Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

[Darat]

...snip...


You could help by clarifying whether you were responding to my question about property, rather than a question about self-defense, which I didn't ask.

I thought I was as clear as possible but I'll try again.

I can't help you with your current difficulty in understanding our exchange.

What that means is that it is not in my gift to help your ability to understand a discussion, you will need to seek help eleswhere if you are still struggling to understand.

 

[Belz...]

I thought I was as clear as possible but I'll try again.

I can't help you with your current difficulty in understanding our exchange.

Of course you can, by answering my question directly. I'm not asking you whether someone can act in self-defense. I was asking you whether you think, in any scenario, people can act to defend property.

It's a simple yes or not. You're spending a lot of time and effort rather than just responding with a single word. I don't know why.

 

[Darat]

Of course you can, by answering my question directly. I'm not asking you whether someone can act in self-defense. I was asking you whether you think, in any scenario, people can act to defend property.



It's a simple yes or not. You're spending a lot of time and effort rather than just responding with a single word. I don't know why.

So sorry you cant understand.

 

[Belz...]

So sorry you cant understand.

Thank you for your concern. I'm touched.

You could help out with a bit of an effort, however. I think the issue of defense of property is interesting.

Don't you think it likely that the jury will be convinced by the "mistake of fact" argument?

 

[Darat]

Thank you for your concern. I'm touched.



You could help out with a bit of an effort, however. I think the issue of defense of property is interesting.



Don't you think it likely that the jury will be convinced by the "mistake of fact" argument?

No. As I've said all along, the mistake of fact only gets her to the door it doesn't get to her shooting someone because she did not make a mistake on that.

 

[Belz...]

No. As I've said all along, the mistake of fact only gets her to the door it doesn't get to her shooting someone because she did not make a mistake on that.

But the point of the mistake of fact is that if it's seen as reasonable, she is assumed to act AS IF it was her actual home, and in some places you can defend said home with deadly force. In this case I find the idea suspect, since she was in the door and could retreat at any time, but allowing for her to have the reasonable belief that she is home, legally, allows her some defense options, depending on the state.

The distinction I'm trying to make right now is defense of property vs defense of self, specifically because I don't think she has a self-defense case for the reasons I gave above.

 

[Darat]

But the point of the mistake of fact is that if it's seen as reasonable, she is assumed to act AS IF it was her actual home, and in some places you can defend said home with deadly force. In this case I find the idea suspect, since she was in the door and could retreat at any time, but allowing for her to have the reasonable belief that she is home, legally, allows her some defense options, depending on the state.



The distinction I'm trying to make right now is defense of property vs defense of self, specifically because I don't think she has a self-defense case for the reasons I gave above.

As I would have thought I've made clear for quite sometime I don't accept that reasoning.

As I've said I would support her not being prosecuted for breaking and entry or trespass if she genuinely was stupid enough to not realise she wasn't entering her apartment. That's a mistake of fact defence.

However the rest of actions were not mistakes nor accidental nor of course instinctive nor instantaneous so there is no mistake of fact defence for those acts. She quite deliberately tried and succeeded at killing someone.

 

[Belz...]

As I would have thought I've made clear for quite sometime I don't accept that reasoning.

Which part? The part where a reasonable belief leads to a justifiable action? I got that, but I want to know why.

For example, if I feel like someone is attacking me and my life is in danger, and that belief is judged entirely reasonable in context, am I not justified in defending myself with deadly force? If not, then what's the point of calling the belief reasonable to begin with?

 

[Distracted1]

But the point of the mistake of fact is that if it's seen as reasonable, she is assumed to act AS IF it was her actual home, and in some places you can defend said home with deadly force. In this case I find the idea suspect, since she was in the door and could retreat at any time, but allowing for her to have the reasonable belief that she is home, legally, allows her some defense options, depending on the state.

The distinction I'm trying to make right now is defense of property vs defense of self, specifically because I don't think she has a self-defense case for the reasons I gave above.

From what I understand, the impetus for the "castle doctrine", and "stand your ground" laws was a belief by lawmakers (and presumably the electorate that supports them) that in certain instances (like being inside ones domicile) there is no duty to retreat.

 

[Distracted1]

Which part? The part where a reasonable belief leads to a justifiable action? I got that, but I want to know why.

For example, if I feel like someone is attacking me and my life is in danger, and that belief is judged entirely reasonable in context, am I not justified in defending myself with deadly force? If not, then what's the point of calling the belief reasonable to begin with?

This thread has been tempestuous already.
And we have not even got to the "victim blaming" portion yet.

How reasonable do you expect it will be argued that someone inside their own apartment (Mr. Jean, in this instance) would move to confront someone who barged in unexpectedly?

How reasonable will it be seen to view such movement to confront as a threat?

And forget about what it will be like when the victims' (possibly altered) state of mind is added as a likely qualifier.

It seems to me the only path to a conviction for murder is the prosecutions' ability to convince the entire jury that Guygers mistaking the apartments was somehow "unreasonable".
I see that as a difficult path, especially since I (and a few other posters from this limited sample of humanity) see it a a reasonable error.

On the plus side, Guygers defense in the criminal matter makes the civil case pretty much a slam-dunk for the Jean family. They will likely even get a settlement from the manufacturer of the door lock.
It won't bring their loved one back to them- but neither will anything else.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And we have not even got to the "victim blaming" portion yet.

Because victim blaming is where the thread ******* started.

 

[JoeMorgue]

How reasonable do you expect it will be argued that someone inside their own apartment (Mr. Jean, in this instance) would move to confront someone who barged in unexpectedly?

How reasonable will it be seen to view such movement to confront as a threat?

Wait.

So let me make sure I get this straight.

Jean confronting Guyger to protect his apartment IN THE REAL ACTUAL WORLD gave Guyver the right to kill Jean inside the imaginary apartment she thought she was in in her head.

 

[Distracted1]

Wait.

So let me make sure I get this straight.

Jean confronting Guyger to protect his apartment IN THE REAL ACTUAL WORLD gave Guyver the right to kill Jean inside the imaginary apartment she thought she was in in her head.

Assuming that you meant your second sentence to mean "..gave her (not Jean) the right..."
Effectively, yes. Although how the term "rights" play in to this as opposed to more concrete terms like "criminal" and "legal" is another discussion.

Sorry, I see you fixed your wording. Ignore my first sentence.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Effectively, yes. Although how the term "rights" play in to this as opposed to more concrete terms like "criminal" and "legal" is another discussion.

That's insane. Again that's reducing the criminal justice system down to asking people do they want to be criminals or not.

 

[Belz...]

From what I understand, the impetus for the "castle doctrine", and "stand your ground" laws was a belief by lawmakers (and presumably the electorate that supports them) that in certain instances (like being inside ones domicile) there is no duty to retreat.

I understand that, but I take it to mean: when you're actually in your home and someone comes in, not when you're the one coming in, where it's far easier to retreat.

This thread has been tempestuous already.
And we have not even got to the "victim blaming" portion yet.

Oh, we got to that a while ago.

How reasonable do you expect it will be argued that someone inside their own apartment (Mr. Jean, in this instance) would move to confront someone who barged in unexpectedly?

What does that have to do with what I said? It's been said over and over that Jean would've probably been entirely legally justified to shoot her dead when she came in.

I see that as a difficult path, especially since I (and a few other posters from this limited sample of humanity) see it a a reasonable error.

I don't. She had many opportunities to realise her mistake before coming in, including, and this is the killer one for me, a big red mat in front of the door.

 

[Distracted1]

That's insane. Again that's reducing the criminal justice system down to asking people do they want to be criminals or not.

I see it as considering wether or not someone intends to act criminally or not.
It is a seemingly important principle in the law.

Personally, the failure of Justice I see here is found in the "no duty to retreat" and "proliferation of guns" aspects of this situation, Not the "mistake of fact" aspect of it which I see as a net positive principle.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's been said over and over that Jean would've probably been entirely legally justified to shoot her dead when she came in.

And not one person would be screaming about "mistake of fact!" and "OMG WE NEED TO DETERMINE IF HE'D BEEN AWAKE FOR A NORMAL LENGTH OF A DAY!" when the big scawwy black guy was arrested and convicted for killing the widdle white cop.

 

[Distracted1]

I understand that, but I take it to mean: when you're actually in your home and someone comes in, not when you're the one coming in, where it's far easier to retreat.



Oh, we got to that a while ago.



What does that have to do with what I said? It's been said over and over that Jean would've probably been entirely legally justified to shoot her dead when she came in.



I don't. She had many opportunities to realise her mistake before coming in, including, and this is the killer one for me, a big red mat in front of the door.

The "red mat" will be the "if the glove does not fit...." component of this.

 

[Distracted1]

And not one person would be screaming about "mistake of fact!" and "OMG WE NEED TO DETERMINE IF HE'D BEEN AWAKE FOR A NORMAL LENGTH OF A DAY!" when the big scawwy black guy was arrested and convicted for killing the widdle white cop.

Or perhaps determine if he knew it was a cop coming for him, and not some random person (in your hypothetical). Are you saying that should not matter?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Or perhaps determine if he knew it was a cop coming for him, and not some random person (in your hypothetical). Are you saying that should not matter?

I'm saying you wouldn't be making excuses if the outcome had been reversed even though every single bull **** excuse you've vomited out would apply just the same. If Guyver had been the one dead at the end of the altercation you wouldn't be obsessed with Jean's state of mind. You wouldn't been looking for a reason it was okay. Period.

We've had dozens of threads where your "Mistake of Fact" fetish would have manifested if it was honest. It didn't manifest until this one. There's a reason.

Write fan fiction about the criticism of your original fan fiction on your own time.