Clearly, I didn’t say that. I know that typing up the apology is going to take you some time, so I’ll move on.
If I tell you “Look, we can talk about this from there. If you continue, there will be consequences” I’m probably being a dick. Maybe.
If the person then decides that, wtf, it’s 3 on one, and we don’t have to put up with this “discuss it in public shit”, despite having been told of the consequences, we’ve got to assume that they aren’t the brightest.
There’s no question in my mind that’s how a jury would decide this.
You seem to be saying that if you tell someone that you’re armed and willing to use the weapon, and they persist in doing something nonviolent, like walking toward that person, that the weapon holder can infer violent intent and act in self-defense.
Seriously, am I misunderstanding you somehow? Because I’d boil that down to “If someone doesn’t obey me, I can cause them harm.” YMMV. But I would like your views on my longer summary, I’d like to hear a clarification.
Furthermore, I’m confident a jury would actually uphold the law, not Yosemite Sam-like justice.
But surely he doesn’t have to wait until four angry men start beating him before he can cite self defense? That would be a bit…foolish?
Warning them to stay off his property under threat of a gun, seems mostly appropriate to me given that they were angry, and had previously acted “wrongly” (threateningly?) by “spying” on him with a drone.
(yes, the “spying” and the “wrong” are matters for debate and the courts - as things stood at the time though, in his mind, that is what was going on - and it doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable to me)
So let’s remove ourselves from the facts of this particular incident, and change the circumstances slightly.
A man is woken up at 4:30am with pounding on his front door. He’s convinced that the person is crazed and trying to break in. He grabs a baseball bat, and then realizes that the frantic pounding indicates that this person is going to stop at nothing to invade his home. He then picks up a shotgun, and believing he had no choice, fires through a screen door, hitting the person causing the disturbance in the dead of night.
Would you think this is self defense? Do you think a jury would sympathize with the homeowner who was shocked and startled by this near invasion, and find him not guilty?
That would be one indicator, yes. If, as I mentioned, and you left out, they were angry at me, I would not at that point shoot, but it would be closer. If three angry men confronted me over the destruction of their drone, I might be a might puzzled over if they intended to settle this with words (which come over just fine over an invisible property line, thank you) or with fists - which they won’t use, if they don’t cross that line.
Now, if they did cross that line, would I have felt he was justified in shooting? Probably not, but they would indeed be running low on chances. I’d hope he’d make for the door (I’m from California, and the threshold, if you will, is the threshold). Being armed, sadly, has the chance to escalate the situation, but, it also has the chance to make it remain just words.
Would you have been happier if he had just told them castle doctrine in Kentucky, and speculated about whether he might have a gun?
You are. 1. I am not comfortable with the characterization of his having a fire arm as a “threat”. It might simply have been a statement. I have heard nothing that indicates he was itching to use it: merely that he was willing to. 2. I obviously don’t think that disobedience means someone has the right to shoot someone. I mean, “pass the salt” “no” “bam bam bam” isn’t going to fly.
However, the situation ought to be taken as a whole: We are looking at three angry men. This can remain talk talk or not. He has given them a clear choice. They have what they came for (he shot it. True story. Conversation is over). They can, if they are unsatisfied with his “no…I’m not willing to pay for it” tooodle off and call the cops. Or a lawyer. However, if they give further sign of aggression, (say, insisting on coming into his yard - property rights being a thing, and one they seem a bit fuzzy one) then he will meet them with aggression.
Do I believe he’s justified at that point? As I said, he’s getting a wee bit closer, but…no. Does he have the right and the privilege to let them know that if they wish to get belligerent, he can, too, despite it being three on one? Yeah…I’m going go with “yeah”
I’m not sure if that still boils down to “if someone disobeys you, you can shoot them” for you. I hope it doesn’t, because the “disobedience” part isn’t important. I mean, if I tell someone “if you chew your ice again, I’ll shoot you”, it doesn’t matter to me that they disobeyed (because, still wrong). If I fail to tell an uninvited guest if they don’t leave my bedroom at night, I might still have the option (Canadian. Don’t own a gun. Not a fan, really. Just a hypothetical).
However, if there is a series of moves (say, belligerent, hostile, three to one odds) and they continue to pursue questionable action (say, continuing to be hostile - that’s a damn good time to disengage) then…well…still not in shooting territory, but close.
Obviously they convicted, or you wouldn’t bring it up.
There is nothing analogous in the situation. The person was not warned ( a big difference). The person was alone (according to your summation. ). The person who died did not escalate the situation after being told the consequences of doing so ( as thankfully the three creepers didn’t). The shooter disengaged, safe behind walks when the person showed up, and returned: something the homeowner and father would not have been able to do.
The creepers could have called a cop about the drone destruction. They could have called a lawyer. They decided to confront a man, three on one, and settle it.
Well, I really don’t know what to say about one angry individual on your property. How angry and how much of a threat is a very subjective standard. I can really see that judgement call going both ways. It really depends on the particulars I guess. Of course, I could be completely wrong, both legally and in common sense, that it takes more than angry language to constitute a threat. But, body language and tone of voice and the words used can indicate hostility.
I really don’t know what to say.
One thing I can say, I think having 4 individuals come onto your property is substantially different than a single individual.
By this standard these three (nerds? creeps? hobbyists? who knows?) individuals proved that they were of no threat that justified a menacing them with fatal force.
The individual who destroyed the drone threatened (in Kentucky statute legal phrasing “menaced”) the three individuals whose property he had destroyed with potentially fatal force after having performed an illegal act that resulted in their toy’s destruction. They had not, did not, do anything more than express being upset he destroyed their expensive toy.
You cannot use “they disobeyed my order to them despite my threat of using fatal force against them” as justification for having threatened them with fatal force.
In this case the individuals who had an arguable legal justification for the use of fatal force were the three who had their property shot down by an armed man in a suburban neighborhood and who was now threatening to shoot them with a 40 mm Glock. This in a time when we know of people who go into movie theaters just to kill strangers.
As to even Robert163’s expanded hypothetical of 4 obviously upset individuals coming onto across your sidewalk … does not equal imminent fear of death or great bodily harm. Bryan, you wanted more of the fact-free hypothetical debate. Why not engaging with my hypotheticals proposed?
There is nothing about this story to indicate they were creepers. Their telemetry shows them much higher than the home owner says, they claim to have been shooting a house nearby (with permission) and their telemetry backs it up. The type of drone they were using (DJI Phantom 2) has a wide angle lens, even if the drone was hovering directly above the girls window (which it wasn’t from the telemetry), it would not get a good shot due to the wide angle lens.
The home owner was a paranoid wing nut and I hope he gets charged appropriately.
No, I don’t. Well, the guy may have thought he was acting in self defense, but I think he acted recklessly. He never spoke to the guy at his door, who may have had some desperate medical need or something.
The law was the same: you don’t have a right to use deadly force if you aren’t actually faced with deadly force yourself. But the second scenario also illustrates that just because someone is agitated and on your land, you don’t have a right to kill in self defense. Which is basically what the homeowner was threatening: he didn’t say, “If you attack me, there will be another shooting.” He threatened to shoot on the basis of someone stepping on his lawn.
Why couldn’t the homeowner have called the police or a lawyer about the drone and its alleged flight path at 10 feet of altitude?
He was indeed convicted of second degree murder. The victim had been in a rather serious car accident and was apparently disoriented, as well as having used alcohol and marijuana that night.
And can I just add that a 40mm Glock is a hell of a big gun?
If things were different, things would be different. It doesn’t matter how many strawmen you create, the lone home owner did not shoot anyone, and did not threaten to shoot anyone.
Except for a few internet yahoos inventing the claim that the lone home owner said he was going to murder/kill/wound the 4 angry men, there is no evidence that the lone home owner even drew his firearm. The lone home owner said there’s going to be another shooting. “Another shooting” could mean he intended to fire a warning shot. The mere presence of the open-carried firearm de-escalated what could have been a physical confrontation. The 4 angry men wisely decided to wait for the cops instead of choosing to trespass.
*Minutes later, a car full of four men that he didn’t recognize rolled up, “looking for a fight.”
“Are you the son of a bitch that shot my drone?” one said, according to Merideth.
His terse reply to the men, while wearing a 10mm Glock holstered on his hip: “If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there’s going to be another shooting.”
The men backed down, retreated to their car, and waited for the police to arrive.*
“Are you the son of a bitch that shot my drone?” said one angry man?
“If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there’s going to be another shooting”, said the lone home owner who was being confronted by 4 angry men.
I somehow doubt the guy had a 40mm handgun. Probably just ignant enough to mistake .40 caliber (which is 10mm) with 40mm. 4 centimeters wide is not a bullet any more, it’s ashelland you’re not shooting that out of a handgun without dislocating your *everything *:).
