~Snip
Holy crap that is a lot... Hold on, I will keep reading in a second, but do you really mean to tell me that you do or do not have the right to shoot somebody based on if you have a covered porch or not?
Seriously, the amount of shading you have is relevant to the moral choice of shooting a guy? And if the police can't be there in under an hour, don't cross your fingers for ambulance, so very potentially killing a guy?
Very simple, what's "in your residence" mean?" To be on the safe side, I'd try to actually be inside your own house.... The driveway doesn't count as "in your residence." So the question becomes literally where to draw the line. [shrugs]. It seems the driveway doesn't count, but the porch? I dunno.
Hypothetically, the defendant was returning home and the thief in question was just exiting the defendant's home as the defendant stepped onto the porch. The thief pulls out a knife, the defendant pulls out his gun and shoots him dead. What would you, if you were serving as legal council to the defendant, say to the jury on whether or not this counts as being in his residence?
Well, I "only represent innocent people...."
[cough] "clearly" [cough]
I'm tired/typed a lot here tonight already so lets just do the shorter version. Also, you really have to understand, it's a very different thing to determine if you were defending property or yourself, which is something else entirely. This is another reason the individual facts are very important/why each case is different. I'd base it off something like this I guess (assuming you could make out defense of self instead of defense of property):
Yeah, if it's my guy then of course I'm gonna say its in his house or else we're screwed, as long as I have a good faith basis for it.
Establishing self defense:
1.) Did he cause it? Nopes, not really.
2.) imminent fear of death? Only way out use of deadly force?
3.) In home?
1.) This isn't really even an issue in the jury's mind and probably not the prosecution's but something along the lines of "Here he was just coming home from shopping/work/whatever like any other day, minding his own business when...."
2.) Paint pictures of what the defendant really saw based upon testimony and evidence admitted into trial.
And here is where it gets VERY factually important. This is where every little bit counts. Concerning fear, what did thief look like/what was thief doing, and how was he doing it? How was he holding the knife? Did he seem distracted in any way, was he entirely focused upon defendant, was he staring him down, or was he looking for another way out? How threatening did the guy look/what was he doing/wouldn't you be afraid of him too? Did he shout "O, fuck you?" All of this and so much more goes to reasonableness.
Concerning "imminent" (harm) how far apart were they, was there anything in between them (i.e. a closed door or an open one or the damn TV that should've still been inside). What's the health and condition of defendant/is it even possible for him to run/where the hell is he supposed to go?
3.) Of course, it's his house. What else is it? It's part of his house, its attached to it and it doesn't come off. And even if it somehow isn't, thief is standing between him and his house, in the door. So, defendant can't even get IN his house, because thief, while stealing his stuff, won't let him/ is menacingly blocking him from doing so with a knife drawn.... He can't retreat into his living room, because thief won't let him.... There are a million ways like asking them to put themselves in his position (hence the describing of the legally relevant and admissible points of that position).
Meh, "hypothetical," are difficult, because people really don't realize that law rests on the stupidly small details. If one of those details is legally relevant and the other side thinks the jury focusing on that will get the case to go their way, then they will do it and they might be successful in doing that.
In short, you've gotta make the case for it based upon the specific individual details. Ordinarily, you never want a criminal defendant to take the stand for numerous reasons, but if no one else saw it, then he might have to testify. Then we can see what really went on/if it was reasonable. And people wonder why it takes so long....
Now the fun thing, would be figuring out how the prosecution would say it isn't in his house. That's called knowing both sides of it. And it isn't entirely unreasonable. Do you just not heat part of your house in the winter and let snow pile up on it? But the porch.... When people come to your house to knock on the door are they inside it when they step on your porch to ring the doorbell? Can stray animals and birds come up on your porch? But, not other parts of your house that are inside it.... So.... Those are all differences between "inside" your house and "outside your house," aren't they? I don't know, and I'm glad I don't have that case.
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 877451 times)