Uh . . . what happened to Castle Doctrine?

Uh . . . what happened to Castle Doctrine?

>Eugene Matthews, 83, has been charged with murder
>for shooting a woman who went on his property looking for her dog

This 83 year old, with little time left in this world, is facing 2nd degree murder charges. There's no justice here. Why are they hounding on this poor old man?

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38586215

I think that just because they are able to twist this story up into calling him "evil" and "despicable", they can use it as a message against gun rights. After all, it is on the BBC. British Broadcasting Channel. Brits suck at guns. i hear they dont have gun.s they just have knifes?

Other urls found in this thread:

nbc-2.com/story/23627071/man-guilty-of-killing-meat-salesman-gets-life-sentence
liveleak.com/view?i=ee7_1379717664
youtu.be/_iPs3MglGlI
youtube.com/watch?v=tEPd98CbbMk
twitter.com/AnonBabble

castle doctrine doesn't apply to every trespasser

wot

>Kenneth Roop will spend the rest of his life in prison for killing a door-to-door food salesman in Cape Coral.

nbc-2.com/story/23627071/man-guilty-of-killing-meat-salesman-gets-life-sentence

Another Floridan. Florida next for gun control laws? Castle Doctrine. Period. This man was on his property as well. Kinda scary, do you think?

Should apply to this one.

I also shouldn't have to point out that these two men are white Floridans. You don't see this much media attention on black, African American negroid nigger niggas of negroid affliction.

He's an idiot. Why not simply talk to the fucking person to see why they are there? It's meant to defend your home, not firing on those who are looking around

This piece of shit left a pooch homeless. Hope he slips on the soap in prison and becomes a quadriplegic bath at for 200 pound inmates.

>food salesmen
So he shot on an innocent man. Shut up faggot. Bait like this hurts the site.

>trespass
>get shot
>property owner goes to prison
Fuck this country

>Why not simply talk to the fucking person to see why they are there
H-hey Jamal, w-what do you n-need from my shed?
*gets machete stuck in skull*

He did not know they were "looking around". Should one ask every possible trespasser if they are looking for a puppy or about to rob their home? It's simply not worth taking that risk, especially in some areas. If someone's trespassing, Castle Doctrine says you have the right to shoot.

>left a pooch homeless

How would he have known that? If she broke into his window thinking her dog was inside, should he have taken caution and used discretion and came to the conclusion that she was no threat? Or, would he immediately be panicking because someone is breaking into his home? It's reasonable to shoot.

The same reasoning applies above. These men shot people that were on their property without permission.

Dunno.
I remember these kids that went to knock the door of an old fella on Hallowing and he killed them by shotting through the door.

If I recall correctly, he got it away with it.

And the other was an old couple that lived alone. a couple of robbers breaking in their garden but the old man chased them.

The woman fell on the ground and told the old man to not shot her because she was pregnant (she was unnarmed). He shot her right in the head and also didnt respond for murder.

Make no mistake, Im all forward with such doctrine. But I believe you can use in any case as long it wasnt a set up made by you.

Exactly. You are not always going to be able to have a conversation with the person trespassing.

"Hey, are you a cop?" -- I mean, it could be a no-knock warrant and you may live in a state of cowards. You don't want to be arrested for shooting cops, so make sure they're not cops!

"Are you black?" -- You don't want to commit a hate crime!

"Are you looking for your dog!" -- I mean most people breaking into your property are just looking for a dog!

"Are you going to murder/rape/rob me?" -- You should only ask this last.

I am pretty sure this is different.

Yeah some people are trigger happy.
One time I was visiting some people in this suburb and all the houses looked exactly the same, so I accidentally walked to the door of the wrong house. This guy almost beat me with a fucking metal bat, and who knows what he would have done if he had a gun. There are some crazy paranoid fucks out their.
Lesson? Don't go on someones property because they might shoot your ass.

trespassing is not a valid reason to shoot someone, though....

free to leave

Duh ... if you shoot somebody who's obviously not a threat to you, you are a murderous bastard and belong behind bars ... or better still at the end of a rope.

Like that farmer who shot a traveling salesman on his porch and then went and shot him in the head again.

Funny I think some people were knocking on my door last night looking for their dog too
Didn't answer because I don't answer the door to people I'm not expecting
Had my 9mm pointed at the door though just in case they were burglars casing the place

>family member goes to knock on door
>guy comes out shooting

It's not justifiable. If it is then I can shoot every individual that comes to knock on my door.

Maybe there' should more? Old man's had some issues with trespassers, finally got fed up, etc?

776.013Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1)A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c)The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or

1/2

(c)The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d)The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).
(4)A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)As used in this section, the term:
(a)“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c)“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

5 seconds in jewgle

>"He wasn't there to threaten anybody. He wasn't there to kill. He was there doing his job," Pirigyi said. "There was no reason for anybody to take my son's life."
HE WUZ A GUD BOI WUT U MEAN THERE WAS NO TRESPASSING SIGNS HOW HE SUPPOSE TO GET MONEY FO HE SKOOL CLOSE

Castle doctrine only applies if you are fearing for your life and someone is actively trying to enter your domicile. It doesn't apply for anyone who trespasses on your property.

Did anyone actually read the story? The woman's brother-in-law approached the house to knock on the door - that's obviously not trespassing - while she was waiting in the car with her mother. The crazy old fuck opened fire, somehow missed the guy standing on his porch, and killed the chick sitting in her car.

The bastard should fry.

Basically this, there's some more to it and every state does not use the castle doctrine. Some states use castle doctrine for dwelling and not vehicle, it depends. But you can't shoot someone for stepping on your property

>shoot nigger thug trespassing
>say you thought his phone was a knife/gun
>say you feared for your life
All it takes
Even better if you make them chimpout first

Elements that must be met for the defendant to be entitled to the affirmative defense of self defense:

1. There must be an actual or apparent threat of the use of deadly force

2. The threat must have been unlawful and immediate

3. The defender must have believed he was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm

4. The defendant has a duty to attempt to retreat to safety provided doing so does not further put himself in danger (this is where the castle doctrine comes in)

In jurisdictions with the castle doctrine, which are the lions share of the US, the fourth element need not be met. You have no legal obligation to retreat provided the threat has occurred in your curtilage or dwelling house.

Of course this applies to the US as other nations may differ greatly. Point is, it's would be hard for the defense to argue that a door to door salesman or a women looking for her dog are an actual or apparent threat. Even if they could prove that the defendant genuinely believed them to be so, they would be hardpressed to pass the double-pronged test which requires the belief to be reasonable to the average law abiding citizen.

This is incorrect. In most US jurisdictions you must also provide enough evidence to convince a jury that your belief was reasonable. This almost certainly requires proof that there was a weapon, or a very very convincing argument for why you perceived them to have one. It is certainly not a simple trial.

This shit has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine

He's just some crazy old shit who murdered sone people

Yes it is

This. We give the right to shoot but God help you if you don't do it right. Liberals thinks that we don't actively fuck people up legally for pulling their gun on the wrong person. Notice that cops never shoot for legs specifically for reasons like this. If it didn't hit the target then its going to hit SOME thing

It is if you put signs up and they trespass anyway
At least in my state it is

As long as you plead the 5th and you're the only one alive to tell the story then it works

Dead men tell no tales

>If she broke into his window thinking her dog was inside

Officials say that Ms Rawson and her daughter waited in their car as her brother-in-law knocked on Mr Matthew's door to ask if he had seen their dog.

Police say Mr Matthews opened his door and started shooting at the family.

As she sat in the car, Ms Rawson was struck by a bullet that went through the windscreen.

sounds like breaking and entering alright, sitting in a car outside his property

violate le nap get le fucked

"What are you doing here?"

Also it was a woman. Who fears for their life around a woman?

What's your problem you not like dogs no fucking justice for dogs dog lives matter

Nowadays?
Looking at their general direction is rape.

Is this the new ancap meme?
killing people for knocking on your door?
you faggots are morons and don't deserve to own guns.

Fuck off Paco and build our wall already

>shooting whoever you want just because they knock on your door
Relative visits
>BAHM
UPS delivers a parcel
>BAHM
Yeah, fuck that shit.

castle doctrine is sensitive as fuck, there are limitations. only if you can prove the tresspasser is doing harm to you then you may practice it.

anyone can abuse it if its straightforward get off my lawn rule

for example, you can invite your friends to your house and kill them for getting in your property.

>Who fears for their life around a woman?
If she was black I could see a likely hood that she had 3-5 nigger bucks with guns hidden out of sight

Nah, gotta agree with Paco here on this one instance. That's just fucking stupid.

a woman can shoot you just as much as a man can
who's to say they aren't knocking to lure you out, put a bullet in your head and loot your house

((((searching for her dog)))))

Daily reminder.

If they started trying to break into the house, then I would be on his side. But you can't shoot someone for simply knocking on the door.

who's to say im not in your closet, lubing up a massive dragon dildo for you right now

0/10 or a dumbass.

If you read my other post I said that this old basterd deserves what he got

I'm just telling Paco to fuck off :^)

Im quite sure castle doctrine wasn't invented for the purpose of killing anyone who comes up to your door

You are fucking retarded. Castle Doctrine does not say you can just start attacking people. Here's the definition of what you can do in Florida:

"Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm."

He has to presume a fear of death or great bodily harm. You can't presume that when someone just knocks on your door.

This. Technically the dog violated the NAP though, and it could be argued that she didn't consent to the bullet

It seems like he started firing wildly like a fucking moron. People like this ruin guns for others. He hit the lady sitting in the car, not even the the brother who knocked at the door... that means he's retarded and doesn't even use any rules of gun safety whatsoever.

>spend decades getting /fit/
>walk around like a big man with your chest out
>get shot dead by an illegal manlet beaner because you thought your muscle was the answer to a bit of shit talking

liveleak.com/view?i=ee7_1379717664

That leaves an awful lot up to the jury, my man. Not to mention there is a burden shift when putting forth an affirmative defense, or at least the prosecution will argue so. You do a defendant no favors by arguing self defense then pleading the 5th.

What happens if you shoot a cop trying to break in? I'm pretty sure that cops will have their lists for these kind of guys. Either you go to prison and the wardens fuck you over or a cop shoots you during a traffic stop

more proof that whites are the devil.

this

there has to be evidence submitted that could create a reasonable fear of an imminent threat. It's worth noting that imminent in this instance means just that: imminent. A dude in your yard with a baseball bat will not suffice in jurisdictions that requires imminence (which I believe are the majority, but I could be wrong and it be the minority).

yeah butter knives. nowhere is more cucked than the uk.

Yeah 2nd degree murder is a lot. They should do like involuntary manslaughter AT MOST

You need to read the definitions of these charges. 2nd degree murder states:

"Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life."

He meant to kill someone but didn't plan in advance and obviously had a lack of concern for human life since he was just spraying out the door.

Involuntary manslaughter is when you kill someone while committing another felony, like DUI.

This guy meant to kill whoever was at his door, but he didn't specifically plan to kill them in advance, thus the charge is the right charge to lay against him.

>Go talk to unknown invader
>Ayo old boy, what u looking at
>Get shot

It's wrong to assume a trespasser may have a gun or try to hurt you?

Why does everything about gun safety and self defense and trespassing make sense for government, but when it comes to civilians people like you will immediately cry "ask them questions first!" or "they're just there to steal your tv not kill you!"

If the government won't take any fucking chances then why should I? Neither me or the government in this scenario would be able to determine if the trespasser is armed or not. And.. most civilians do not have backup. Can't ask my paw and mee-maw to cover me, now can I?

Castle doctrine and self defense.

youtu.be/_iPs3MglGlI

>go to wrong address
>knock on door
>get shot
Castle Doctrine isn't an excuse to act like a retard with a gun

...

She was not allowed a reasonable amount of time to peacefully retreat. A 65 year old woman waiting in a car is not a threat great enough to justifiably invoke castle doctrine as a legal defense. I'm really surprised people are defending him. He carelessly killed an innocent woman.

While novel, this is a weak legal argument that would almost certainly end with a 2nd degree murder/criminal homicide charge. What point are you trying to make about the government anyway? Are there specific instances in which the government has gunned people down without reasonable apprehension that did not end in conviction? Got any sources?

A bunch of elderly folk drive up because they think their dog is on your property. You really think you can just fucking end their lives because they asked for help?

How does this work?

Could you shoot a police offer coming on your property? I don't understand how you would legally make a distinction between regular people and police offers in this case, or how it works in practice.

Hope he goes to jail and pays a hefty fine. People this dumb shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

>nbc-2.com/story/23627071/man-guilty-of-killing-meat-salesman-gets-life-sentence
Holy shit I live about 15 minutes from Cape Coral and used to do door-to-door work, fuck that.

are you mentally retarded?

You need to learn the laws, because if you leave open public access on your property, and don't even have any warning/private property signs. then you can't shoot someone who's not threatening you, especially if you don't give them warning to leave.

Wait, are you not allowedto shoot people who trespass on your property in Florida?

there was a guy that killed aor shot an unannounced warrant issuance...
dont remember what happened in that case.
>swat breaks in
>guy freaks out, shoots them

Anons can recall.

It's for like trespass into the home and they cause a threat or danger. OP is a faggot of course who thinks steping on someone's land is simple grounds for firing upon an innocent person.

OP= retard who has already been told this and no longer replies

It is not trespassing if you haven't given any indication of restricting access.

Castle Doctrine does not apply to outdoor property, and trespassing signs must be posted clearly and you must give trespassers warning and a chance to retreat.

We've never been allowed to shoot people just for walking on muh land.

Castle Doctrine applies to houses and cars because they are confined places with no better / safer place to retreat to. If the old lady had kicked in the front door, well, that would be a different story.

Admit you are wrong. You know you are wrong and jumped into an area you know nothing about. Reply to the thread and admit your a fucking moron

In both cases the homeowners shot people who knocked on their front door. Under castle doctrine, if someone is breaking into you're house, you have every right to defend yourself and your property with lethal force. Knocking on the front door to ask if someone has seen your dog is not breaking into your house and therefore does not trigger castle doctrine. Won't stop retards and leftists (but I repeat myself) from arguing that castle doctrine needs to be repealed.

>Won't stop retards and leftists (but I repeat myself) from arguing that castle doctrine needs to be repealed.

Suspend your confirmation bias. As long as it goes to trial, no one is going to call for it's repeal. In fact, it has been celebrated recently when police have been shot during a bad raid (re: wrong address, etc) and the home owners rightfully protected their property.

Old bitter faggots like this need to die anyway.

Castle law doesn't apply to old bitter faggots and autists like the person who made this thread.

RIP in pepperoni dog lady.

Guy just shoots someone? His life was not even in danger?
Fuck him.
Hang that SOB in public.

Fuck this guy too.
Hang him.

Listen here Hans, facts are for fags and commies. Which one are you?

It's like the US needs a handbook or manual to explain how the basic laws work in this country. Shit like Castle Doctrine, stand your ground, responsibilities of gun ownership, and trespass laws. I'm constantly amazing how stupid fuckers like this get it into their heads that property ownership gives them all sorts of inalienable rights not in the Constitution. Or that they have have the right to infringe on others because they disagree. Do they even teach Civics in high school anymore?

Then again, working in tech support has taught me American can't / won't read it anyway. Perhaps a series of catchy videos with music to entertain them while they're learning?

youtube.com/watch?v=tEPd98CbbMk

In order to use the Castle Doctrine in your favor, one has to prove that the trespasser showed intent to attack or harm the resident.
Randomly shooting some old lady looking for her dog doesnt count.

It's a person who knocked on his fucking door you actual sped. PLEASE kill yourself.

Knocking on the door is the first thing burglars do

Stop being an autist.

No. No it is not. Your just wrong.

I believe florida castle law applies to your home, not your lawn

The only things you should say are
*cocks shotgun*
Get the fuck off my property!

An innocent person at that point would be like "Im sorry, just looking for my dog" and noone gets shot.

This

A no knock raid is different. If 20 fully armed men burst into my house I would start plugging holes in them as well, and get away with it in court.
Shooting someone who is knocking on your door, missing, and killing a person in the car is completely different.

Is a fucking robot which is programmed to try and talk like a person typing these? Like what the fuck are you? An alien? An Indian pretending to be American? Like who or what the fuck even talks like this?

>"What are you doing here?"

No, this is not going to work with every single person trespassing on your property. Are they intimidating and acting nervous or fidgety? Get your gun out just in case. Apologize if there's really a wrongdoing and they really are looking for a pet, and give them a glass of soda pop for the trouble if you want to care about their feelings. But don't tell me that "What are you doing here?" is going to be safe.