SheepDog4Life
Natural Gray Man
From what we know so far, he killed the kid merely for vandalism (breaking a side bay window if the pictures I've seen are accurate).
Legally, as long as the door stood, the kid was not (yet?) a home invader, eliminating most, if not all, castle doctrine protections.
Rationally (as in "reasonable fear"), as long as the door stood, he was not in imminent danger of anything other than property vandalism. Shooting through an intact front door is always a bad idea, IMO. Also, a violation of the four rules... I'm not aware of an exception because you're pissing your pants.
Morally, it is wrong to kill someone if you don't, reasonably, have to. Since he intended to fire, this is a murder/non-negligent manslaughter, IMO.
P.S. Anyone who follows "Crazy Uncle Joe Biden"'s advice on anything should have their head examined.
Legally, as long as the door stood, the kid was not (yet?) a home invader, eliminating most, if not all, castle doctrine protections.
Rationally (as in "reasonable fear"), as long as the door stood, he was not in imminent danger of anything other than property vandalism. Shooting through an intact front door is always a bad idea, IMO. Also, a violation of the four rules... I'm not aware of an exception because you're pissing your pants.
Morally, it is wrong to kill someone if you don't, reasonably, have to. Since he intended to fire, this is a murder/non-negligent manslaughter, IMO.
P.S. Anyone who follows "Crazy Uncle Joe Biden"'s advice on anything should have their head examined.
Last edited: