Bad Shoot - Man Faces Manslaughter Charges

[dwalker]

The law you are failing to understand is rooted in English common law going back centuries. It doesn't matter where you live, the justification for the killing of another human being is fairly uniform across the US as it is based off the Model Penal Code.

Please leave the legal analysis to the experts. Have a nice day.

I am having a great day thanks!

[ChuckDizzle]

If it was as black and white as you suggest he would be charged with 2nd degree murder, not manslaughter.

A manslaughter charge on the tail-end of self defense is something an opportunistic DA would have to *want* to push. Self incrimination is the easiest way to get that wish granted.

Not necessarily, in some jurisdictions 2nd degree murder reads a lot like a manslaughter charge and vice versa. Also a DA may strategically down charge a sympathetic defendant, or just avoid the perils of trying to prove the mens rea requirement of the offense in a situation that unfolded in probably under 2 minutes at most. For example it looks like the defendant already is claiming he shot aiming for the tires, implying that he acted without malice (usually a requirement for 2nd degree murder), so you have an admission of guilt for recklessly negligent behavior which was likely to result in death or great bodily harm actually resulting in death.

[Calguns77]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1157991

there is the thread, and as I said then, NO CHARGES.

So maybe you ought to do some reading there tough guy, and stop lecturing people.

Right, there are pretty big difference between these cases. Mainly the fact that the linked case involves a man having his home invaded and being tied up. Not much of a comparison to be made.

Pro-Tip: He still could have easily been charged.

[geoint]

I'm cool with criminals being shot in the back if they've earned it. Breaking into someone's home earns it.


I'm shocked that our resident lawyers are defending a legal system that sustains them.

[Calguns77]

I'm cool with criminals being shot in the back if they've earned it. Breaking into someone's home earns it.


I'm shocked that our resident lawyers are defending a legal system that sustains them.

They never entered his home. He didnt shoot until they were driving away.

[CandG]

I'm cool with criminals being shot in the back if they've earned it. Breaking into someone's home earns it.

I'm shocked that our resident lawyers are defending a legal system that sustains them.

Like I said before, I don't feel bad for them. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Natural selection and all that. BUT, don't confuse that opinion of what someone else did with something I would do myself. I absolutely would not shoot at a criminal (or their car) that's running away from me and poses no threat, because it's clearly illegal. The only exception is if they did something bad enough such that I'd happily go to jail for killing them. Simply peaking through my windows isn't bad enough for me to go to jail for. Hurting my kid probably would be.

This guy clearly thought the burglars' actions were enough to justify going to jail to get revenge. And that's fine, just don't complain when you go to jail.

[Urban Achiever]

Idiot homeowner should go to prison. He fired and killed out of vengeance, not self defense. The threat had passed when he fired at the vehicle. Were the suspects hardened criminals who were going to conintue a life of crime or were they stupid teenagers with extremely poor judgement? The homeowner sure didn't know this at the time when he was carrying out his sentence on the street rather than it being resolved in a courtroom where it belonged.

[calif 15-22]

They never entered his home. He didnt shoot until they were driving away.

^^^ THIS ^^^

Idiot homeowner should go to prison. He fired and killed out of vengeance, not self defense. The threat had passed when he fired at the vehicle. Were the suspects hardened criminals who were going to conintue a life of crime or were they stupid teenagers with extremely poor judgement? The homeowner sure didn't know this at the time when he was carrying out his sentence on the street rather than it being resolved in a courtroom where it belonged.

^^^ THIS SUMS UP THIS CASE PRETTY WELL ^^^

The other cases mentioned above are CLEARLY different circumstances where the bad guys breached the home and in some cases assaulted and or tied up the home owner.

in this SPECIFIC case none of that happened and now the that man has his life turned upside down for what? No entry. Nothing taken. No bodily harm. Nada. He will now have to face the consequences of his decision.

I fear many hear may be in the same boat if God forbid that was to happen to them.

Again NO ONE condoning the behavior of the bad guys. No one!
We are only divided on the course of action after the initial encounter. Do what you think is right for you and yours, but please DO NOT assume because our course of action might be different that we are somehow "snowflakes" or "Sheep". I guarantee you that is not the case.

Carry on gentlemen . . .

[omgwtfbbq]

It is a terrible shoot; however, it is in Minnesota rather than California, so he may get off. I want to know if the other 2 teens that were involved in the break in attempt get charged with murder under the felony murder statute.

Well after a few minutes of google researching it turns out that unlike CA, Minnesota actually has a "duty to retreat clause" in their self defense law. Generally the 4 conditions that satisfy the lawful use of deadly force under Minn. code are:

Sources:

http://www.minnesotaccw.com/blog/legal-use-of-force-in-mn

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.06

[IVC]

..., or just avoid the perils of trying to prove the mens rea requirement of the offense in a situation that unfolded in probably under 2 minutes at most.
...
For example it looks like the defendant already is claiming he shot aiming for the tires, implying that he acted without malice (usually a requirement for 2nd degree murder), so you have an admission of guilt for recklessly negligent behavior...

Exactly the two points I was making - there is no mens rea and the whole case is based on what the defendant *said*, not what he *did*.

He aimed for the tires which is normal and expected reaction for an average person without knowledge of the law. It should be part of the self-defense statutes, but it's not only because it can be abused. That's what creates the "gray area" where a person without any ill intent, who is no danger to the society and who doesn't lack judgement or morality is being prosecuted within gray area based on the indirect self-incrimination.

Who determined that aiming for the tires *proves* he wasn't in fear for his life? I guarantee that if we put a hundred random people into this situation, one of the common responses would be to shoot at the tires and all of them would have highly elevated adrenaline levels *proving* they were indeed in fear. That's the problem with this situation.

[IVC]

Well after a few minutes of google researching it turns out that unlike CA, Minnesota actually has a "duty to retreat clause" in their self defense law. Generally the 4 conditions that satisfy the lawful use of deadly force under Minn. code are:

Duty to retreat is one of those laws that is supposed to be well-meaning, yet it creates horrible environment for self defense. Instead of concentrating on whether the person was in real danger, the prosecutor will concentrate on how the person could've prevented the situation.

Akin to blaming a rape victim for not having left the bar when the drunk guy started hitting on her therefore not "retreating" and avoiding being raped later...

[Urban Achiever]

If he was purposely aiming at the tires and not the individuals, then he should still be charged with negligent homicide. Shooting in someone's direction is a reckless action with likelihood for serious injury or death. Regardless of his intent, his actions varied from reckless to intentional. The threat was driving away and with it his justification for use of deadly force.

[BasketOfBullzeye]

When you shoot you may miss

If you shoot, you may miss, if you miss, you may hit an innocent civilian (a daughter, a mother), so you better have a damn good reason for shooting.

[CandG]

If you shoot, you may miss, if you miss, you may hit an innocent civilian (a daughter, a mother), so you better have a damn good reason for shooting.

Sound advice. He's lucky the only shot bystander happened to not be innocent. The same laws were broken either way, but the jury is likely going to feel less compassion towards the dead burglar than an innocent child playing nearby.


My first thought when I read "tried to shoot out the rubber tires with a .45acp" was, he's lucky he didn't shoot himself I kid I kid... kind of. Doesn't really sound like the caliber of choice for tire shooting though.

[BasketOfBullzeye]

Exactly the two points I was making - there is no mens rea and the whole case is based on what the defendant *said*, not what he *did*.

He aimed for the tires which is normal and expected reaction for an average person without knowledge of the law.

You may be right about what some people think. For the edification of "average people," I'd like to point out that manslaughter does not require specific intent to kill. The California jury instructions state that manslaughter requires:

1. The defendant (committed a crime that posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury because of the way in which it was committed/ [or] committed a lawful act, but acted with criminal negligence);

AND

2. The defendant's acts unlawfully caused the death of another person.

Discharging a firearm within a city is a crime, and if you kill someone while doing it, then the discharge caused the death, which means your going to prison. There is no specific intent requirement.

Self defense requires:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime>)];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

In a nutshell, self-defense requires reasonable force in the face of imminent peril to life or limb.

I know there's a vigilante element in all of us, but the thought of harming an innocent person in a self-defense shooting is horrifying enough in a righteous situation, but running that risk when your life is not in danger is unquestionably immoral and illegal. If someone reading this thinks they can use their firearm to shoot the tires of a fleeing thief if there is no imminent threat of harm, please consider these laws, as well as your ability to hit a stationary target at 7 yards, much less a moving car.