Trespasser should have been allowed to argue self-defense in killing homeowner

[Rick Mason]

Trespasser should have been allowed to argue self-defense in killing homeowner

The castle doctrine says someone in their home, car or business has no duty to retreat from an attack or intruder, and presumes the castle owner's use of even deadly force is reasonable to prevent death or serious harm.
It seems contradictory that someone with a presumed privilege to shoot an intruder could ever be unlawfully interfering with that person. been allowed to argue self-defense in killing homeowner

Certainly an odd case and decision.

 

[HoughMade]

Why should he not be allowed to make an argument?

We're supposed to just assume everything?

Instruct the jury correctly and if they find no self-defense, there you go.

Oh, and never trust a media report about detailed legal matters. Never.

 

[eldirector]

Why should he not be allowed to make an argument?

We're supposed to just assume that everything happened as the homeowner claimed?

Well, the homeowner is dead, so.....

 

[HoughMade]

Well, the homeowner is dead, so.....

yes, corrected- still stands.

 

[printcraft]

Stupid **** like this is why ordinary people no longer have faith in the justice system.

 

[Alamo]

Having quickly read the appeals court decision, I still have a couple questions:

AJ., the one arguing self-defense here, says the castle doctrine justification for KM, the deceased homeowner, does not apply because KM was engaging in criminal activity by having child porn on his home computer. Thus AJ's attack could not be justified under the castle doctrine.

1. Was it an established fact that at that time was there in fact child porn on the computer? And if there was, was it established that KM put it there? Or did AJ, who said he spent 2.5 hours on KM's computer before being discovered, plant child porn on the computer? AJ's sisters and father testified that KM was a physical and sexual abuser and had been confronted about child porn before...but they are the accused's sisters and father. Not completely independent, perhaps.

2. AJ was committing a crime at the time he executed his "self-defense." Under Wisconsin law a person whose unlawful actions provokes another to attack him cannot plead self-defense unless he believes the attack will result in great bodily harm or death, and even then must exhaust all other means to escape or avoid great bodily injury or death before employing deadly force. As far as I read the appeals decision, I don't see this addressed. AJ was definitely committing a crime, he was armed, I think any home owner would find a person lurking in their home to be an unlawful provocation to attack. The appeals court decision indicates that KM (43yo vs AJ 35yo) was not armed, and was "naked from the waist up."

If KM really was a perv abuser, not sorry to see him go. But this is a weird one.


https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=268173

 

[ECS686]

This whole thing doesn't pass the sniff test to me. I'd say AJ got caught doing something worse than mere Trespassing and reacted. Unfortunately we won't hear the other side to the story.

But my question (And i didn't read all of it) If AJ was merely Trespassing how did AJ know what KM had or didn't have on a Computer?

 

[Alamo]

This whole thing doesn't pass the sniff test to me. I'd say AJ got caught doing something worse than mere Trespassing and reacted. Unfortunately we won't hear the other side to the story.

But my question (And i didn't read all of it) If AJ was merely Trespassing how did AJ know what KM had or didn't have on a Computer?

If you do read all of the opinion linked above, AJ and two of his sisters testified to a long history of physical abuse of them by KM, and AJ says KM sexually abused him (as a child, I believe). AJ said he had found child porn on KM's computer years ago, later reported it to police, who wouldn't pursue it because it was "stale." AJ says he told his father who allegedly confronted KM about child porn and KM had promised to remove it from his computer and get counselling.

As I said, if KM was a child molester and serial abuser, not sad that he's gone, but at least as far as the opinion goes it appears that all the evidence comes from the family of the guy on trial for murder, which seems compelling but not rock solid. And if AJ was in the process of commiting at least two crimes (trespassing/burglary, and accessing someone's computer without permission), then it would seem his claim to self-defense would be on shaky ground.

 

[ECS686]

If you do read all of the opinion linked above, AJ and two of his sisters testified to a long history of physical abuse of them by KM, and AJ says KM sexually abused him (as a child, I believe). AJ said he had found child porn on KM's computer years ago, later reported it to police, who wouldn't pursue it because it was "stale." AJ says he told his father who allegedly confronted KM about child porn and KM had promised to remove it from his computer and get counselling.

As I said, if KM was a child molester and serial abuser, not sad that he's gone, but at least as far as the opinion goes it appears that all the evidence comes from the family of the guy on trial for murder, which seems compelling but not rock solid. And if AJ was in the process of commiting at least two crimes (trespassing/burglary, and accessing someone's computer without permission), then it would seem his claim to self-defense would be on shaky ground.

Thats one thing I don't miss about working Municiple LE. It got tiring of listening To the story, For the story About the story. Multiply that by 2 or 3 people and its hard sometimes to figure out who needs to go to jail.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You realize Indiana just had a similar case not that long ago which reversed the conviction as the defense was not given self-defense instruction, right?

Gammons v. State of Indiana: Indiana Supreme Court reversed Attempted Murder conviction as trial court (Marion County) incorrectly failed to instruct jury on self defense as defendant failed to have license to carry. Indiana Supreme Cour held that just because one does not have license does NOT mean he could not act in self defense:

Indiana’s self-defense statute instructs that “a person is not justified in
using force if the person,” among other things, “is committing . . . a
crime.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2. But because “literal application” of that
statute can lead to absurd results, we have held that “there must be an
immediate causal connection between the crime and the confrontation.”
Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 393, 392 (Ind. 2001). Because the jury
instruction used here—that a crime and confrontation need only be
“related” to defeat self-defense—diluted this causal standard, and because
we can’t conclude that this instructional error was harmless, we reverse
and remand for a new trial..

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinio...8QeG3m7wnbQW-b1142IZ9rLOY69p4uWmjIZlEHt0UqZ3E