German exchange student killed

[TheQuietRiot]

Murica'! where you can blow someone away without warning for simply being on your property!

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Authorities are investigating a weekend shooting that involved an Eloy police officer and resulted in the death of a 25-year-old man. The family of the victim, identified as Victor Luis Arenas, is now questioning the officer's actions.

The Pinal County Sheriff's Office released video Tuesday from the officer's chest camera to help clarify what happened during the shooting.

Officer Richard Timmes was searching for a burglary suspect in an Eloy neighborhood when the incident occurred. The homeowner came out and allegedly opened fire on the officer for shining his flashlight on the residence.

The victim's family claims the 25-year-old was simply protecting his property. They also said the officer never identified himself.

LiveLeak.com - Body Cam Captures Deadly Arizona Shooting

 

[High Fidelity]

Insanity. Absolute insanity.

Here's to hoping the homeowner gets locked up for a very, very long time.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I still can't believe, after 11 pages, people are arguing about whether it was "trespassing" or "burglary"

Um. HELLO! ARE EITHER OF THOSE CRIMES JUSTIFIED FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BY VIGILANTE JUSTICE?

I would say NO! Trespassing might involve a fine or community service. Burglary could involve community service or a jail sentence (depending on what was stolen).

Why are you arguing about the definitions of "trespassing" and "burglary" when the definition of "murder" is the one that is clearly the bigger offence?

Once again, nothing in my garage is worth a human life.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you rather have your car stolen or your child murdered? Even if the teenager was maliciously in the garage to steal the most expensive thing there (probably the car), that does NOT in any way justify killing him.

This topic is absurd and it makes me depressed and frustrated to hear people defending this. To me, its on par with defending pedophilia.

 

[Belk]

If I leave my door open and a pile of gold bullion sitting on the floor, in plain sight, if someone steps over the threshold, that's still burglary.

The bottom line is to not enter strange garages at odd hours.

If a woman walks around in revealing clothing, is she responsible for someone else raping her?

At worst, this guy is doing what's called "hunting over bait," but, you can't hunt over bait unless there is some inclination on the part of someone to take the bait.

And if you leave your front door open and gold bullion sitting on the floor for the express purpose of luring someone in so you can shoot them you will be charged with premeditated murder. Intending to kill someone does not suddenly become OK if they break a law first.

 

[GarfieldJL]

And if you leave your front door open and gold bullion sitting on the floor for the express purpose of luring someone in so you can shoot them you will be charged with premeditated murder. Intending to kill someone does not suddenly become OK if they break a law first.

I wouldn't consider a duck blind to be a lure like gold bullion would be...

Fact of the matter is that people are just trying to exploit a tragedy to further their cause of trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment, not realizing that the 2nd Amendment is the one thing that protects all of their rights.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

And if you leave your front door open and gold bullion sitting on the floor for the express purpose of luring someone in so you can shoot them you will be charged with premeditated murder. Intending to kill someone does not suddenly become OK if they break a law first.

Probably not.

In the State of Washington, that's a felony called residential burglary.

If you shoot someone while they're in the process of committing a felony in your presence, that's a justifiable homicide. Merely providing someone with the opportunity to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment. Waiting to defend one's property against the criminal minded. Killing someone does become legal, if they're in the course of committing a felony.

In that sort of case, the state could also be on the hook for all of the defendant's costs.

You'd have to find an Angela Corey if you want to bring a case like that.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

RCW 9A.52.025
Residential burglary.

(1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.

(2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. In establishing sentencing guidelines and disposition standards, residential burglary is to be considered a more serious offense than second degree burglary.

RCW 9A.52.040
Inference of intent.

In any prosecution for burglary, any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.

Here's the WPIC jury instruction.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I still can't believe, after 11 pages, people are arguing about whether it was "trespassing" or "burglary"

That depends on your jurisdiction.

Um. HELLO! ARE EITHER OF THOSE CRIMES JUSTIFIED FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BY VIGILANTE JUSTICE?

A civilized person calls it self defense. Here's a hint. If you don't want to die in the course of criminal behavior, it's an excellent life choice to avoid criminal behavior.

I would say NO! Trespassing might involve a fine or community service. Burglary could involve community service or a jail sentence (depending on what was stolen).

So...some guy gets to violate my home, and I have to run away from him?

Why are you arguing about the definitions of "trespassing" and "burglary" when the definition of "murder" is the one that is clearly the bigger offence?

It's not murder. It's self defense.

Once again, nothing in my garage is worth a human life.

Then tell the burglars that nothing in your garage is worth dying for. Why do you want to put all the onus all the law-abiding citizen, here? If someone gets shot during the commission of a crime, the police response should not be to arrest the shooter. The police response should be to tell the criminal to, "Stop breaking the law."

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you rather have your car stolen or your child murdered? Even if the teenager was maliciously in the garage to steal the most expensive thing there (probably the car), that does NOT in any way justify killing him.

I'd rather teach my children not to steal cars, and not to wander around in strange garages at odd hours of the night.

This topic is absurd and it makes me depressed and frustrated to hear people defending this. To me, its on par with defending pedophilia.

To me, people that defend criminals are on par with plantation slave owners that want to force others to engage in labor for free. There is no difference between a slave owner forcing someone to work, and a criminal who steals someone's property. The criminal has forced his victim to work for him for the amount of labor/time that it took the person to acquire the money to acquire the stolen property. Crime is a form of slavery, and the criminals are the slavers. Why do people defend slavers?

 

[Belk]

I wouldn't consider a duck blind to be a lure like gold bullion would be...

I suggest you reread the duck blind post because I don't think you are interpreting it correctly.

Fact of the matter is that people are just trying to exploit a tragedy to further their cause of trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment, not realizing that the 2nd Amendment is the one thing that protects all of their rights.

No, the fact of the matter is people are objecting to people trying to exploit the law in order commit murder. You can tell by the way absolutely no one in this thread has called for increased gun legislation. I support the second amendment. I do not support morons firing blindly at unknown people who are in their garage. If you do not call out those who misuse weapons then you only make the case for gun control stronger.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

No, the fact of the matter is people are objecting to people trying to exploit the law in order commit murder. You can tell by the way absolutely no one in this thread has called for increased gun legislation. I support the second amendment. I do not support morons firing blindly at unknown people who are in their garage. If you do not call out those who misuse weapons then you only make the case for gun control stronger.

It's not a good idea to unlawfully enter someone's garage.

This college kid paid the price for his stupidity.

This homeowner is paying the price for his.

 

[Belk]

Probably not.

In the State of Washington, that's a felony called residential burglary.

If you shoot someone while they're in the process of committing a felony in your presence, that's a justifiable homicide. Merely providing someone with the opportunity to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment. Waiting to defend one's property against the criminal minded. Killing someone does become legal, if they're in the course of committing a felony.

In that sort of case, the state could also be on the hook for all of the defendant's costs.

You'd have to find an Angela Corey if you want to bring a case like that.


Here's the WPIC jury instruction.

If you leave your door open with the express intent of luring someone in to commit a felony so you can shoot them you will be charged with murder and rightfully so. Planning to kill someone, even if they are committing a felony, is illegal. Frankly as one of the stronger gun rights supporters around here I would think you would be behind such prosecution since cases such as these pervert the intent of self defense laws into little more then thinly veiled attempts to get away with murder and, as the backlash from this shows, weakens support for the laws being in place.

 

[GarfieldJL]

If you leave your door open with the express intent of luring someone in to commit a felony so you can shoot them you will be charged with murder and rightfully so. Planning to kill someone, even if they are committing a felony, is illegal. Frankly as one of the stronger gun rights supporters around here I would think you would be behind such prosecution since cases such as these pervert the intent of self defense laws into little more then thinly veiled attempts to get away with murder and, as the backlash from this shows, weakens support for the laws being in place.

Your argument would have more merit if he had left something out that was clearly valuable in plain sight, I wouldn't consider a duck blind to constitute valuable property.

Your argument would have more merit if the shooting had taken place in the guy's yard, but that's not where it happened, it happened inside the guy's garage (meaning it was in the guy's home).

I think the death of the student is tragic, but I'm not going to rush to rake a guy over the coals for defending himself from an intruder.

If the student had gone to the guy's front porch and rang the doorbell, I presume he'd still be alive, and if the guy had shot him there, then that would be murder.

All you people are doing is trying to exploit a tragedy to push for more anti-gun laws to try to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[High Fidelity]

Have a problem with someone? Instigate a situation with no witnesses, shoot him dead and claim self-defence.

Worked for George Zimmerman.

Disclaimer: You have to be an utter moron to take this as a serious suggestion.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Have a problem with someone?

Instigate a situation with no witnesses, shoot him dead and claim self-defence.

Worked for George Zimmerman.

Disclaimer: You have to be an utter moron to take this as a serious suggestion.

I'd say your comments are more than a little out of line, Zimmerman's story was coroborated by the evidence.

Seriously, if Zimmerman hadn't opened fire, there is a good chance he could have been beaten to death.

 

[High Fidelity]

I'd say your comments are more than a little out of line, Zimmerman's story was coroborated by the evidence.

Seriously, if Zimmerman hadn't opened fire, there is a good chance he could have been beaten to death.

He forced a situation so he could get his piece of action.

Just like this guy, he was looking for any opportunity to shoot someone.

 

[GarfieldJL]

He forced a situation so he could get his piece of action.

He was trying to tail Treyvon, until the police got there to actually handle the situation, he wasn't trying to confront Treyvon to get a piece of the action.

Seriously, Treyvon had a cell phone, and Mr. Zimmerman was on the phone to the police. If Treyvon had called the police as well, the police could have put two and two together and told them both to stay put and wait for the police.

Furthermore, Zimmerman had lost sight of Treyvon and started heading back to his vehicle. Then Treyvon doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. Which means Zimmerman was in a classic self-defense situation, and this is where your argument implodes.

Just like this guy, he was looking for any opportunity to shoot someone.

You'd have a stronger argument if the kid had been shot in the front yard, not inside the garage...

 

[Manic Spinoza]

You'd have a stronger argument if the kid had been shot in the front yard, not inside the garage...

Dude, they guy admitted to police that he set up a trap. He told a hair dresser he wanted to shoot someone. What other prrof do you want?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Your argument would have more merit if he had left something out that was clearly valuable in plain sight, I wouldn't consider a duck blind to constitute valuable property.

He left a purse in the garage in plain site.

He admitted this. What more do you want?

 

[GarfieldJL]

Dude, they guy admitted to police that he set up a trap. He told a hair dresser he wanted to shoot someone. What other prrof do you want?

Maybe he's trying to tell himself that he should have no regrets, I'm not a psychologist but I've heard of instances like that.

He left a purse in the garage in plain site.

How could have someone seen it when it was dark?

He admitted this. What more do you want?

How about the fact that people should acknowledge that you shouldn't enter their home without their permission? If I had seen a purse out, I would have gone to the front door and rang the bell, I wouldn't have entered the garage.

If I got really suspicious, I would have gone to a neighbor and ask them to call the police. I wouldn't head into another person's garage or home like that.

 

[Armoured]

Far. Out.