Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53

Thread: White castle, black castle

  1. #1

    Default White castle, black castle

    https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/09/30/...der-trial/amp/

    This case was poorly handled from the outset. Now, in a final insult to the memory of the black victim, a jury will be permitted to consider the "castle doctrine" as part of the defense of the woman who shot this innocent man in his own castle.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #2
    If the woman is to be believed she thought she was in her own home, so she thought she was acting lawfully, so manslaughter would be reasonable.

    Except how the f##k do you enter the wrong home, think it is yours and shoot somebody?

    Plus ignorance is no excuse under the law.

    Murder for me, unless there's something missing from the story ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  3. #3
    An absurd ruling for the judge. Fuck this bitch, you don't get to go into the wrong home and shoot the person inside and use the castle doctrine. Its for DEFENDING YOUR OWN CASTLE.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    An absurd ruling for the judge. Fuck this bitch, you don't get to go into the wrong home and shoot the person inside and use the castle doctrine. Its for DEFENDING YOUR OWN CASTLE.
    Sure you do, if you legitimately think it's the right home. Classic mens rea. You know, one of the fundamental aspects of legal theory which allows you to create the castle doctrine in the first place? Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Ignorance of the true situation, however, IS. If you don't have that, then you can't have the castle doctrine in the first place since your perception of being threatened in your home wouldn't matter, just whether later investigation determined your life was actually threatened.

    Aimless, didn't you already have a thread for this case somewhere?
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 10-01-2019 at 06:47 AM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Sure you do, if you legitimately think it's the right home. Classic mens rea. You know, one of the fundamental aspects of legal theory which allows you to create the castle doctrine in the first place? Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Ignorance of the true situation, however, IS. If you don't have that, then you can't have the castle doctrine in the first place since your perception of being threatened in your home wouldn't matter, just whether later investigation determined your life was actually threatened.
    I'm not an expert on the nuance of the law, and it is possible the doctrine wasn't properly defined when it was written. However the purpose behind the castle doctrine is to allow people to defend themselves from intrusion in their own home. Not their home and it should NEVER apply.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    If the woman is to be believed she thought she was in her own home, so she thought she was acting lawfully, so manslaughter would be reasonable.

    Except how the f##k do you enter the wrong home, think it is yours and shoot somebody?

    Plus ignorance is no excuse under the law.

    Murder for me, unless there's something missing from the story ...
    In a sense, ignorance is sort of an excuse. "Mistake of fact": https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/0...t-save-guyger/

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    An absurd ruling for the judge. Fuck this bitch, you don't get to go into the wrong home and shoot the person inside and use the castle doctrine. Its for DEFENDING YOUR OWN CASTLE.
    What are you shrieking about you liberal cuck? She was about to be attacked by a thug in her own home in the middle of the night. She had every right to shoot him in self-defense. If he didn't want to be shot to death, he shouldn't have approached her in a threatening manner.

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Sure you do, if you legitimately think it's the right home. Classic mens rea. You know, one of the fundamental aspects of legal theory which allows you to create the castle doctrine in the first place? Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Ignorance of the true situation, however, IS. If you don't have that, then you can't have the castle doctrine in the first place since your perception of being threatened in your home wouldn't matter, just whether later investigation determined your life was actually threatened.

    Aimless, didn't you already have a thread for this case somewhere?
    Yeah but I was having difficulties finding it and figured the new development was interesting enough to merit a separate thread. Mostly I just wanted to say "black castle".
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'm not an expert on the nuance of the law, and it is possible the doctrine wasn't properly defined when it was written. However the purpose behind the castle doctrine is to allow people to defend themselves from intrusion in their own home. Not their home and it should NEVER apply.
    The purpose of the castle doctrine is not and never has been to make the word "home" into some kind of magic. I realize that is foreign to you since as far as you're concerned it is, as always, the property that matters and not the lives potentially at stake. But it's purpose is to allow people to defend their lives, it's not a pretext to allow extrajudicial killing to defend what you own.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    In a sense, ignorance is sort of an excuse. "Mistake of fact": https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/0...t-save-guyger/
    Sort of yes, but I would think that this killing was probably unlawful but without intent, so manslaughter, though a part of me still thinks murder, I'm torn. I don't know how easy it is to enter the wrong home and think its yours, I've certainly never done that.

    As far as intent is concerned, and intent is required for it to be murder is it not, it seems reasonable for the castle doctrine to apply if she reasonably thought she was in her own home. That's the part I'm struggling with though and presumably the jury would need to deliberate on that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    The purpose of the castle doctrine is not and never has been to make the word "home" into some kind of magic. I realize that is foreign to you since as far as you're concerned it is, as always, the property that matters and not the lives potentially at stake. But it's purpose is to allow people to defend their lives, it's not a pretext to allow extrajudicial killing to defend what you own.
    That's stupid. The entire fucking point of the castle doctrine is to give you EXTRA protection when guarding your home. There are already self defense laws that apply wherever you are.

    Let me repeat. The entire point of the castle doctrine is that you gain EXTRA rights over and ABOVE normal self defense rights.

    This is where castle doctrine matters.

    Scenario A: You are justified fully in your actions with normal self defense laws. Castle Doctrine does nothing.

    Scenario B: You are NOT justified fully in your actions with normal self defense laws. Castle Doctrine gives you extra protection.

    So yes, your home is magical.

  10. #10
    Also to clear something up for the peanut gallery. You don't need to intend to murder someone to be guilty of murder.

  11. #11
    Guilty, murder.

    Prosecution did it's damnedest to screw this up too, so it's nice to see the jury was able to see through that bullshit, but this case is going to see years and years of appeals because of it.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Also to clear something up for the peanut gallery. You don't need to intend to murder someone to be guilty of murder.
    I thought I was the only one who spoke of intent. I'm not sure about US laws but yes intent is required in the UK at least. It doesn't have to be intent to kill, intent to do serious harm and the harm results in death is sufficient.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    That's stupid. The entire fucking point of the castle doctrine is to give you EXTRA protection when guarding your home. There are already self defense laws that apply wherever you are.

    Let me repeat. The entire point of the castle doctrine is that you gain EXTRA rights over and ABOVE normal self defense rights.

    This is where castle doctrine matters.

    Scenario A: You are justified fully in your actions with normal self defense laws. Castle Doctrine does nothing.

    Scenario B: You are NOT justified fully in your actions with normal self defense laws. Castle Doctrine gives you extra protection.

    So yes, your home is magical.
    Everything you said is wrong. The "castle doctrine" is nothing more or less than a "stand your ground" context. As Texas already has fairly broad self defense laws in that regard, it doesn't give you anything "extra" at all. It's just an alternate phrasing to make things more understandable (or alternatively, make it sound more appealing/palatable). The two are used fairly interchangeably in Texas.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,666
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Everything you said is wrong. The "castle doctrine" is nothing more or less than a "stand your ground" context. As Texas already has fairly broad self defense laws in that regard, it doesn't give you anything "extra" at all. It's just an alternate phrasing to make things more understandable (or alternatively, make it sound more appealing/palatable). The two are used fairly interchangeably in Texas.
    Thanks for clearing that up. It sounds a lot more like the way I understood it. Which is that there is an across the board lower threshold for establishing self defense in case of use of force against any perceived threat.

    Still don't know how it could apply in this case. Don't people in the USA lock their front doors?
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Everything you said is wrong. The "castle doctrine" is nothing more or less than a "stand your ground" context. As Texas already has fairly broad self defense laws in that regard, it doesn't give you anything "extra" at all. It's just an alternate phrasing to make things more understandable (or alternatively, make it sound more appealing/palatable). The two are used fairly interchangeably in Texas.
    No Fuzzy. If Self Defense laws already covered you, there is no need for a castle doctrine. Texas actually is a state with fairly robust self defense laws so castle doctrine may not be as needed. In some retarded states a person has a duty to retreat and the idea of a castle doctrine is that you no longer have a duty to retreat and can freely use lethal force if you are confronted in your own home.

  16. #16
    Also jury came back with a guilty verdict on the murder charge. Justice.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    No Fuzzy. If Self Defense laws already covered you, there is no need for a castle doctrine. Texas actually is a state with fairly robust self defense laws so castle doctrine may not be as needed. In some retarded states a person has a duty to retreat and the idea of a castle doctrine is that you no longer have a duty to retreat and can freely use lethal force if you are confronted in your own home.
    The post you quoted explains that the "castle doctrine" is just a cool name for a particular category of a "stand your ground" defense. You don't have less of a duty to retreat when facing an attacker in your own home than you do when facing an attacker in any other place you're legally occupying. Your home is just one of those places that you can legally occupy. The castle doctrine is a cool name and nobody wants to talk about "the Walmart parking lot doctrine".
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    The post you quoted explains that the "castle doctrine" is just a cool name for a particular category of a "stand your ground" defense. You don't have less of a duty to retreat when facing an attacker in your own home than you do when facing an attacker in any other place you're legally occupying. Your home is just one of those places that you can legally occupy. The castle doctrine is a cool name and nobody wants to talk about "the Walmart parking lot doctrine".
    The Castle Doctrine extends to places like your vehicle for example but normally would not be used if you were jogging in a park. There regular self defense laws trigger.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Still don't know how it could apply in this case. Don't people in the USA lock their front doors?
    In my experiences, no. The 2 main groups I've seen that locked their doors during the day are single women and families with escape toddlers, otherwise it's a nightly check and nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Also jury came back with a guilty verdict on the murder charge. Justice.
    So gung ho to double post the dumbass missed that we already posted this 8 hours ago.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  20. #20
    I lock my door overnight or when I go out. Not when I'm at home and awake.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #21
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  22. #22

  23. #23
    The judge probably violated laws protecting the separation of church and state when she gave the convicted felon her personal Bible, on camera. (Imagine the outrage if she'd been a Muslim giving a Koran....)

    Also hypocritical for Lewk to call this murder sentence "justice" (eligible for parole in 5 years) when he thinks it's okay to to shoot someone dead for stealing toothpaste.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I lock my door overnight or when I go out. Not when I'm at home and awake.
    I locked the doors (and closed the electric garage doors) when I worked in the garden or mowed the lawn. Not because I was a single woman with young children but because I knew thieves were opportunists. Most of the thefts in my upscale neighborhood occurred while people were at home. Only men were surprised by this fact.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    The judge probably violated laws protecting the separation of church and state when she gave the convicted felon her personal Bible, on camera. (Imagine the outrage if she'd been a Muslim giving a Koran....)

    Also hypocritical for Lewk to call this murder sentence "justice" (eligible for parole in 5 years) when he thinks it's okay to to shoot someone dead for stealing toothpaste.
    My comment was in regards to arguing in favor of the murder charge instead of manslaughter.

  26. #26
    But you're okay with the sentence.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    But you're okay with the sentence.
    No I think it should have been longer.

  28. #28
    Speaking of castle doctrine: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/officer-se...opstories.html

    Another one of Lewk's heroes. Police officer comes by at night, shouts at a person inside their house, and then shoots her before she has a chance to respond.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Speaking of castle doctrine: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/officer-se...opstories.html

    Another one of Lewk's heroes. Police officer comes by at night, shouts at a person inside their house, and then shoots her before she has a chance to respond.
    My God, what is the problem with the police force in your country. Are black people fair game for anyone with a badge? I'm starting to think that racism in the police forces in the USA isn't just institutional but also personal. Maybe there should be an embargo on white men joining until this sort of horror story ends.

    Being black shouldn't be a death penalty on probation
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Speaking of castle doctrine: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/officer-se...opstories.html

    Another one of Lewk's heroes. Police officer comes by at night, shouts at a person inside their house, and then shoots her before she has a chance to respond.
    Despicable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •