Castle law used inappropriatly?

[Firetxmi]

Kaufman case doesn't fit castle law's intent, author says

10:53 PM CDT on Sunday, March 16, 2008

By SCOTT GOLDSTEIN / The Dallas Morning News
sgoldstein@dallasnews.com

Kaufman County authorities cite the state's new castle law in explaining why they haven't filed charges against a man who shot a boy walking near his house. But the law was never intended to cover such situations, its author says.

"The law doesn't talk at all about people walking across your front yard," said Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio. "We're talking about breaking into your house or your car or your place of business."

W.C. Frosch, 74, shot 15-year-old Brandon Robinson through a window on the night of March 1. The boy and his friend, Devin Nalls, 16, say they were cutting across his yard on the way to check out another neighbor's party.

Though Brandon survived, Devin's mother died in an accident as she drove the boys to a hospital.

Mr. Frosch has said he thought the boys were about to break into his home. They were about three feet from the window.

"It was not my intention and I doubt anybody else that voted for the bill ... to allow people to shoot trespassers on their property, out on their grass, no, that's not the plan," Mr. Wentworth said.

"Clearly the law enforcement folks know more about the details of this than I do. But generally speaking, it was our thinking that you have to be under attack."

Some experts say the Texas law is not so clear-cut. It says a person is "presumed" to be acting reasonably if he shoots someone he believes is trying to break into his occupied home, business or car.

The case will be presented to a grand jury in coming weeks, so criminal charges remain possible.

Mr. Frosch has said he fired through a front window when he saw Brandon facing his front door. From that angle, authorities say, the boy would have suffered a wound on his right side.

But the bullet struck the boy under his left arm.

"Brandon was facing away from the door," said Sgt. Bryan Francis, Kaufman County sheriff's spokesman. "That's what the evidence shows."

Mr. Wentworth said "the question is going to be if this particular homeowner ... was justified in thinking he was under attack.

"That's why you have to leave this up to grand juries and prosecutors who are on the ground and decide. That's why we leave a little wiggle room for fact situations to be determined."


Link:http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/031708dnmetcastlesider.391e525.html

There is also a story about how the language of the Castle Law in Texas could let murderers go free:


Prosecutors fear castle law's 'presumption' will allow real murderers to go free

Link:http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/031708dnmetcastlelaw.37d5252.html

[Bongopete]

I havent read the law, but I always assumed it meant someone actually inside or coming through a window or something.

[Firetxmi]

I can't tell you how many times as a kid I cut through peoples yards as a shortcut home from the school bus, or to get from a friends house. I even went into neighbors backyards to retrieve balls on occasion too- sometimes even at night. I'm just glad I never got shot.

[Bongopete]

I can't tell you how many times as a kid I cut through peoples yards as a shortcut home from the school bus, or to get from a friends house. I even went into neighbors backyards to retrieve balls on occasion too- sometimes even at night. I'm just glad I never got shot.

Dont know how old you are, but things were a bit diff then possibly, they were when I was a kid.

[Firetxmi]

Dont know how old you are, but things were a bit diff then possibly, they were when I was a kid.

Most certainly different, but not different enough to justify this in my opinion.

[Bongopete]

Most certainly different, but not different enough to justify this in my opinion.


No, Im not saying that this was justified...I was simply saying that when I was a kid, going into someones yard wasnt something you then had to fear getting shot over. These days though, there is a lot of fear about I guess.

[Firetxmi]

No, Im not saying that this was justified...I was simply saying that when I was a kid, going into someones yard wasnt something you then had to fear getting shot over. These days though, there is a lot of fear about I guess.

I agree with you on that.

[Hollis]

I would like to know more before I call the shooter a idiot.

"Mr. Frosch has said he thought the boys were about to break into his home. They were about three feet from the window."


If there is wrong doings I hope they do file charges.

Rest In Peace, terrible event.

[Laworkerbee]

What a tragedy.

[Firetxmi]

I would like to know more before I call the shooter a idiot.

"Mr. Frosch has said he thought the boys were about to break into his home. They were about three feet from the window."


If there is wrong doings I hope they do file charges.

Rest In Peace, terrible event.

I did some more digging. Here are some more articles:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-castlesider_17met.ART0.State.Edition1.4604bc1.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-kidshotfolo_04met.ART.State.Edition2.463fe59.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5600289.html


I will say it is somewhat telling that the author of the bill said that it was not intended to cover situations like this.

*For the record, I am a fan of the Castle Law, but not when it is used like this.*

[Hollis]

I did some more digging. Here are some more articles:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-castlesider_17met.ART0.State.Edition1.4604bc1.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-kidshotfolo_04met.ART.State.Edition2.463fe59.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5600289.html


I will say it is somewhat telling that the author of the bill said that it was not intended to cover situations like this.

*For the record, I am a fan of the Castle Law, but not when it is used like this.*


Thanks. On your statement, I agree 150%.

[Bongopete]

Thanks for those links. Yes a tragedy all the way around. My only questions are;
Does the shooter have a history of having things stolen?
Why did he associate the noisy party with theft of yard sale items?
Was the driver of the Ford who was drunk (I know this has nothing to do with this case)..well, did he have insurance?

[Invisigoth]

I feel its similar to the incident a month ago with the danish reporter that walked across some granny's lawn near Bush's ranch and nearly got popped by her... There's a different between someone cutting across your lawn and someone trying to break into your house.

What if police came with a no-knock warrant and you saw a shadow outside your window and blasted 'em?

[Bongopete]

I feel its similar to the incident a month ago with the danish reporter that walked across some granny's lawn near Bush's ranch and nearly got popped by her... There's a different between someone cutting across your lawn and someone trying to break into your house.

What if police came with a no-knock warrant and you saw a shadow outside your window and blasted 'em?

Then you would REALLLLLLY be in a sh**hole of trouble.

[Invisigoth]

Then you would REALLLLLLY be in a sh**hole of trouble.

But in theory you wouldn't? You were blasting someone on your property who was seemingly threaten to break into your house. You couldn't know they were cops since it was no-knock...

[Bongopete]

Doesnt matter...they were the LAW....and you would be in a world of hurt.

[hank]

Check this out for a synopsis of what can happen with no-knock warrants and defending your home.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=96052

hank

[Hollis]

Check this out for a synopsis of what can happen with no-knock warrants and defending your home.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=96052

hank


The officers deserved what they got, "Typically, the officers would have a confidential informant go to the house and make a buy but they did not. Instead, Officer Smith went to a magistrate judge and, in order to get a no-knock warrant, lied by claiming that an informant had made a buy and that surveillance cameras were positioned outside the Johnston home. "


Arizona use to have a law, where a citizen had the right to refuse/defend against a unlawful arrest. I think Az changed that in the early 80's.

A mistake in the address where a "warrant" is issued for would be interesting. I would assume the castle law does not apply to unlawful activities or there is other aspects.

[ronnieraygun]

Man, this is difficult. I'm all for self-defense in your home, it's your castle. I don't understand clipping kids cutting through your yard, but I wasn't there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out - I'm pretty sure they were working on a Castle Law here in MN.

Oddly enough - I grew up with a great guy also named Brandon. He got involved in a domestic and was killed, but there was nothing done because he was in someone else's house in Texas. The sad part was his older brother had committed suicide about two years before, leaving his mom with no boys.

[scuba]

The officers deserved what they got, "Typically, the officers would have a confidential informant go to the house and make a buy but they did not. Instead, Officer Smith went to a magistrate judge and, in order to get a no-knock warrant, lied by claiming that an informant had made a buy and that surveillance cameras were positioned outside the Johnston home. "


Arizona use to have a law, where a citizen had the right to refuse/defend against a unlawful arrest. I think Az changed that in the early 80's.

A mistake in the address where a "warrant" is issued for would be interesting. I would assume the castle law does not apply to unlawful activities or there is other aspects.

I remembered from a few months back this happened.

http://www.policelink.com/news/articles/8282-swat-team-raids-wrong-house-two-officers-shot

I can't find the CNN article for it though. From memory, the police were raiding what they thought was drug house from an informant that lied. When the police knocked down the door and entered the father couldn't identify them as police officers, grabbed his shotgun and shot through a wall. Two officer were struck, no injury due to ballistic protection. Officers returned fire, thankfully no one was hit by stray bullets. The father had limited English but thankfully one of his older children was able to convey to him that the strangers in the house were police and that he should not continue to shoot. He was arrested but later released.

Other than that I don't really know anything else about the incident. This happened December 2007, just before Christmas.

PS. Just found a better piece about the incident after searching a bit online.
http://www.startribune.com/local/12578176.html

[SOG]

In regards to original article:

I wouldn't call it a loophole per say. It is a gray area where the judge or civilians will determine whether his actions were justified or not. So basically the law is being supplemented by careful consideration and deliberation of the event. I don't see grounds to apply the messy moniker of "loophole" which rings of failure to such a law.

The guy who shot the kids trespassing could be a total ass or the kids could be full of ****. Horrible situation all round.

[Firetxmi]

In regards to original article:

So basically the law is being supplemented by careful consideration and deliberation of the event. I don't see grounds to apply the messy moniker of "loophole" which rings of failure to such a law.

.

Which brings up the point of the second article (link) I posted in my original post.

I'd love to know what hank thinks about that, as an attorney. I'd hate to see someone who truly deserves to go to jail for murder be let free because of the "presumption" clause.

[eskachig]

I actually have never thought about how castle laws and no-knock warrants interact. In general I think that no-knock entries are a terrible idea and put everyone around at needless risk in a pointless attempt to boost drug convictions. I can understand if it's a matter of national security or something, but just to stop people from flushing drugs? People have been killed before when cops simply got the wrong address - when folks in black start busting into your home without any prior announcements some people's fight or flight instinct gets them in trouble.

[Andrew Chalmers]

Some legislative history stuff
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=SB378

Bill Text
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm

[Geezah]

*For the record, I am a fan of the Castle Law, but not when it is used like this.*


Say no more........


I did think you were on a Lefty rant, but I stand corrected.

[ed316]

Here in Texas when someone is shot at night on private property most of the time benefit of a doubt is given to the home owner.

[Firetxmi]

Say no more........


I did think you were on a Lefty rant, but I stand corrected.

Just when you think I'm crazy..... :D

Geezah, as a "gun nut" (I mean that in the nicest way) what is your take on this?

[Moledet]

On the other side of the world, an Israeli shot a thief that was about to steal his Mercedes, the thief was wounded and fled in a getaway car, the car owner's gun was taken by the police.

Just a few more months until the Castle law...

[Will938]

I feel its similar to the incident a month ago with the danish reporter that walked across some granny's lawn near Bush's ranch and nearly got popped by her... There's a different between someone cutting across your lawn and someone trying to break into your house.

What if police came with a no-knock warrant and you saw a shadow outside your window and blasted 'em?

Not similar at all. She was an elderly woman confronting a strange man outside her window. What would you expect her to do, go out there unarmed and take her chances? She can't run or fight like we can, this is her only means of self defense. Not only that, but she wasn't being unreasonable or flashing her piece at him. She didn't break any law, she didn't shoot anyone. She simply told the man to go away and that was that.

That is a big concern for any homeowner. Usually your scenario wouldn't work because they show up with tons of police cars. So when you see a techno light show infront of your house you can be assured that criminals didn't bring them. When they try to sneak in quietly or breech someone's house at night that's when no knock warrants are stupid. If you're acting like a criminal breaking into my house I'm going to treat it like it looks. There are many cases of SWAT teams breaching the wrong house and getting into shootouts with innocent citizens.

[Wolfmanjack]

Here in Texas when someone is shot at night on private property most of the time benefit of a doubt is given to the home owner.

As it should be, It is a shame what happened but the kid WAS trespassing.

Call it what you will but trespassing is still trespassing and i would find it hard not to defend my property if i saw what looked like 2 men standing/walking right outside my window. (3 feet is way too close)

I don't know about the rest of you but i was taught at a early age you don't go messing about on other peoples property for ANY reason without asking first.

"It was not my intention and I doubt anybody else that voted for the bill ... to allow people to shoot trespassers on their property, out on their grass, no, that's not the plan," Mr. Wentworth said."

So.. Your supposed to wait until they break in and possibly kill someone? I think not. I hate to say this but the guy was well within his rights to defend himself and his property.

Seriously would any of you done differently ? You wake up hear a noise look out your window and theres 2 guys 3ft outside your window in the dark what would you do ? Especially when your 70+ years old.

This never would have happened if the kids in question were taught respect for other people and their property. Respect for others is something young people now days are sorely lacking.

[Geezah]

Just when you think I'm crazy..... :D

Geezah, as a "gun nut" (I mean that in the nicest way) what is your take on this?

My understanding of the Castle Doctrine is that, before, in some states the victim would have to show they tried to retreat from a threat before using deadly force, this is now gone.

So, in a similair way to those DEA guys that kicked down the door of that old lady and shot her to death after she shot at them in self defence, I would prefer not to past judgement until the jury come back with a verdict.

Me, personally, I think it may be a bit overboard but if he had genuine fears then is it really.

[Invisigoth]

Not similar at all. She was an elderly woman confronting a strange man outside her window. What would you expect her to do, go out there unarmed and take her chances? She can't run or fight like we can, this is her only means of self defense. Not only that, but she wasn't being unreasonable or flashing her piece at him. She didn't break any law, she didn't shoot anyone. She simply told the man to go away and that was that.


Well, I didn't express myself properly, was trying to suggest what had happened if she had shot him.

At the same time, if you look at pictures from the incident, the guy was nowhere near her window and was quite obviously not paying attention while talking on his cell (well off from the house on the lawn). I think there is a difference between legitimate concern and complete paranoia...

[Geezah]

Well, I didn't express myself properly, was trying to suggest what had happened if she had shot him.

At the same time, if you look at pictures from the incident, the guy was nowhere near her window and was quite obviously not paying attention while talking on his cell (well off from the house on the lawn). I think there is a difference between legitimate concern and complete paranoia...

I would say you are completely ignorant.

Just do a search of elderly ladies that have been beaten to death by burglars, and you would see it is a legitimate fear.

The reporter is lucky, but if he had been shot, he would only have himself to blame.

Also, what is it about people that choose to go after the law abiding before they condem the actions of those that break the law!

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Hmm interesting case. Been awhile since I've been on a anti-gun crusade so here goes.

Who here can put their hand up and admit they have trespassed on property?

We all have. Whether we were drunk and looking for a place to have a piss, jumping a fence to retrieve a ball, cutting across next doors yard to go 2 houses down. We have all done it. We have all done it at all hours of the night.

From my experience in having gone through a home invasion it's not until the intruder is already in your house that you notice. In this instance both myself and dad were awake watching a F1 race at 2 in the morning. It was only because my dad went for a piss that we noticed anything wrong. Even then the criminal had pried open a security door with a crow bar.

The criminal in question is a well know drug addict, criminal, and stories going around that he has AIDS. This guy was no hardened, professional thief just a junky.

It's the above situations that the Castle Law is supposed to help prevent. Even I will attest to people having a right to defend themselves INSIDE their own home.

If you here bushes brustling, see a character in the front yard, turn on a light, and call the police.

Shooting a drunk early 20's dude for taking a leak on the letterbox, people cutting through the front yard or kids climbing the fence chasing ball is stupid, and should be at minimum a grevious bodily harm and Manslaughter. Murder if the shooting is at night.

[Geezah]

A majority of people that have trespassed does not make it right.

I will admit I have done it in the past(when I was allot younger, hedge hopping) , but it does not make it right, and it was only by luck itself that I was not caught.

[Andrew Chalmers]

A majority of people that have trespassed does not make it right.

I will admit I have done it in the past(when I was allot younger, hedge hopping) , but it does not make it right, and it was only by luck itself that I was not caught.

Neither is using disproportionate and potentially deadly force out of hysterical paranoia.

[Geezah]

Neither is using disproportionate and potentially deadly force out of hysterical paranoia.

My Grandfather had a driveway that was about 100yrds long, this was on 10 acres.

After he died, my step-grandmother kept a loaded Derringer by her side, if someone were to be walking past her window late at night un-announced, if that person was shot, would it be the fault of my Grandfathers wife?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Simply turning on a light is enough to scare most intruders off. Besides that doesn't the UK have laws in that property owners can not restrict access if it's a rural/farmland?

Here in Australia property laws can be just as complicated for rural properties especially if a property fronts a river. Basically you can't restrict access to a water source some properties require you to drive through other properties to get to a property and such.

[Geezah]

Simply turning on a light is enough to scare most intruders off. Besides that doesn't the UK have laws in that property owners can not restrict access if it's a rural/farmland?

Here in Australia property laws can be just as complicated for rural properties especially if a property fronts a river. Basically you can't restrict access to a water source some properties require you to drive through other properties to get to a property and such.

That's my Grandfather over here, not in the UK.

As far as just turning on a light, we're talking out in the country, 10 acres, and the next house to you is the same distance away as the driveway is long.

[Firetxmi]

I will admit I have done it in the past(when I was allot younger, hedge hopping) , but it does not make it right, and it was only by luck itself that I was not caught.

Yes it was not right, but honestly should you loose your life for it?

[California Joe]

When I was a kid, on summer nights every kid in the entire neighborhood would play a game we called "chase". Like "kick the can". We ran all over the place, through every backyard, between houses, everywhere. Nobody ever took a shot at us. For chrissakes. Normal, rational gun owners don't need this kind of press and calling this a "Castle Law" type shooting is disingenuous. WTF happened to just yelling "YOU KIDS GET OFF MY GODDAMNED LAWN!!!"

[hank]

Yes it was not right, but honestly should you loose your life for it?

Of course. We can't continue to coddle these law-breakers. Kill them all. Except the unborn. They have the right to life.

hank

[IDF_TANKER]

When I was a kid, on summer nights every kid in the entire neighborhood would play a game we called "chase". Like "kick the can". We ran all over the place, through every backyard, between houses, everywhere. Nobody ever took a shot at us. For chrissakes. Normal, rational gun owners don't need this kind of press and calling this a "Castle Law" type shooting is disingenuous. WTF happened to just yelling "YOU KIDS GET OFF MY GODDAMNED LAWN!!!"

So, did you get off their lawn or not?

[hank]

So, did you get off their lawn or not?

Obviously not, he's here posting right? Think of all the needless trespassing we could have avoided if CJ had been killed while trespassing as a child. Its a waste really. A man's home is his castle and kids or criminals that don't respect the law should get what's coming to them. Hot lead.

Because its unreasonable not to let people shoot first and ask questions first, right? A man shouldn't have to retreat from trespassers. He should be allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. I think this castle law stuff is great. Shoot em all.

hank

[Hollis]

Obviously not, he's here posting right? Think of all the needless trespassing we could have avoided if CJ had been killed while trespassing as a child. Its a waste really. A man's home is his castle and kids or criminals that don't respect the law should get what's coming to them. Hot lead.

Because its unreasonable not to let people shoot first and ask questions first, right? A man shouldn't have to retreat from trespassers. He should be allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. I think this castle law stuff is great. Shoot em all.

hank


Darwin awards candidates are among us, everywhere. Wasn't someone suppose to add some chlorox to the gene pool.

[Firetxmi]

When I was a kid, on summer nights every kid in the entire neighborhood would play a game we called "chase". Like "kick the can". We ran all over the place, through every backyard, between houses, everywhere. Nobody ever took a shot at us. For chrissakes. Normal, rational gun owners don't need this kind of press and calling this a "Castle Law" type shooting is disingenuous. WTF happened to just yelling "YOU KIDS GET OFF MY GODDAMNED LAWN!!!"

Thats a very good point. This is bad for all the law abiding citizens who have to use the Castle Law (in its real intent). It makes all gun owners and CCW people look bad.

[Invisigoth]

I would say you are completely ignorant.

Just do a search of elderly ladies that have been beaten to death by burglars, and you would see it is a legitimate fear.

The reporter is lucky, but if he had been shot, he would only have himself to blame.

Also, what is it about people that choose to go after the law abiding before they condem the actions of those that break the law!

What's with the name calling, is that the only way you can validate your arguments? You really think that one should pop everyone walking across one's lawn because of the possibility of burglary? Sounds pretty insane to me.

[Geezah]

What's with the name calling, is that the only way you can validate your arguments? You really think that one should pop everyone walking across one's lawn because of the possibility of burglary? Sounds pretty insane to me.

My bad.......

How's this work for you?

I think you do not have enough knowledge, understanding or information about the topic that is currently being discussed.

Did you do a search of elderly ladies that have been beaten to death yet?

Why do you choose to justify trespassing?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I don't think anyone is justifying trespassing rather the trivial types of trespassing that occurs that everyone does should not be reason enough for a person to open fire.

[Geezah]

I don't think anyone is justifying trespassing rather the trivial types of trespassing that occurs that everyone does should not be reason enough for a person to open fire.


Min,

You know I like you, but re-read your comment above, you just contradicted yourself.


Trespass is trespass, no matter how you look at it.


p-)

[Firetxmi]

Min,

You know I like you, but re-read your comment above, you just contradicted yourself.


Trespass is trespass, no matter how you look at it.


p-)

If that is true then why not put up some type of motion sensor that fires a gun so that it can shoot anything that crosses your property line?

Come on Geezah, lets be realistic about this and not speak in absolutes. You and I both know the world is not black and white.

[Hollis]

There is a strong attitude among enough people that the way to preventing something negative from happening is to out law it. Sort of a over protectionist concept. They seem to believe every bad act can be prevented by the right laws. Problem is human nature. When a terrible event like this happens, the first response is to out law the obvious parts that contributed to the event.

A example, if we sent all the firearms in to space, violence here on earth would end. In a way I wish it was true. To me it is just wishful thinking. Unfortunately there are people who are predators, careless, stupid, etc. No law can protect us from them.

[martinexsquaddie]

so are anti personal mines legal in texas ?
lighting up anyone who appears on your property without a warning is insane.
shooting without warning unless there obviously armed or kicking your door down
one thing but using lethal force to defend yard sale tat?
clear warning and if armed with a shotgun follow up with a warning shot.
but certain other posters on another site owning ar15s and 30 magazines good to go plus handguns really really need to either a move b chill out c get a scary dog.

[Firetxmi]

While I don't advocate outlawing guns, and I agree with the Castle Law, I think both need to be used properly. With the information about this case that has been given I think applying the castle law to a situation like this does a disservice to all who own a gun and use it within reason and within the law.

[joe mama]

I don't think anyone is justifying trespassing rather the trivial types of trespassing that occurs that everyone does should not be reason enough for a person to open fire.

You're making the assumption that the person whose property is being trespassed upon can tell that the trespassing is trivial. Little kids playing tag or army or ball or whatever during the middle of the day trespassing, as me and my friends did a zillion times, is one thing, adults trespassing on private property at night is quite a different thing. I do not mean to say blast anyone on your property, not by any stretch. However, I do mean that it's very easy to say that they're no threat until they're kicking the door down from the comfort of your chair, it's very different to be in that house at night and see someone doing something on your property, especially if you're elderly, and KNOW that they're not a threat.

The legal system will and should decide if this shooting was appropriate or not. People who think castle law means shoot everyone who comes near your property are the same people who would shoot regardless of the law. They're idiots. If you think that castle law is a bad idea because these idiots will shoot if we have it but they won't shoot if we don't have it, you might just be an idiot too.

[joe mama]

While I don't advocate outlawing guns, and I agree with the Castle Law, I think both need to be used properly. With the information about this case that has been given I think applying the castle law to a situation like this does a disservice to all who own a gun and use it within reason and within the law.

Well said. As I mention in my previous post, anyone who thinks castle law (or stand your ground law, for that matter) equals shoot everyone is an idiot.