What Made you Smile/What Ticked you off Today?

[dsheinem]

Politics aside, can we agree that the girl was stupid for saying she didn't know the boy she snuck into her bed?

Yup.

[Jmustang1968]

Stand your ground applies in the home - especially in a case like this where the father claims to have shot him because he thought the teen was reaching for a gun.

Watch the video Luke posted. The home is treated differently.

heh. I just posed a follow up article to that last post - it isn't treated differently, it is just that Texas has extended the Castle Doctrine (Stand Your Ground) from the home (where it always existed there) to more places.

Either way, no matter the ethnicity of the intruder, in Texas you wont get in trouble for shooting him.

[Jmustang1968]

Politics aside, can we agree that the girl was stupid for saying she didn't know the boy she snuck into her bed?

Yeah, had she said dont or stop it is my boyfriend, then it is a much murkier situation. Would he still be considered an intruder? He obviously knew he didnt have permission from the father as he was hiding. But he was assumedly invited by the daughter.

[MrPopo]

Politics aside, can we agree that the girl was stupid for saying she didn't know the boy she snuck into her bed?

Yeah, had she said dont or stop it is my boyfriend, then it is a much murkier situation. Would he still be considered an intruder? He obviously knew he didnt have permission from the father as he was hiding. But he was assumedly invited by the daughter.

No no, you're missing the point. Girl sneaks boy into her bedroom. Dad asks who he is, and girl says she doesn't know him. Thus, girl is throwing him under the bus with her father by calling him a potential rapist. Even if dad is an avowed pacifist who doesn't even own steak knives for fear they might hurt someone that's a pretty shitty thing to do.

[Jmustang1968]

Politics aside, can we agree that the girl was stupid for saying she didn't know the boy she snuck into her bed?

Yeah, had she said dont or stop it is my boyfriend, then it is a much murkier situation. Would he still be considered an intruder? He obviously knew he didnt have permission from the father as he was hiding. But he was assumedly invited by the daughter.

No no, you're missing the point. Girl sneaks boy into her bedroom. Dad asks who he is, and girl says she doesn't know him. Thus, girl is throwing him under the bus with her father by calling him a potential rapist. Even if dad is an avowed pacifist who doesn't even own steak knives for fear they might hurt someone that's a pretty shitty thing to do.

I am not missing the point, I brought this up several posts ago. I asked is she then culpable for lying? She sees dad with gun and still endangers him instead of diffusing.

I just furthered the discussion by bringing up the what ifs.

[SirGawain]

I think the girl should be held liable for something to the same extent that yelling fire in a crowded theater can cause bodily harm. Like others have said, she knowingly endangered him, even to the point of bringing him in. Not to mention the guy was 17. He knew that if he was being snuck in by the daughter, he did not have permission to be there. The law goes by the homeowner, not their children. Even if she gave him permission, it means jack.

[Luke]

Without a doubt she panicked and tried to cover her own ass not thinking of the consequences. I'm assuming the boy made a b-line for the door to escape and was stopped as soon as he got to his feet.


Frown: I had to corral in my marketing committee to discuss our social media efforts, as they aren't cohesive. Anyway that has nothing to do about my frown. When I asked if everyone had a happy Saint Patrick's Day, only one person out of eight knew yesterday was Saint Patrick's Day and all he said was "Well, I don't drink so I didn't celebrate it".

Had to ask, "What makes you think you have to drink to celebrate?". People don't get it. They just don't get it.

[prfsnl_gmr]

The law goes by the homeowner, not their children. Even if she gave him permission, it means jack.

If he was invited into the home by someone who lives there (i.e., the daughter), then he is an invitee (and therefore entitled to much more protection than a trespasser). Whether the daughter's name is on the deed (or lease) is irrelevant to this inquiry. That said, whether the daughter actually invited him does not bear on the father's frame of mind at the time of the shooting. If the father had a genuine and reasonable belief that the boy was an intruder, that he presented a threat of grevious bodily harm to the father or his children, and that the use of deadly force was necessary to neutralize the threat, then he have a defense to a murder charge. Whether he avoids a conviction or indictment will depend on the father's credibility and the details of his story. If the DA does not believe the father, he will be indicted. Likewise, if the jury does not believe him, then he will be convicted.

In any event, the application of law to facts is not a mechanical process, and there is no way for any of us to know how this matter will be resolved. (Given the murkiness of the situation, however, I suspect that the father will plead to a lesser charge, such as manslaughter, and receive some jail time. It is also likely the boy's estate will sue the father for wrongful death, and that the civil litigation will settle out of court.)

[Jmustang1968]

The law goes by the homeowner, not their children. Even if she gave him permission, it means jack.

If he was invited into the home by someone who lives there (i.e., the daughter), then he is an invitee (and therefore entitled to much more protection than a trespasser). Whether the daughter's name is on the deed (or lease) is irrelevant to this inquiry. That said, whether the daughter actually invited him does not bear on the father's frame of mind at the time of the shooting. If the father had a genuine and reasonable belief that the boy was an intruder, that he presented a threat of grevious bodily harm to the father or his children, and that the use of deadly force was necessary to neutralize the threat, then he have a defense to a murder charge. Whether he avoids a conviction or indictment will depend on the father's credibility and the details of his story. If the DA does not believe the father, he will be indicted. Likewise, if the jury does not believe him, then he will be convicted.

In any event, the application of law to facts is not a mechanical process, and there is no way for any of us to know how this matter will be resolved. (Given the murkiness of the situation, however, I suspect that the father will plead to a lesser charge, such as manslaughter, and receive some jail time. It is also likely the boy's estate will sue the father for wrongful death, and that the civil litigation will settle out of court.)

Are you as familiar with Texas law on this? I suspect he will serve no jail time.

What about the fact he was hiding and thus knew he was unwelcome in the home?

[prfsnl_gmr]

Are you as familiar with Texas law on this? I suspect he will serve no jail time.

No. I am very familiar with criminal procedure, however, which is pretty much the same everywhere.

If the facts were "cleaner" (i.e., it was clear no one in the house knew him, there were signs of forcible entry, he was armed, etc.), then I might agree with you. This facts here are too messy, however, and DAs rarely allow someone to kill someone else without at least an indictment. Moreover, the indictment will likely be first- or second-degree murder, and a conviction on either charge carries a severe sentence. (In the case of first-degree murder, a conviction in Texas carries the death penalty.)

If the father is faced with either: (1) rolling the dice at trial and receiving either a not-guilty verdict or life imprisonment; or (2) pleading to manslaughter and spending just one or two years in jail, his choice - like the choice for most people - is pretty clear.

That said, I cannot predict the future, and whether the father is indicted will depend on the results of the police's investigation and the politics surrounding the slaying.

What about the fact he was hiding and thus knew he was unwelcome in the home?

Like all the other circumstances, this is just something for the DA to consider when deciding to proceed with an indictment and for the jury to consider when rendering its verdict.

That said...whether the boy - who is now dead - knew he was unwelcome in the home has no bearing on the father's justification for shooting him. (The reasonableness of the father's conduct - not the boy's conduct - will be at issue.) Moreover, the fact that the boy was hiding from the father tends to support a finding that he did not present a threat to the father or his family, and it raises serious questions as to whether the father acted reasonably or had a genuine belief that the boy was a threat.

If, for example, the boy had been hiding in a closet and the father: (1) pulled him out by the neck; (2) knocked him to his knees; and (3) shot him execution-style in the back of the head, there would be no question that the father had committed murder. (I am fairly confident that, even in Texas, the fact someone is trespassing on your personal property does not give you carte blanche to kill him.) The fact that the boy was hiding, if anything, shows that he was - in this case at least - right to be scared.