and attacks you.

Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, a Japanese student, lost, comes to your front door to ask for directions. A German student, searching for a friend's house, sees what he thinks is the friend's car and goes to check the number plate.

In each case, you shoot them. Which is a valid use of self defence, or of the "castle doctrine", and which is murder?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In each case, you shoot them. Which is a valid use of self defence, or of the "castle doctrine", and which is murder?

I think Texas is an outlier - the extreme end of the spectrum. I think most states require a reasonable person to think there is an imminent danger of grievous bodily harm before lethal force can be lawfully employed. This what I believe as well - I don't personally believe in using lethal force to protect property (morally, regardless of what local law allows). The other end of the spectrum from Texas would be states that require duty to retreat - i.e. if you or someone else are faced with imminent grievous bodily harm, you must first attempt to escape from the situation. I think that does too far in the other direction.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me that if you engineer a situation to provide yourself with what you think is a legal pretext to kill someone with impunity, then when you do in fact kill someone as planned, it is likely to amount to premeditated murder.

It is not illegal to leave your garage door open, and he didn't force the guy to come in an try to burgle him. Where do you draw the line? Just owning a gun and house could also be considered 'engineering the situation'. Given that it was dark and he had no way of telling whether the intruder was armed, it sounds to me like he might have been justified in shooting (under the law).

Imagine hypothetically a more extreme case where the kid had been armed, and had broken in and killed the man's wife, and tried to kill him too (perhaps injuring him). But by some miracle he was able to get to his gun and return fire and shot the kid dead (in what I hope we would all agree is a legitimate self defense). Would it then matter if he had earlier stated that he was waiting up to shoot some kid? Does it make the need to defend himself or his property any less real at the time of the incident?

In this specific case, though, the man did engineer the situation by lying in ambush for someone to come into his property so he could shoot them.

We have no information about what the victim was there to do. It could have been a completely innocent purpose, and probably was, given that foreign exchange students are for a number of good reasons low down the list of burglars.

You and the householder should not assume that everyone coming into your property is a burglar. Even if the student was, that doesn't necessarily give a moral justification for shooting him.

Modern society is grounded on the idea that people should not go killing each other without a good reason. It is very widely accepted that self-defence is a completely valid reason for killing. The broader examples of the "castle doctrine", though, seem to indicate that "I thought he was going to steal my car" is a valid reason. In my view, that justifies a "frontier" mentality which is out of place in the western world.