Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Geaux4it]

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.

Death of Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

America the beautiful, land of the free, home of the brave.

Most unfortunate indeed

-Geaux

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

A homeowner is not baiting a criminal by leaving his doors open or unlocked you stupid ass hole. You are blaming the criminals intended victim instead of putting it where it belongs; on the fucking criminal.

But we all know Pogo that you are a liar, a coward and a dullard, so I do not intend to attempt a discussion with you on this topic.

This is so plainly a righteous kill that only a fucking idiot would blame the homeowner here.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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;

America the beautiful, land of the free, home of the brave.

Most unfortunate indeed

-Geaux

Look, if you go to someone's house in the middle of the night and enter their garage or carport you need to be on your best behavior and make no sudden moves.

Too many robbers use an apparent friendliness to disarm the home owner by masking their true intentions till they can get in close enough to grab the gun, or if the owner is unarmed, to just knock them down or threaten them with a knife, machete, etc. The only defense the home owner has is to keep the intruder at a distance till things can be sorted out. This Japanese idiot needed to keep his distance.

How about some examples of why the owners should feel jumpy about people that appear on their property in the middle of the night?

Man gets life in prison sentence in home invasion case | Local News - KCCI Home

Prosecutors say evidence presented at a sentencing hearing in February showed that Patrie fatally shot Ken Gallmeyer while burglarizing his home outside Nashua.

Police: Shop owner struck repeatedly during armed robbery | Regional: Berks - Home
video:
Police: Shop owner struck repeatedly during armed robbery

Home Owner Shot During Robbery

The victim advised officers that he was leaving his home when he was confronted by a suspect armed with a handgun. The victim reached for the suspect’s weapon and the 2 began struggling. During the struggle the suspect fired 2 shots, one struck a wall and the other struck the victim. Even though he had just been shot the victim was able to overpower the suspect and disarm him. As he was attempting to exit his house he was confronted by a second armed suspect. This suspect ordered the victim to the ground where he then physically assaulted him and retrieved his partner’s weapon. Both suspects then fled the scene on foot.

Officers also spoke with the victim’s girlfriend and nephew who advised they were in a vehicle in the driveway during the robbery. While the initial victim was in the house the second suspect approached their vehicle and demanded their money. This suspect was also armed with a handgun. As they were turning over their property the suspect was distracted, possibly by the sound of the gunshots, and the nephew was able to flee from the vehicle. He was briefly chased by the second suspect and ended up at a local business where he was able to call 911. The girlfriend and her child were able to run to a neighbor’s house where she too called 911.

Police: Bloomfield Twp. family tied up during home invasion - Fox 2 News Headlines

Police in Bloomfield Township say two robbers walked into a house on the 3000 block of Manchester Court Wednesday night through an unlocked garage door and held six people at gunpoint. A man in his sixties, four women between the ages of 25 and 54 and a six-year-old girl were inside the house.

Home Invasion Robbery, security consultant, Chris McGoey, home invasion robbery expert

Home invaders know that they won't have to overcome alarm systems when the home is occupied or be worried about video cameras and silent alarms. Unlike robbing a retail store, home invaders expect privacy once inside your home and won’t have to deal with the police suddenly driving up or customers walking in. Once the offenders take control of a residence they can force the occupants to open safes, locate hidden valuables, supply keys to the family car, and PIN numbers to their ATM cards. Home invaders will try to increase their escape time by disabling the phones and sometimes will leave their victims bound or incapacitated. It is not unheard of for robbers to load up the victim’s car with valuables and drive away without anyone in the neighborhood taking notice.

Method of Operation

The most common point of attack is through the front door or garage. Sometimes the home invader will simply kick open the door and confront everyone inside. More common is when the home invaders knock on the door first or ring the bell. The home invader hopes that the occupant will simply open the door, without question, in response to their knock. Unfortunately, many people do just that.

Home invaders will sometimes use a ruse or impersonation to get you to open the door. They have been known to pretend to be delivering a package, flowers or lie about an accident like hitting your parked car. Once the door is opened for them, the home invaders will use an explosive amount of force and threats to gain control of the home and produce fear in the victims. Once the occupants are under control the robbers will begin to collect your valuables.

Some home robbers have been known to spend hours ransacking a residence while the homeowners are bound nearby watching in terror. Some robbers have been known to eat meals, watch TV, or even take a nap. A major fear is that the robbers might commit more violence like sexual assault or even murder. Some robbers have kidnapped and forced a victim to withdraw cash from their ATM machine or take them to their small business to rob it as well.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing | Problem Guides | Home Invasion Robbery

Home invasions make up a relatively small portion of all robberies. "Residential robbery" accounted for about 14 percent of all robberies in the United States in the late 1990s....

Am I going to risk my life and my family's safety by assuming this stranger in my garage might only be some idiot playing a prank? Hell no, but I will give him a chance to not get shot if he does exactly as I tell him and Hattori failed to do so, making his death his own damned fault.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

It does remind me of the Zimmerman-Martin case in one way. That is Zimmerman saying "These assholes always get away." The impression given in this incident in Montana is that the homeowner was not in fear of his safety or the safety of the family. What he wanted was that the next person who came onto his property to possibly steal something did not 'get away.' He certainly did make sure that person did not get away.

Lol, in your stupid ass opinion the home owner was not afraid for his life or his family's safety because.....just because? No, it was a political statement, yeah, sure.

Your leftwing nutcases are such low life shitheads. This dude was put into a very bad situation by a criminal third party, and you blame the victim?

What a fucking retard you are. You shameless bitch, shut the hell up and go live in a desert somewhere where your idiocy cant hurt anyone other than your own damned self.

 

[Esmeralda]

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is the dumbass libtard view of what has not happened when law abiding citizens are allowed to defend themselves. Crime goes down, not up almost 100% of the time when people are allowed to defend themselves.


This is the real situation, your lies being ignored.

 

[Esmeralda]

^^^LOL

So, I see you took some meds, had a few drinks and came back swinging. :LMAO:

You show contempt for the right of self defense while safely sitting at y9our computer and damn someone who was in a dangerous situation you do not share.

You are an inbred, low life, hypocritical whore.

You are the one who has no idea what he's talking about.

I have been in a situation where my life was threatened by someone with a gun. I have been the 'victim' of an attempted rape at knifepoint. And I'm not inbred by any means. I come from the lower economic scale of the working class.

You're making an ass out of yourself with your assumptions.

As well, your vicious and ugly name calling illustrates exactly what type of lowlife you are. You are the one hiding behind his computer calling women ugly names. I'll bet you don't do that in real life, not in front of your wife, mother, daughter, etc. Just a little pumped up internet coward.

 

[JimBowie1958]

^^^LOL

So, I see you took some meds, had a few drinks and came back swinging. :LMAO:

You show contempt for the right of self defense while safely sitting at y9our computer and damn someone who was in a dangerous situation you do not share.

You are an inbred, low life, hypocritical whore.

You are the one who has no idea what he's talking about.

I have been in a situation where my life was threatened by someone with a gun. I have been the 'victim' of an attempted rape at knifepoint. And I'm not inbred by any means. I come from the lower economic scale of the working class.

You're making an ass out of yourself with your assumptions.

As well, your vicious and ugly name calling illustrates exactly what type of lowlife you are. You are the one hiding behind his computer calling women ugly names. I'll bet you don't do that in real life, not in front of your wife, mother, daughter, etc. Just a little pumped up internet coward.

Oh bullshit, anyone posting over the internet can claim to be anything they want with a history of anything they want.

You do not show the slightest evidence of having ever been the victim of a crime because you do not have the slightest sympathy for other crime victims nor do you show any ability to see a situation from their point of view.

You say you were the victim of crime with all the sincerity of some pimple faced kid sitting in mommy's basement claiming to be a hardened war veteran from Vietnam.

 

[JimBowie1958]

^^^LOL

So, I see you took some meds, had a few drinks and came back swinging. :LMAO:

A libtard self-portrait just a moment before yelling 'YOU'RE A RACIST!'

 

[Esmeralda]

I'm not lying about the violence I've been subject to or observed. I have had an experience where a person was shot (a life threatening wound) in my home. I was there, in the next room. I have been the object of a death threat by someone with a gun. I have been held at knifepoint by a potential rapist. And I have been the recipient of physical domestic abuse. I don't come from a middle or upper class background, or even an economically comfortable working class background. I know all about violence.

The thing is, I know when people are in a situation where they do need to protect themselves and use reasonable self defense, and I can distinguish that from someone trying to justify murder as self defense because they are so infatuated with the idea of being a gun owner.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are the one who has no idea what he's talking about.

I have been in a situation where my life was threatened by someone with a gun. I have been the 'victim' of an attempted rape at knifepoint. And I'm not inbred by any means. I come from the lower economic scale of the working class.

You're making an ass out of yourself with your assumptions.

As well, your vicious and ugly name calling illustrates exactly what type of lowlife you are. You are the one hiding behind his computer calling women ugly names. I'll bet you don't do that in real life, not in front of your wife, mother, daughter, etc. Just a little pumped up internet coward.

Oh bullshit, anyone posting over the internet can claim to be anything they want with a history of anything they want.

You do not show the slightest evidence of having ever been the victim of a crime because you do not have the slightest sympathy for other crime victims nor do you show any ability to see a situation from their point of view.

You say you were the victim of crime with all the sincerity of some pimple faced kid sitting in mommy's basement claiming to be a hardened war veteran from Vietnam.

I'm not lying about the violence I've been subject to or observed.

Translation: "I'm not lying, I swear! Who are you going to believe me or your own damned lying eyes?"

Bullshit, Esmerelda, bullshit.

 

[Esmeralda]

Uh huh, well, I am not lying. I don't need to. I have empathy for victims of crime. I know what it's like. What I don't have is sympathy for people who murder other people and claim they did it in self defense when it isn't, especially when they are people who think a gun is the answer to trespassing (w/o a weapon or ill intent) and to other nonviolent crimes where there is no physical threat to the 'victim.'

 

[DigitalDrifter]

And you have all the facts? I don't live in the US, though I am an American, and this is the first time I have heard of this incident. It appears the homeowner lay in wait for this guy and then shot at him in a darkened garage, not caring if he killed him and not knowing if this kid was armed or not or meant any bodily harm to the homeowners. It's murder as far as I am concerned: not self defense or defense of your home. Material possessions are not as important as human life and this was a young kid, only 17, and unarmed.

As I said: you people simply delight in killing other people.

So we pro 2nd Amendment "people" delight in killing ? You really said that ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Used to be you had to use the same amount of force to defend yourself as the attacker used against you.

Now, its pretty much open season, shoot anyone you want, lie about it and get off.

The gun nuts are cowards.

You "had to" ? There was a law that said you must use equal force when someone is invading your home ?
So if someone breaks into your house using a screwdriver to pry open a window, does that mean you can only reach into your toolbox to protect your home, instead of reaching into your gun safe ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Homeowners do not exist so that they can be prey for anyone who wants to steal from them. The student had a choice. He could not steal. Because stealing had been successful in the past (this student had stolen from this homeowner twice before) he expected that he could take anything he wanted. He was wrong. The world has lost a thief. That's no real loss.

Death is not the punishment for housebreaking or theft. You are happy he is dead. That makes you a very sick person.

Why do liberals almost always defend the guilty?

It's just part of the liberal DNA.

 

[Howey]

Come into my house or garage and you will eat lead. Don't like it? Quit stealing.

Forwarded.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Uh huh, well, I am not lying. I don't need to. I have empathy for victims of crime. I know what it's like.

More bullshit. You don't SHOW IT. If you have ever had someone barge into your home in the middle of the night you wouldn't be so quick to judge someone else who had some stranger in their garage uninvited, idiot.

You can say whatever you want, but your attitude proves you lie.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One nation, under no duty to retreat | Tampa Bay Times

But the California Supreme Court empowered its citizens to stand their ground and use deadly force in public places about 120 years ago, a precedent reflected to this day in the state's jury instructions. One instruction states not only that "a defendant is not required to retreat" and "is entitled to stand his or her ground," but that she is allowed, "if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant."

In other words, a Floridian may stand his ground. But a Californian, under the right circumstances, can chase his attacker.

'He may stand his ground'

The idea that someone under threat or attack has a duty to retreat dates at least as far back as the Middle Ages. English monarchs sought to solidify their grip on a rudimentary nation-state by reserving for themselves the right to kill — a corrective to rampant murder and blood feuding in a populace with little experience of the rule of law.

The imperative to "retreat to the wall" at one's back before turning to fight was incorporated into the English common law and imported during the colonial period to America's Eastern Seaboard. But as settlers spread west of the Appalachian Mountains, the right to "stand one's ground" and use deadly force gained currency in frontier states and, increasingly, among those states' judges.

Perhaps the strongest articulation of "no duty to retreat" came not from a state judge but from one of the foremost jurists in U.S. Supreme Court history: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

In 1921, the high court overturned the conviction of Robert Brown of Texas. While working on a construction site, a co-worker threatened Brown during an argument about whether a pile of dirt should be moved. Brown ripped a handgun from his coat and shot the man four times.

Holmes did not disapprove.

"Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground," Holmes wrote in his opinion for the majority. He memorably affirmed the "reasonable belief" standard in justifiable homicide, writing that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

By the time Holmes handed down his opinion, the "American theme of no duty to retreat ... had been written into the common law of a majority of American states," historian Richard Maxwell Brown writes in his seminal 1991 study of American self-defense laws, No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society.

A minority of states, skewed toward the Northeast, nevertheless retained the English common law's dim view of public confrontations. Before 2005, that group still included one large and increasingly well-armed member: Florida.

Zimmerman in Chicago?

The raft of 2005 statutory changes known as Florida's "stand your ground" bill went beyond the changes wrought elsewhere by case law. Perhaps the most significant difference was a new procedure for homicide defendants to ask a judge for immunity from prosecution before a trial begins.

The law also discouraged police officers from making arrests and prosecutors from bringing cases in the first place, said Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

"One of the main differences is that in Florida, the 'stand your ground' law comes into effect even before the arrest is made," Cutilletta said. "It can deter the arrest and the prosecution."

But as a case goes before a jury these differences begin to vanish.

Judges in states where legal precedent rejects the duty to retreat sometimes have more leeway on whether to instruct a jury that self-defense is an issue in a murder trial. But if the instruction is given, it doesn't differ much from what juries hear in states with "stand your ground" legislation.

The jury in Zimmerman's case was instructed that "he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force" if he "reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself."

In Illinois, jurors would have been told that Zimmerman's fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager, was justified if Zimmerman "reasonably believed" such action was necessary and that he had "no duty to attempt to escape the danger before using force," according to the Illinois Supreme Court's pattern jury instructions.

Because of over-zealous prosecutors that have no respect for the right to defend one's own life, Floriduh passed the Stand Your Ground law in 2005 that went beyond the laws of most states.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One nation, under no duty to retreat | Tampa Bay Times

In a speech to the NAACP in Orlando last year, Holder spoke of "the commonsense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely."

Yet a look back at American history shows that requirement has not been viewed as "commonsense" in large swathes of the nation for a century or more. Long before the first NRA lobbyist roamed the halls of a state capitol, the duty to retreat had been quietly eliminated in jurisdictions from Illinois to Colorado through case law — the judicial interpretation of often ambiguous self-defense statutes.

In addition to the 22 states that have enacted "stand your ground"-type statutes in the past two decades, an additional nine have established through case law that there is no duty to retreat, according to an analysis by the Tampa Bay Times. Combined, those "case law" states are home to 79 million people, about a quarter of the U.S. population.

"In the last couple of years the NRA has pushed a lot of restrictions," Boston University School of Law professor Kenneth Simons said. "But even before that push, there were a lot of states that either recognized no duty to retreat, or recognized it only in very narrow circumstances."

Some critics of Florida's law have also focused on its requirement that citizens must have a "reasonable belief" in a threat before using deadly force, not that the threat actually exist. But in this regard, Florida is even less of an outlier.

The idea that "reasonable belief" in a threat justifies homicide prevails throughout the country, according to legal experts. It is not, as some observers have claimed, carte blanche for killers to act on ungrounded fears, but a test of what an ordinary, rational person would do in the same circumstances.

"It's one of the most invoked terms in the law," said Saul Cornell, a professor of American legal history at Fordham University. "The original notion of 'reasonable' often gets lost. 'Reasonable' is actually a pretty high standard."

Unlike states where similar changes were achieved through high-profile legislative battles, those in which "stand your ground"-style rights were enshrined by case law have mostly escaped the attention of reporters and activists.

California, for example — the most populous American state, with the nation's strictest gun laws — is rarely mentioned in the debate over self-defense law.

But the California Supreme Court empowered its citizens to stand their ground and use deadly force in public places about 120 years ago, a precedent reflected to this day in the state's jury instructions. One instruction states not only that "a defendant is not required to retreat" and "is entitled to stand his or her ground," but that she is allowed, "if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant."

In other words, a Floridian may stand his ground. But a Californian, under the right circumstances, can chase his attacker.

 

[Pogo]

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

You might argue that the man's partner enticed the burglar, but he sure didn't instigate or provoke it.
Mr Kaarma confronted a man who had illegally entered a part of his home. He was afraid for his safety and he fired into his garage. Had the young man NOT BEEN IN HIS GARAGE, he would not have been hit, now would he?

Nope, that would be physically impossible. Nobody disagrees with that.

Are we saying that this guy just regularly gets up during a TV commercial, bored, and strafes his own garage rather than simply closing the door -- just in case there's anybody in there, and this time there just happened to be a human?

The young man instigated the confrontation, provoking the home owner to protect himself, his family and possessions.

Wrong on multiple levels.

Did the German kid brag to his hairdresser a week ahead that he was going to go garage hopping and dodge bullets? More to the point -- is there any reason in the world to expect that being in somebody else's garage would result in shotgun spray from the outside?

Exactly how is advancing to the adversary's only exit and opening fire from the outside (<< meaning, from the outside), in any way "defensive"? There are only two possible results from that scenario: depending on the intruder's position you either obliterate him or you drive him further into your property. Think about it.

If you're attacked at home by a knife-wielding maniac, is your objective to drive the maniac away, or to drive him further into your own house?

Yes I read the complaint. It differs substantially from the defense's description of the events.

It does indeed, if his attorney plans to argue "self-defense". Clearly there's enough in the statements taken in the complaint to kick all the legs out from under that one.

Obviously Kaarma doesn't want to do the time and needs to come up with something in the way of defense. But trying to make "self-defense" out of this is making a mockery of the law.

Please! Accept, on behalf of the deceased, some responsibility for the events that transpired.

All evidence tells us the deceased IS guilty of illegal trespass. Again, that's not in question. Kaarma is guilty of something far more serious than trespassing. Trespassing does not cause death.