Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The death was completely avoidable by the simple act on the part of the thief to not steal.
No one but anti-gun nuts made that argument. They do it out of stupidity or malice.Where in the US is simple trespassing a crime for which the legal punishment is the death penalty? Please cite the exact statute.
Malice.
IT's another 'gotcha' by the fascist gun grabbing retards trying to illustrate their claim about how dangerous guns are, but it actually tells most people what loons the gun grabbers are instead.
If I hear someone in my garage at night and they are hiding and wont come out into plain sight I have to make a decision based on what I know.
1) Why is this person here if not to do me harm? Why would I think it is some jack ass trying to prank me? Why would/should I risk my life and my families life on the assumption that the hiding person is NOT trying to do me harm?
2) Why wont this person give up and come out? This makes me even more convinced of the strong likelihood they intend harm.
3) Are they near objects that can be used as weapons? Is this person within 20 feet of me and could rush me and knock me out? Most garages are small enough that 20 feet is likely, and they could have taken a tool from the tool bench like a hammer or nail gun to use as a weapon.
4) Do they have any plausible right to be in my garage in the middle of the night?
Given those details I would shoot at the person if they did not come out and do exactly as I tell them to.
They have no right to put me in that situation and if they don't comply they will wish they did.
The death was completely avoidable by the simple act on the part of the thief to not steal.
citizens don't get to be judge and jury and the legal penalty for theft is not death.
How did the home owner provoke or instigate the intrusion?
There is no 'reasonable' belief in this situation of death or bodily harm. All the homeowner had to do was lock the door between the garage and the house and call the police. He's going to spend a long, long time in prison. He lives in a state with the Castle Doctrine: use of deadly force is considered a last resort. This was not a last resort situation.
i don't disagree as i haven't even read the story.
you'd think a guy with a gun could just lock his door and call the police...
You obviously don't have much of an idea of what can happen in these situations, one outcome of which is the hiding person is a criminal and can break into the door you lock in seconds and come at you. Most criminals know that a great many people don't have the nerve to pull the trigger and if they are high they might very well take the chance to rush you.
The home owner in this case did not know that the person hiding was a pranking student.
Why would that idea even come to mind?
The death was completely avoidable by the simple act on the part of the thief to not steal.
Or to just speak up and say who he is and that he was just playing a joke, then step into the light with his hands up.
The lbitards really think that they can build a 100% perfectly safe society where even the stupidest moron can do the most dangerous things and no one gets hurt.
Meanwhile thousands upon thousands suffer the effects of these stupid ideas till they can get the laws reverted to normal.
Nothing to see here, just Darwin cleaning out the gene pool of retards.
You don't prank sneaking into strangers garages in the middle of the fucking night.
What a stupid shit, and it is no wonder that a cretin like you would sympathize with this little fucktard, Esmerelda.
why are you calling HER a 'cretin' for having a heart about an unnecessary death?
you sound like a blood thirsty cretin yourself.
That is your stupid ass opinion that the homeowner had to put his life and family at risk rather than use deadly force, and yes that makes you a cretin too.
Nobody wants to kill anyone here but no one has to risk their own life because of someone else being too stupid to breath right.
You may not deserve it, but you are risking it. And the risk is all on the trespasser, because you are TRESSPASSING.
In the US, the legal penalty for trespassing is not death. Why are you folks so anxious to murder people?
Look! Self defense is a basic human instinct. If you enter my home in the middle of the night without my permission, I can only guess about your intentions.
Are you more apt to redecorate my living room, or rape my wife?
Damn! I can't be sure, but I am prepared for the later.
I have thwarted a rape attempt against my first wife in my home with a shotgun and an armed robbery and likely stabbing against myself with a revolver. Thankfully, I didn't need to take a life in either case, but I would have been justified.
No one is anxious to murder people. Murder is a crime. Self defense is not.
You don't understand the laws or what the words trespassing or murder means. You are either lying or stunningly ill informed.
Where in the US is simple trespassing a crime for which the legal punishment is the death penalty? Please cite the exact statute.
You just don't get it! This kid was not shot as punishment for trespassing. He was shot to prevent him from harming the home's occupants and removing its contents. The homeowner could not possibly know his intentions beyond entering the home. He prudently assumed the worst.
How did the home owner provoke or instigate the intrusion?
C'mon Ernie - we did this last night in post 202 and the text of the criminal complaint in post 207. It's the basis of the charge.
Link to 202
The castle lord who has fallen victim a couple times in the past and is reasonably in fear for his safety. The one who wants to put an end to the all too frequent invasions.i don't disagree as i haven't even read the story.
you'd think a guy with a gun could just lock his door and call the police...
You obviously don't have much of an idea of what can happen in these situations, one outcome of which is the hiding person is a criminal and can break into the door you lock in seconds and come at you. Most criminals know that a great many people don't have the nerve to pull the trigger and if they are high they might very well take the chance to rush you.
The home owner in this case did not know that the person hiding was a pranking student.
Why would that idea even come to mind?
True, the homeowner has no control over who decides to take his bait and walk in. It could indeed attract someone with ill intent.
So again, why would you set up that situation and put your girlfriend and child in potential danger in the first place? What kind of castle lord leaves his drawbridge down over the moat with a chest of gold visible on the other side, with his wench and his heir sitting in harm's way?
In the US, the legal penalty for trespassing is not death. Why are you folks so anxious to murder people?
Look! Self defense is a basic human instinct. If you enter my home in the middle of the night without my permission, I can only guess about your intentions.
Are you more apt to redecorate my living room, or rape my wife?
Damn! I can't be sure, but I am prepared for the later.
I have thwarted a rape attempt against my first wife in my home with a shotgun and an armed robbery and likely stabbing against myself with a revolver. Thankfully, I didn't need to take a life in either case, but I would have been justified.
No one is anxious to murder people. Murder is a crime. Self defense is not.
Then you did it right. And good on ya.
And I'm sure from what we know about your ethics that you also didn't set those situations up and lie in wait for a week so that you could trap them either.
Furthermore, going by the descriptions we have, your two incidents were far more threatening than this German kid, yet you settled yours without death and a kid who walked into a garage is blown away. What do you think that tells us?
Who took the bait? Was he forced to enter the garage by some unseen hand? Did he know that what he was doing was against the law? WHY did he enter someone else's home without permission?Where in the US is simple trespassing a crime for which the legal punishment is the death penalty? Please cite the exact statute.
You just don't get it! This kid was not shot as punishment for trespassing. He was shot to prevent him from harming the home's occupants and removing its contents. The homeowner could not possibly know his intentions beyond entering the home. He prudently assumed the worst.
-- No, not according to what he told his hairdresser a week before. Going by that, we can say the kid was shot because a trap was set and this happened to be the kid who took the bait. Hell, he even announced what he was going to do a week before.
I'm not sure how you get a situation foisted on you that you just have to decide on the spur of the moment how it should be handled ----- when you already bragged in detail what that decision was going to be a week before the event.
Which also raises the question -- how vulnerable was this house to burglaries really, if they set a trap and had to sit and wait a whole week before anyone took the bait?
Who took the bait? Was he forced to enter the garage by some unseen hand? Did he know that what he was doing was against the law? WHY did he enter someone else's home without permission?You just don't get it! This kid was not shot as punishment for trespassing. He was shot to prevent him from harming the home's occupants and removing its contents. The homeowner could not possibly know his intentions beyond entering the home. He prudently assumed the worst.
-- No, not according to what he told his hairdresser a week before. Going by that, we can say the kid was shot because a trap was set and this happened to be the kid who took the bait. Hell, he even announced what he was going to do a week before.
I'm not sure how you get a situation foisted on you that you just have to decide on the spur of the moment how it should be handled ----- when you already bragged in detail what that decision was going to be a week before the event.
Which also raises the question -- how vulnerable was this house to burglaries really, if they set a trap and had to sit and wait a whole week before anyone took the bait?
You've been thoroughly thumped, Ernie. It's time to retreat with what little dignity you have left. 
You really don't have a clue of the irony of talking about the dignity of other posters, do you? Oh, and getting thumped too.Who took the bait? Was he forced to enter the garage by some unseen hand? Did he know that what he was doing was against the law? WHY did he enter someone else's home without permission?-- No, not according to what he told his hairdresser a week before. Going by that, we can say the kid was shot because a trap was set and this happened to be the kid who took the bait. Hell, he even announced what he was going to do a week before.
I'm not sure how you get a situation foisted on you that you just have to decide on the spur of the moment how it should be handled ----- when you already bragged in detail what that decision was going to be a week before the event.
Which also raises the question -- how vulnerable was this house to burglaries really, if they set a trap and had to sit and wait a whole week before anyone took the bait?
Many states have enacted so-called stand your ground laws that remove the duty to retreat before using force in self-defense. Florida passed the first such law in 2005, generally allowing people to stand their ground instead of retreating if they reasonably believe doing so will "prevent death or great bodily harm."
Other states followed with laws specifically affirming one's right to defend themselves, even outside of their homes and with deadly force if necessary. The wording of each state's laws will vary, but typically require you to have the right to be at a location. State self-defense laws may also overlap, but generally fall into three general categories:
Stand Your Ground: No duty to retreat from the situation before resorting to deadly force; not limited to your property (home, office, etc.).
Castle Doctrine: Limited to real property, such as your home, yard, or private office; no duty to retreat (use of deadly force against intruders is legal in most situations); some states, like Missouri and Ohio, even include personal vehicles.
Duty to Retreat: Must retreat from the situation if you feel threatened (use of deadly force is considered a last resort); may not use deadly force if you are safely inside your home.
Here are the states that have passed stand your ground laws:
States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw
States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw
Many states have enacted so-called stand your ground laws that remove the duty to retreat before using force in self-defense. Florida passed the first such law in 2005, generally allowing people to stand their ground instead of retreating if they reasonably believe doing so will "prevent death or great bodily harm."
Other states followed with laws specifically affirming one's right to defend themselves, even outside of their homes and with deadly force if necessary. The wording of each state's laws will vary, but typically require you to have the right to be at a location. State self-defense laws may also overlap, but generally fall into three general categories:
Stand Your Ground: No duty to retreat from the situation before resorting to deadly force; not limited to your property (home, office, etc.).
Castle Doctrine: Limited to real property, such as your home, yard, or private office; no duty to retreat (use of deadly force against intruders is legal in most situations); some states, like Missouri and Ohio, even include personal vehicles.
Duty to Retreat: Must retreat from the situation if you feel threatened (use of deadly force is considered a last resort); may not use deadly force if you are safely inside your home.
Here are the states that have passed stand your ground laws:
States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw
States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw
Yeah yeah you hate Zimmerman we get it. Stand your ground had nothing to do with this.
Yoshihiro Hattori...was a Japanese exchange student residing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States, at the time of his death. Hattori was on his way to a Halloween party and went to the wrong house by accident. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, shot and killed Hattori, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. The controversial homicide, and Peairs's subsequent acquittal in the state court of Louisiana, received worldwide attention.
Fatal incident
Two months into his stay in the United States, he received an invitation, along with Webb Haymaker, his homestay brother, to a Halloween party organized for Japanese exchange students on October 17, 1992. Hattori went dressed in a tuxedo in imitation of John Travolta from Saturday Night Fever. Upon their arrival in the quiet working-class neighborhood where the party was held, the boys mistook the Peairses' residence for their intended destination due to the similarity of the address and the Halloween decorations on the outside of the house, and proceeded to step out of their car and walk to the front door.
Hattori and Haymaker rang the front doorbell but, seemingly receiving no response, began to walk back to their car. Meanwhile, inside the house, their arrival had not gone unnoticed. Bonnie Peairs had peered out the side door and saw them. Mrs. Peairs, startled, retreated inside, locked the door, and said to her husband, "Rodney, get your gun." Hattori and Haymaker were walking to their car when the carport door was opened by Mr. Peairs. He was armed with a loaded and cocked .44 magnum revolver. He pointed it at Hattori, and yelled "Freeze." Simultaneously, Hattori, stepped back towards the house, saying "We're here for the party." Haymaker, seeing the weapon, shouted after Hattori, but Peairs fired his weapon at point blank range at Hattori, hitting him in the chest, and then ran back inside. Haymaker rushed to Hattori, badly wounded and lying where he fell, on his back. Haymaker ran to the home next door to the Peairses' house for help. Neither Mr. Peairs nor his wife came out of their house until the police arrived, about 40 minutes after the shooting. Mrs. Peairs shouted to a neighbor to "go away" when the neighbor called for help. One of the Peairses' children later told police that her mother asked, "Why did you shoot him?"
The shot had pierced the upper and lower lobes of Hattori's left lung, and exited through the area of the seventh rib; he died in the ambulance minutes later, from loss of blood.
The criminal trial of Rodney Peairs
Initially, the local police quickly questioned and released Mr. Peairs, and declined to charge him with any crime. They felt that "Peairs had been within his rights in shooting the trespasser." Only after the governor of Louisiana and the New Orleans Japanese consul general protested, was Mr. Pearis charged with manslaughter. His defense was his claim that Hattori had an "extremely unusual manner of moving" that any reasonable person would find "scary", and emphasis on Mr. Peairs as an "average Joe", a man just like the jury members' neighbors, a man who "liked sugar in his grits".
At the trial, Mr. Peairs testified about the moment just prior to the shooting: "It was a person, coming from behind the car, moving real fast. At that point, I pointed the gun and hollered, 'Freeze!' The person kept coming toward me, moving very erratically. At that time, I hollered for him to stop. He didn't; he kept moving forward. I remember him laughing. I was scared to death. This person was not gonna stop, he was gonna do harm to me." Mr. Peairs testified that he shot Hattori once in the chest when the youth was about five feet away. "I had no choice," he said. "I want Yoshi's parents to understand that I'm sorry for everything."
District Attorney Doug Moreau concentrated on establishing that it had not been reasonable for Mr. Peairs, a 6-foot-2, well-armed man, to be so fearful of a polite, friendly, unarmed, 130-pound boy, who rang the doorbell, even if he walked toward him unexpectedly in the driveway, and that Peairs was not justified in using deadly force. Moreau stated, "It started with the ringing of the doorbell. No masks, no disguises. People ringing doorbells are not attempting to make unlawful entry. They didn't walk to the back yard, they didn't start peeking in the windows."
"You were safe and secure, weren't you?" Moreau asked Mr. Peairs during his appearance before the grand jury. "But you didn't call the police, did you?"
"No sir." Peairs said.
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the front door?"
"No sir."
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the carport door?"
"No sir."
"And you were standing right there at the door, weren't you - with a big gun?"
Peairs nodded.
"I know you're sorry you killed him. You are sorry, aren't you?"
"Yes sir."
"But you did kill him, didn't you?"
"Yes sir."
Mr. Peairs testified in a flat, toneless drawl, breaking into tears several times. A police detective testified that Peairs had said to him, "Boy, I messed up; I made a mistake."
The defense argued that Mr. Peairs was in large part reacting reasonably to his wife's panic. Mrs. Peairs testified for an hour describing the incident, during which she also broke into tears several times. "He was coming real fast, and it just clicked in my mind that he was going to hurt us. I slammed the door and locked it. I took two steps into the living room, where Rod could see me and I could see him. I told him to get the gun." Mr. Peairs did not hesitate or question her, but instead went to retrieve a handgun with a laser sight that was stored in a suitcase in the bedroom, which he said "was the easiest, most accessible gun to me."
"There was no thinking involved. I wish I could have thought. If I could have just thought," Mrs. Peairs said.
The trial lasted seven days. After the jurors deliberated for three and a quarter hours, Mr. Peairs was acquitted.
The civil trial
In a later civil action, however, the court found Mr. Peairs liable to Hattori's parents for $650,000 in damages, which they used to establish two charitable funds in their son's name; one to fund U.S. high school students wishing to visit Japan, and one to fund organizations that lobby for gun control. The lawyers for Hattori's parents argued that the Peairses had behaved unreasonably: Bonnie Peairs overreacted to the presence of two teens outside her house; the Peairses behaved unreasonably by not communicating with each other to convey what exactly the threat was; they had not taken the best path to safety—remaining inside the house and calling police; they had erred in taking offensive action rather than defensive action; and Rodney Peairs had used his firearm too quickly, without assessing the situation, using a warning shot, or shooting to wound. Furthermore, the much larger Peairs could likely very easily have subdued the short, slightly built teen. Contrary to Mr. Peairs' claim that Hattori was moving strangely and quickly towards him, forensic evidence demonstrates that Hattori was moving slowly, or not at all, and his arms were away from his body, indicating he was no threat. Overall, a far greater show of force was used than was appropriate. Out of the total compensation, only $100,000 has been paid by an insurance company.
Afterwards
After the trial, Peairs told the press that he would never again own a gun.
The Japanese public were shocked not only by the killing, but by Peairs's acquittal. Shortly after the Hattori case, a Japanese exchange student, Takuma Ito, and a Japanese-American student, Go Matsura, were killed in a carjacking in San Pedro, California, and another Japanese exchange student, Masakazu Kuriyama, was shot in Concord, California. Many Japanese reacted to these deaths as being similar symptoms of a sick society; TV Asahi commentator Takashi Wada put the feelings into words by asking, "But now, which society is more mature? The idea that you protect people by shooting guns is barbaric."
One million Americans and 1.65 million Japanese signed a petition urging stronger gun controls in the US; the petition was presented to Ambassador Walter Mondale on November 22, 1993, who delivered it to President Bill Clinton. Shortly thereafter, the Brady Bill was passed, and on December 3, 1993, Mondale presented Hattori's parents with a copy.
Suspicions of implicit racism in the acquittal of Rodney Peairs further gained traction when, shortly afterwards, a homeowner named Todd Vriesenga, inside his house in Grand Haven, Michigan, similarly shot and killed a 17-year-old named Adam Provencal through the front door. Vriesenga received a 16- to 24-month term for "reckless use of a firearm resulting in death", causing both Japanese and Asian-American advocacy groups to speculate on whether the difference between Vriesenga's conviction and Peairs's acquittal was related to the race of the victims. Other groups publicly stated that Vriesenga should have been convicted of the more severe charge of felony manslaughter.
Shortly afterwards was the similar case of Andrew de Vries, from Aberdeen in Scotland, who got lost on 7 January 1994 after drinking with American friends in Houston, Texas. He knocked on one door asking for directions, and was shot by the householder through the closed door of the house. The householder, Jeffrey Agee, was not indicted, and later settled for an undisclosed sum a substantial claim by Mr. de Vries's widow Alison. Mr. de Vries's mother complained to the press of a lack of support from the UK Government, saying "[The Prime Minister, Mr. Major] doesn't want to rock the boat when it comes to the United States. People should be aware that if they become innocent victims of crime in Texas they cannot expect help from the Government, the Foreign Office or the British Consulate." The de Vries family's Member of Parliament, John McAllion, criticised the investigation by the authorities in Houston, saying that there were "many inconsistencies, indeed blatant lies," in the official version of the events.
In popular culture
The shooting incident was fictionalized on the television show Homicide: Life on the Street, wherein the cousin of one of the detectives shoots a Turkish exchange student who mistakenly goes to the wrong house on Halloween. Unlike in the Hattori incident, the fictionalized version involves the student, dressed as Gene Simmons from the band Kiss acting strangely, and even aggressively towards the shooter. The fictional incident was portrayed as being motivated by racism.
The song "Crackdown" from Grant Lee Buffalo's album Copperopolis is about this incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori
