(Due 3/15/06 at 7 P.M.) The Retreat Doctrine and Defense of home and Property
A-L
If your last name begins with A-L, answer questions 1,2, and 3 on page 216 concerning criminal law and retreating.
M-Z
If your last name begins with M-Z, answer questions 1,2,3, and 4 on page 221 about protecting one's home and property.
18 Comments:
1.)In 1894 Justice Harlan defined it as such:"A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, habitation, or property against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a known felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burgulary, and the like, upon either. In these cases he is not obliged to retreat,but may pursue his adversary until he has secured himself from all danger; and if he kills him in doing so it is called justifiable self defense;.... But a bare fear of any of these offenses, however well grounded, as that another lies in wait to take away the party's life, unaccompanied with any overt act indicative of such an intention, will not warrant in killing that other in way of prevention...."
2.)a.) Mr. Law testified that he stood listening to the sounds at the door
b.)He fired two shots and then told his wife to call the police
C.) Mr. Law had installed a double lock that needed a key on both sides
3.)The law states that one cannot lie in wait to take another's life, even if he is in fear of a felony being committed, no matter how well grounded the fear may be, if it is not accompanied by an overt act that indicates such an intention, the killing is not justified.
In the defendants own words he "stood listening to the sounds and voices at the door" and that after two shots told his wife to call the police. Mr. Law's first act should have been to call the police and then shouted a warning to the people at the door, clearly at least two acts that could have kept the officer alive.
By law, the taking of a life is not justified unless unavoidable, beyond this the law does not authorize the sacrifice of human life or the infliction of bodily injuries.
4.)The defense of habitation is explained in Crawford v. State, 90 A.2d 538 (1982). In defense of a home there is no duty to retreat. In most American jurisdictions, an assault on a home or forcible entry that puts a man in a reasonable fear of a felony being committed and that the danger is imminent, a lawful occupant of the dwelling may prevent the entry, even if means taking of the intruders life. It also states that a man's home is his castle and he has the right to preserve it from fear of force or violence. The defendant is not required to act as a reasonable, and cautious individual, nor is he required to limit his force to only what was required under the circumstances-not when he was about to be set upon by would be robbers or burgulars who are in the act of breaking into his hime. Furthermore, a man may use force to repel force in defense of his person, habitation, or property if he is fear of a felony being committed against him. One of the felonies that Justice Harlan mentions in his ruling is burgulary. It was clear in Mr. Law's mind and it should be in yours, that he was reasonable in his assessment that he was about to be burgularized and maybe worse as the intruders, yes we can call them intruders when they attempted to enter Mr. Law's house w/o a warrant, removed a pane of glass and tried to illegally enter Mr. Law's home
1) The court defines the defense of habitation as an extension of the right of self-defense. "A man's home is his castle." Therefore he has the right to guard and protect it by any means nessicary.
2) Mr. Law's house had been previously broken into twice therefore he went out and brought a gun. When he heard sounds as if someone was attempting to break in his home, he went downstairs and retained his gun. He then fired two shots after hearing voices outside the door.
3) The killing of the officer was not justifiable on Law's behalf do to the fact that after Law fired the two shots at the officers, he told his wife to call the police when in fact when he and his wife first heard the noise up in there bedroom his first reaction should have been to call the cops.
4) The distinction between the defense of home and the defense of personis primarily that in the frmer there is no duty to retreat. "A man in his own house was treated as 'at the wall' and could not, by another's assult, be put uner any duty to flee therefrom." The killing of the officer was justifiable on Law's behalf do to the fact that Law's home had been prevously broken into twice and he was already agitated to the situation. He was only trying to protect himself, his wife, and his belongings as does every human being has the right to.
1.It is explained by text writers and treated in Crawford as an extension of the right of self defense. The regal aphorism that a man's home is his castle had obscured the limitations on the right to preserve one's home as a sanctuary from fear of force or violence.
2.Two weeks before the incident with officer Garrison , Law's home was burglarized. While the two officers were inspecting the house to see if there were any signs or buglary as reported by the neighbor, they talked in a tone lower than their regular tone, so therefore that gave Mr. Law the right to protect his home by preventing anymore burglaries.
3."If other methods would prevent its commision,a homicide is not justifiable." Mr. Law should have yelled over to see who was on the other side of the covered door instead of firing the gun. He also did not intentinally fired the gun nor did he remembered firing the gun, if he protested and said he fired the gun trying to kill the intruder than thats a different story but he is guilty of manslaughter. He accidently shot the "intruder" he thought it was, which means that he committed a "reckless" mens rea. The previous buglary should not be an excuse to killing someone.
4.The cops were not talking in their regular tone of vioce but low. That made the defendent think that the intruder is trying to break in with his partner. Officers should have see if anyone were home instead of inspecting for any signs like they are intruders.
1.) Peterson went into the house and obtained a pistol. Peterson paused briefly to load the pistol. "if you move," he shouted to Keitt, "I will shoot." He then walked to a point in the yard slightly inside a gate in the rear fence and pistol in hand and said, "If you come here I will kill you." Keitt got out of his car and grabbed a lug wrench and proceeded toward Peterson holding the wrench in an upright position. Peterson told Keitt that if he took another step that he would shoot and he did shooting him right in the face causeing Keitt to die instantaniously.
2.) Using the statements made by the for witnesses Peterson is guilty under the stand your ground rule because he was standing his ground when danger was comming his way. Yet this is questionable because he had the gun and therefore he edged Keitt on to act in defending himself. Keitt was protecting himself from getting shot. Peterson also stuck himself in the cornor if the yard.
3.) They were in Petersons yard, there for i guess you can say it could fall under castle exception, but Keitt did not step foot in Petersons house or attempt to harm him in anyway, so therefore this case does not fall under the castle exception.
1.The defense of habitation is explained by text writers and treated in crawford as an extension of the right of self-defense."A man in his own house was treated as "at the wall" and could not, by another's assault, be put under any duty to flee there from.
2.The regal aphorism that a man's home is his castle has obscured the limitations on the right to preserve onr's home as a snctuary from fear of force or violence. also a lawful occupant of the dwelling may prevent the entry even by the taking of the intruders life.
3. Mr.Law was not justified in killing the officer because the taking of life is not justified unless unavoidable. Although one is not oblinged to retreat but may even pursue the assailant until he finds himself or his property out of danger,but this will not justify a person's firing upon everyone who forceably enters his house, even at night.
4.Mr.Law was justifed in killing the officer because of the totally of the circumstances of Mr.Law just being a victim of a burglary he acted on defense for his life.
1. Alibi is when a person can prove that they were in a different place in the commision of a crime they are accused of.(ex if john was accused of murdering his wife kim who was found dead at there, and he could prove that he was at work during the time he has an alibi)
justification is when the defendant or the accused doesnt dispute there guilt in the crime but claims that they were justified in commitng the act. (ex john commits homicide to jeff who attempt to rob him at gun point, during the robbery a struggle insued and john got hold of the gun after which Jeff pulled out a knife from his back pocket and lunged at John. John then shot Jeff in self defense killing Jeff and argues justiliable homicide or self defense)
Excuse is when the defendant admits guilt but insist they werent resposible for what they did. (ex John is a night manager at Mcdonalds, his site manager instructs him to directly deposit the money for thevening in an account not fimiliar to him. The money is reported stolen, and after an investigation both are charged with theft however John may argue that he was doing as instructed and had no idea that he was commitng a crime.
2)affirmitive defense is the act of introducing evidence that supports there alibi or justification
3)motive is very significant in criminal law because it's the reason why the defendant commits the crime which procecutors hang there hats on, or defense attorny spend most of there time tryiing to downplay or discredit.
(John had a grudge with Jeff because he found out he was having an affair with his wife. John loaded his 9mm hand gun walked up on Jeff and shot hin killing him instanlty. Johns motive for killing Jeff was his angerover the extrmarital affair he had with his wife.
1.The only relevant fact is that when the defendant reappeared,he warned the deceased not to move or come into his compound.At this point the deceased should have left since he was ready to leave anyway.But the deceased took the risk of coming out of his car to question the defendants actions. After that the deceased went back to his car to take a wrench and raised it towards the defendant. It was made clear in the facts that after the deceased raised the wrench towards the defendant,the defendant warned him again not to take another step or else he will shoot but the deceased disobeyed. At the same time with all these confrontations going on, it can be infered that the defendant had no intentions of shooting him.If he did he would have shot him immediatley he got back outside. In other words the deceased triggered him again to shoot which eventually led to the deceased's death.
2.The defendant maybe guilty of the retreat rule because he did not retreat and the retreat rule says "...you have to retreat,but only if you reasonably beleive that backing off won't unresonably put you in danger of serious bodily harm or death". At the same time, he is innocent of the stand your ground rule which says that "if you did not start the fight, you can stand your grounds and kill". It is clear that the deceased going into the defendants yard to steal something from his car wether the car was wrecked or abondened, he was looking for trouble. In other words the deceased started the fight.
3.The castle exception did not initially apply to the case because the deceased's intention was to come into the defendant's yard to steal from his car and not to attack. But the deceased should have known that going to steal could trigger an attack from him or the owner of the property. Where the castle exception later came in was when the deceased went to take a wrench from his car and made moves to attack the defendant.And the castle exception says "when you are attacked in your home, you can stand your ground and use deadly force to to fend off an unprovoked attack,but,again, only if you resonably beleive the attack threatens death or serious bodily injury". In this case if the defendant allowed himself to be hit with a wrench,it could have caused the defendant's death or a serious bodily injury,so the defendant is not guilty of the castle exception. Also applying what the bible says, "the thief has come to steal, to kill,and to destroy" and it was clear from the deceased's actions that he was prepared to all these.
1. The defendant warned the deceased, "if you come in here i will kill you." the deceased took steps toward the defendant, and asked, "what the hell do you think you are going to do with that? it was apparent to his friends that he was intoxicated, but i dont believe the defendant was aware of this fact. the deceased walked away only to retrieve a lug wrench. he raised the lug wrench as if he were going to cause the defendant harm. the defendant warned the deceased again, but he failed to adhere to the defendant or the defendants pistol.
2. i don't think Peterson is guilty of either. RETREAT RULE says you have to retreat, but only if you believe when you back off you still wont be in danger of death or serious harm. also Peterson is not obliged to retreat from in this case his dwelling
place. STAND YOUR GROUND RULE says if you didn't start the fight you can stand your ground and kill. again you have to believe the person was going to cause you serious bodily harm or death.
3. no. the deceased did not plan to attack, only to steal from the defendant
1)The defence of habitation is explained by text writers and treated in Crawford as an extention of the right of self defence.The destinction between the defence of home and the defence of person is primarly that in the former there is no duty to retreat.A man in his own house was treated as at the wall and could not by anothers assault be put under any duty to flee there from.
2) (a)Mr Law believed he and his wife was in danger.
(b)His home was broken into within 2 weeks of him moving into his home.
(c)The officers did not try to talk to the neighbor who called.
3)Mr. Law was in no danger the officers were at his back door he had enough time to walk down stairs load a gun and shoot a officer. That means he had time to call the police which had he did officer Garrison would not have had to pay for something another person did weeks befor. Mr Law was looking for some one to pay he made statements about taking care of the person who did this as well as buying a gun.
4)Prior to this incedent Mr. Law's home was bergularized .He lived in fear and had to purchase a gun to keep his family safe. neighborhood.All he heard was the sounds of someone trying to get into his house his neighbor nore the police tried to contact him on the phone he believed beyond a doubt he and his wife were in immenent danger.The fact that he had no clothing on shows he was in fear of there lives.He did not know there was an officer at the door and he did not mean to pull the trigger but he panicked and the gun went off.
1. Peterson acted in self preservation. Peterson stood with the pistol in his hand aiming towards Keitt while warning him not to take another step. Keitt said "What the hell are you going to do with that?" while approaching Peterson with the lug wrench raised in a high position. Keitt whom was obviously intoxicated, continued to walk towards Peterson, so he shot him in the face in a distance of ten feet.
2. Peterson is guilty under the retreat rule because he did have time to retreat but chose not to. Peterson had time to reenter the house and obtain a pistol. He could have done alot of things to avoid the death of Keitt. If the wrecked car was that important he should of called the police instead of bringing out a deadly weapon. Peterson did not need to use such force as he did. The court stated that "must endeavor...that is, he is obligated to retreat, if he can safely". And not to mention Peterson had a safe retreat open but didn't take it. Peterson is also guilty under the stang-your-ground rule because it says that if you did not start the fight, you can stand your ground and kill. But in my opinion Peterson did infact start the fight when he walked out and saw Keitt at the car with two of his friends. Right then and there Peterson decided to put the law into his own hands. And any man approaching three men with a pistol in not "Bravery" he intends to use the gun and as he intended he acted.
3. No. The castle exception does not apply to the facts of the case, because to apply the "castle exception" the crime must have been taken place in the house not outside on the front lawn. And Keitt never entered Peterson home and intended to steal. Keitt only intended to steal windsheild wipers from the car that appeared abandoned.
1)The defense of habitation is described as an extension of the right of self-defense. "a man in his own house was treated as "at the wall" and could not, by another's assault, be put under any duty to flee therefrom."
2) a)He took the precautions to change his locks after the first time his house was broken into.
b)He was in fear of his life.
c)He replaced the glass that the robber broke.
3)Mr. Law was unjustifiable in killing this police officer. Mr.Law already had it in his head that anyone who was to enter his house again he was going to kill. Prior to the officers entry he told investigating officers "I will take care of the job, I know who it is". He also said "I knew somebody I know somebody i can get a gun from in D.C. and he was going to kill the man and he was going to take care of it." Also, before any of the break ins Mr. Law purchased a $39 dollar shotgun and after the first break in he upgraded the shotgun to a 12 gauge which is the most deadly shotgun to date. We believe that Mr. Law already had his mind made up on to kill anything and anyone that would have even come close to entering his home.
4)Mr. Law was indangered of his life and also his wives well-being. Mr. Law's home has already been broken into once after two weeks of moving into a nicer neighborhood. Before the officers arrival he house was broken into twice. Mr. Law took precautionary steps to change his locks and replace the glass the intruder damaged. Although it is a tragic event of a police officer getting shot Mr. Law did the right thing. The Police Officers should of identified themselves upon entering the defendants house instead they talked in low tones and made sounds of little noise as to not be discovered by the defendant. Any reasonable person would have done the same as my defendant. We have to take into consideration that it was dark, the defendant was sleeping, the police never identified them selves never talked to the neighbor who originally called the police and upon entry the police never identified temselves.
1.) The relevant facts that show Mr. Bennie Peterson shot Mr. Charles Keitt in self defense is when Mr. Keit exited the car and stated "What the hell do you think you are going to do with that (Peterson's pistol)?" Mr. Keitt turned around to his car and returned with a lug wrench held in a high position, walking toward Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson warned Mr. Keitt not to come any closer or he will shoot. Mr. Keitt persisted to proceed on Mr. Peterson's property with the lug wrench. At this point, Mr. Peterson shot Mr. Weitt in the face from about ten feet, instantly killing him.
2.)Under the retreat rule, I believe that Mr. Peterson is guilty. The retreat rule states that "You have to retreat, but only if you reasonbly believe that backing off won't unreasonably put you in danger of death or serious bodily harm." At the point where Mr. Keitt advances toward him with the lug wrench, he had an opportunity to just run, possibly back into his residence, and avoid any deadly confrontation. However, I don't believe Mr. Peterson is guilty under the stand your ground rule because he didn't initiate any trouble with Mr. Keitt. Mr. Keitt unlawfully tampered with Mr. Peterson's property, causing Mr. Peterson to confront him and "stand his ground."
3.)The castle exception is not pertinent to this case whatsoever. Mr. Weitt's primary intentions were to steal windshield wipers of from Mr. Peterson's abandoned/wrecked vehicle. His next intentions were to leave after obtaining the wipers, which was impeded by Mr. Peterson's immediate presence. Anyhow, no violent attack took place in Mr. Peterson's home, therefore making the castle exception irrelevant to this case
1)Facts relevant to deciding whether Peterson shot and killed Charles Keitt in self-defense are that when Peterson came out of his home and exchanged words with Keitt,Keitt was returning to his vehicle to leave.Instead of leaving keitt took it upon himself to get back out of his car and grab a weapon because Peterson was holding a pistol protecting himself and his belongings.Peterson told Keitt "if you move, I will shoot and said "if you come in here I will kill you.Keitt advanced toward Peterson with a lug wrench not caring that Peterson said not to take another step, so Peterson shot him in self defense because he felt in danger being asthough Keitt was coming towards him with a wrench which to Peterson was going to be used for a weapon because it served no purpose as a regular tool.
2)Peterson is guilty under the reteat rule because he had time enough to go in the house and get his pistol he could have remained in his home and called the police, but he chose to deal with things his own way instead of avoiding confrontation.
3)No,the castle exception does not apply to the facts of the case because Keitt was on Peterson's property not directly inside his home therefore bringing it back to the retreat doctrine which states that Peterson could've really avoided shooting Keitt in the face.
1.) The facts of the case are:
- Bennie Peterson is in his yard when he confronts Charles Keitt, who had a 2.9% blood-alcohol content in his system
- Peterson and Keitt have an argument and Peterson then goes into his house, retrieves a gun, and returns to his back yard; the two men are approximately ten feet apart
- Peterson tells Keitt not to move towards him or he will shoot
- Keitt goes to his car and retrieves a lug wrench
- Again, Peterson warns Keitt not to take another step or he will shoot him
- Keitt continues to pursue Peterson and Peterson then shoots at Keitt and kills him
2.) The Retreat Rule applied to the facts of the case:
- This rule would probably be applied to this case depending on whether Keitt was running or walking towards Peterson. If Keitt was running towards Peterson, Peterson then may have had to defend himself with the gun since his back would be turned, and Peterson also would have had to pause in order to open his house door. On the other hand, if Keitt was walking towards Peterson, I think Peterson might have had a better chance of retreating.
The Stand Your Ground Rule applied to the facts of the case:
- According to the Stand Your Ground rule Peterson was on his property and spoke to the men before threatening them with a gun; therefore he did not start the fight and has the right to stand his ground and kill if he feels his life is in danger.
- In this case, Peterson would probably be found guilty under the Retreat rule. However, I do not think there is enough evidence here to prove that Peterson is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty of this charge.
3.) Yes, it is true that the deceased, Charles Keitt, was in an “alley in the rear of Peterson’s house” and Peterson spoke to Keitt from his “back yard(to protest)” but the castle exception specifically states, “when you’re attacked in your home you can stand your ground and use deadly force to fend off an unprovoked attack....” (214).
1.The courts says that you can defend your home if the assailant forceably enters your home to cause serious bodly harm and or comment any other felonies
2. Mr. Law's home was previously broken into before, his door was locked on both the outside and the inside, he heard sounds at the back door in the evening hours, and he told his wife to call the police.
3. He didn't fully see the person he was shooting at, had he seen the cop, he would have knew it was a cop. The "burgular" wasn't fully inside the house, therefore he commit a felony, he had know LEGAL means to fire at the door.
4. Law didn't have a duty to retreat because he was in his own home; his house had been previously be broken into before, so he felt that he was protecting those in his home. Most reasonable people would think that the person was an intruder if they heard people on the back porch, espically since the house had been broken into recently.
1)Peterson warned Keitt several times before he fired his pistol thus killing him. Even before he went into his house to get his firearm he warned Keitt to stop. Keitt went into his car to get a lug wrench and approached Peterson with it. Peterson warned Keitt that if he entered his yard or stepped any closer the he would shoot. Keitt continued to do so, Peterson shot him killing him instantly.
2)Peterson would be found guilty under the retreat rule of self defense because he could retreated into his house when Keitt went to get the lug wrench. He also could of called authorities when he was in the house getting his pistol. Under the stand your ground rule of self defense he would be found not guilty because of the nature of stand your ground.
3)the Castle exception does apply to this case because he was about to be attacked in his front yard. the exception states-when you are attacked in your home, you can stand your ground and use deadly force to to fend off an unprovoked attack,but,again, only if you resonably beleive the attack threatens death or serious bodily injury
1. In Crawford as an entention of the right of self-sefense. The distinction between the defense of home and the defense of person is primarly that in the former there is no duty to retreat. "A man in his own house was treated as 'at the wall' and could not, by another's assault , be put under andy duty to flee therefrom." If an assault in a dwelling and forcilbe entry are made under circumstances which would create a reasonable apprehension that it is the design of the assailant to commit a felony or to inflict injury on the inhabitantswhich would results in great bodily injuryor harm. An occupant can take the intruders life.
a.) "A man may repel force by force in defense of his person ,habitation,or property against oone who manifeistly intends and endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a known felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary, and the like, upon either.In these cases he is not obliged to retreat, but may pursue his adversary until he has secured himself from all danger,and if he kill him in so doing it is called justifible self-defense, as on the hand, the killing by such felon of any person so lawfully defending himself will be murder.
2. Mr.Law had previously been robbed and his belongings were damaged and taken. He took some precautions by changing locks on the doors to eliminate futher breakins replaced the glass that was broken into and repaired it to secure the rest of the windows. He also purchased a shotgun. He heard sounds that where outside like someone was trying to break into his home by the door. he fired two shots at the door. Which he told his wife to call the police.
3. Mr. Law was not justified in shooting the officers because he could have took another route to identify who was at his door. He could have opened the door with the shotgun in hand and saw it was the police trying to find out if he was safe. He also, could have called the police and waited for them to say that officers are already at the scene. A reasonable person can not take the law into their own hands and be judge,jury,and executioner.
4.The defendant has a right to protect his home for being broken into by perpetrators. The officers never identified themselves as officers. One of them should have went and rang the doorbell and announced that they were looking to find a burglar on the premises. Mr. Law has every right to protect his home from buglary. He is justified in shooting anyone who haS THEIR ARM INSIDE OF HIS WINDOW. regardless if it is an officer. He felt in his mind he was in immminent danger. He has no duty to retreat in his own home therfore the he is not guilty of any crime.
1.List all factors relevant to deciding whether Bennie Peterson shot and killed Keitt in self-defense.
In establishing a self defense plea Peterson's defense would probably highlight the fact that Keitt approached Peterson with a lug wrench in a treatening way, and at that point Peterson felt his life or serious bodily harm was imminent.
2.Apply both the retreat and stand your ground rules to the facts of the case. Is peterson guilty under both, one or neither. defend your answer.
He may be found guilty under the retreat rule because you can make a reasonable arguement that he could have safely retreted back in to his home. The stand your ground rule doesnt apply because you can also argue that he assited in starting the confrentation
3.Does the castle factor exception apply to the facts of the case? Rely on the specific facts of the case to support your answer.
The castle exception does not apply in this case because several facts in this place put Peterson as the aggressor and according to the rule "the castle exception can only be invoked by one who is without fault in bringing the conflict on."
Post a Comment
<< Home