This is what happens when your not a Texan

[Big Dom]

Anyone else think this was justified? Guy probably had the worst defense attorney of all time. His defense was pretty weak. Basically in a nutshell. Group of angry teens shows up at this guys house after dark to attack his son. He goes out and confronts them. One of them make a move and he shoots. The guy dies. He gets convicted. It must suck to be from New York! I think this was totally justified. They show up on his doorstep intending to do his son harm. The prosecutor says he should have just went back inside and called the cops. To me this is a prime example of why you should be prepared to protect yourself.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/22/dr ... index.html

[frankie_the_yankee]

White admitted on the witness stand that he shot Cicciaro, but that the pistol went off accidentally as Cicciaro grabbed for it. Cicciaro, 17, had a blood-alcohol reading above the legal limit for driving.

Shooting someone accidently generally qualifies as manslaughter in most states, including TX. (Not sure of the exact statute or what the offense is called, but manslaughter would be the common term.) The guy admits he did this. That is a far cry from saying that you shot someone intentionally because you had no other way to stop them from using unlawful deadly force upon you. Now maybe the guy had a lousy lawyer. But maybe that is also the truth - that he did shoot the kid accidently.

If so, it is what it is, in TX or anywhere else.

Prosecutor James Chalifoux said White should have simply locked the door and called police -- and not gone outside to confront the teenagers with a gun.

To be honest, I would tend to agree, even here in TX. Look at what this guy is going through. Why not let the cops earn their money instead?

Besides, when you do that, you establish a paper trail. If the cops ordered the kids away, and they returned, it shows that they represented a higher level of threat than before.

Jurors also found White guilty of criminal possession of a weapon.

I'd be more willing to cut him some slack here. NY has so many gun laws and restrictions that it's hard to avoid violating them. Unless the guy was a prohibited person, he probably would have been legal to own the gun in TX.

But being in illegal possession of the gun did not help him in the shooting case.

The guy found himself in a tough spot, and he handled it poorly. A better lawyer might have helped. Maybe in TX the "committing mischief in the nighttime" law might have helped (and may have deterred the kids from going to the guy's house in the first place), but not if he "accidently" shot one of them.

Bottom line: You can't claim self defense and at the same time claim that you shot someone by accident. It's either one or the other.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There have been discussions about potential problems that can occur when someone says "I didn't mean to shoot, it was an accident." It is important to realize however, that statement may or may not be controlling in a criminal case. If the elements exist that justify the use of deadly force, then "accidentally" shooting/killing them does not mean you are guilty of a crime. Often, when such statements are made, they indicate that the person didn't "reasonably believe that deadly force was immediately necessary . . ." and that is where the problem can arise.

For example, if a person says "I'm going to shoot you" and then reaches into his pocket or under his shirt, you would be justified in using deadly force. (This hypothetical scenario presumes there are no other negative factors.) You would also be justified in threatening the use of deadly force by pulling your pistol. You can shoot, but the law doesn't require you to do so. If in pointing your pistol to scare the attacker you "accidentally" pull the trigger and kill him, your use of deadly force was still justified even if unintentional.

Obviously, if that were to happen, I would tell the truth, but I would make sure I described the scenario accurately so that everyone/anyone would understand that I was justified in using deadly force, but tried to avoid doing so albeit unsuccessfully.

I try very hard not to take positions on issues dealing with whether or not to take action in certain circumstances. That said, I view defending my family and home differently than "getting involved" in an altercation away from home. If someone is threatening my wife or sons in my front yard, I doubt seriously I'm going to sit back and do nothing and hope they don't carry out their threat later. This isn't to say that calling the police is wrong; I'm just not willing to say that confronting a threat against my family is wrong either.

Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

The prosecutor in this case stated that the homeowner should have "just gone back inside and called the cops" is start to really annoy me...

This is what I fear is going to be (or is the unspoken trend) the way our government and judicial system is going to attack our sensibilities in regards to personal "self-defense"...

It is becoming more acceptable for the general public, with enthusiastic help and encouragement by the media and our government, to demonize those of us who do actually take our lives and the lives of others very serious...Whether it was right to do so or not...

This is the case for Mr. Joe Horn down here in Pasadena...Sure, in my opinion he said some things he should not have that were recorded...And he might not have gone outside based upon what the dispatcher stated to him at that time...

The media has successfully turned this incident totally against Mr. Horn before any real facts are revealed...Instead they have sided with the Quannel X crowd and sensationalized this incident that will possibly force a political need to make Mr. Horn an example...Therefore it will be further expected for anyone, regardless of the situation, to stay in your home and call the cops...

I dunno, maybe this just rubbed me wrong, but I see the spirit of our community being bred out of us by all of these influences, and that in the future, defending yourself with any means, in your home or out on the street, will be further erroded...

[frankie_the_yankee]

Stevie writes...

The prosecutor in this case stated that the homeowner should have "just gone back inside and called the cops" is start to really annoy me...

This is what I fear is going to be (or is the unspoken trend) the way our government and judicial system is going to attack our sensibilities in regards to personal "self-defense"...

You might be reading a lot into this incident. We don't really have all the facts. For instance, what were the crowd of kids doing? Were they "calling the other kid out"? Were they creating some kind of loud disturbance, shouting threats, racial epithets, etc.?

Or were they acting in a way where someone could reasonably believe that they were about to commit arson or try to break into the home?

If it was all just a bunch of noise, my own instinct would be to call the cops and let them deal with it. I don't see this as any kind of "trend" myself. I think it's just good sense.

For the case cited in the OP, we really need a lot more facts to have an informed opinion as to whether it was a good shoot and/or how the shooter might have fared had he had the good fortune (or good sense) to have been living in TX.

[Big Dom]

Interesting I never really thought about him saying it was an accident. I can see how that would work against him. However I was thinking more along the lines of this falling under castle doctrine. You have a drunk angry mob on your property and one of the guys lunges for your gun. It is after dark you may or may not know if they too are armed and he could reasonably believe that once disarmed his life would be in immediate danger. I would say he was justified in shooting. As for waiting for the cops I certainly would have had whoever was in the house call them but I don't think I would wait at their mercy in the house. Just my opinion but I can see how this could be justified. Aside from him saying it was an accident which he probably just said because he thought it would look better for him. Who knows. I do agree more facts are needed to say for sure.

[txinvestigator]

Interesting I never really thought about him saying it was an accident. I can see how that would work against him. However I was thinking more along the lines of this falling under castle doctrine. .

Interesting. What part of the Castle Doctrine would have applied in Texas?


I don't think there would be an indictment in Texas.

[Big Dom]

Interesting I never really thought about him saying it was an accident. I can see how that would work against him. However I was thinking more along the lines of this falling under castle doctrine. .

Interesting. What part of the Castle Doctrine would have applied in Texas?


I don't think there would be an indictment in Texas.

Does it pertain to the whole property or just the actual house or dwelling? I was thinking it covered the whole property. I need to go back and read it again as I should be clear on that. In applying to this situation I meant only then he would have no duty to retreat so they shouldnt be saying he should have just went inside and called the police.

[Big Dom]

Answered my own question

"]against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
"

Clearly says occupied habitation. But also says was "attempting to enter". So unless they gave him reason to think they were going to enter the house and drag his son out I guess it would not fall under the castle doctrine.


Edit: Thanks for clearing it up for me Dragonfighter. I thought I had read it explained the way you did but couldn't find the verbage. See next post for a better explanation.

[Dragonfighter]

It is becoming more acceptable for the general public, with enthusiastic help and encouragement by the media and our government, to demonize those of us who do actually take our lives and the lives of others very serious...Whether it was right to do so or not...

This is the case for Mr. Joe Horn down here in Pasadena...Sure, in my opinion he said some things he should not have that were recorded...And he might not have gone outside based upon what the dispatcher stated to him at that time...

As it was with the first CHL shooting in Texas. DMN reports the big bad gunman (150# CHLer) shot the poor innocent (long history of violent assaults) unarmed Samoan (350# plus) that was arguing (reaching into the vehicle pummeling the driver and attempting to pull him from the car) with the driver after they bumped mirrors instead of just driving off (ignoring the fact that the vehicle was at a light and completely boxed in). As the facts started reaching the public's ear, and the justifiable nature of the shooting became apparant, the story was pushed further and further back until it was little more than a blurb. No retractions, no apologies for the character assasination, nada.

And so it goes.

Added in Edit for Big_Dom: The "Castle Doctrine" as it is, IMO, misnamed removes the duty to retreat from any place you have the legal right to be before defending yourself. IOW, a BG starts to threaten you and you reasonably believe that you are in immediate danger of death or seriously bodily injury, you can immediately set about defending yourself without having to look for a way out or later proving that you did.

Added in yet another edit:

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Thought the citation might be of some help.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I still think it's a good idea to avoid having to shoot if possible.

If it's just a bunch of people making noise, even threatening noise, outside of my house, I'm going to look to the cops to run them off unless some immediate threat materializes.

From the few facts that we have on this one, the shooting seems questionable. I'm not sure I agree with TXI that the guy would be no-billed here.

But I'll bet I know which way Quannell X would come down on it.

[shootthesheet]

Everything I remember about this pointed to murder. It was just neighbors having problems and this guy shot the kid. They played the "race card" because it was the only thing they could try to get him off.

[boomerang]

You may recall a Mr. Goetz who was also convicted of exercising his Second Amendment rights in NYC.

[stevie_d_64]

Stevie writes...

The prosecutor in this case stated that the homeowner should have "just gone back inside and called the cops" is start to really annoy me...

This is what I fear is going to be (or is the unspoken trend) the way our government and judicial system is going to attack our sensibilities in regards to personal "self-defense"...

You might be reading a lot into this incident. We don't really have all the facts. For instance, what were the crowd of kids doing? Were they "calling the other kid out"? Were they creating some kind of loud disturbance, shouting threats, racial epithets, etc.?

Or were they acting in a way where someone could reasonably believe that they were about to commit arson or try to break into the home?

If it was all just a bunch of noise, my own instinct would be to call the cops and let them deal with it. I don't see this as any kind of "trend" myself. I think it's just good sense.

For the case cited in the OP, we really need a lot more facts to have an informed opinion as to whether it was a good shoot and/or how the shooter might have fared had he had the good fortune (or good sense) to have been living in TX.

Well I have never been accused of not thinking outside the box on occassion...

I tend to try and see how far I could push things if I was the opposition...Keeps me sharp...

[rkhal]

One thing mentioned on TV that hasn't come out here ---- The homeowner had 20 minutes notice that the crowd was headed to his house and elected not to call the police. He instead used the time to dig out his pistol.