Why Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine Are So Important

[okie of crosstimbers]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/14382462.htm



Posted on Thu, Apr. 20, 2006


Verdict is manslaughter
Judge says intruder killing unjustified

By JOE LAMBE
The Kansas City Star

A Kansas City man waited behind an unlocked door with a cocked shotgun and killed an angry intruder. His lawyer called it self-defense; prosecutors called it intentional murder.

In a case tried without a jury, Jackson County Judge Charles Atwell on Wednesday instead found Mitchell Robinson guilty of voluntary manslaughter and armed criminal action.

He could be sentenced to up to 15 years in a case that raised questions about how far a person can go in defending his home.

There was no dispute that Robinson, 23, shot Sean Kelliher, 30, to death on Nov. 7, 2004, at an apartment at 1000 block of West 39th Street.

Also undisputed:

The shooting happened on a Sunday evening after Kelliher, who lived in an apartment two flights of stairs below, got angry because someone making noise outside woke him up.

As he shouted and started to go out, his girlfriend tried to stop him, and Robinson went down to a landing and asked what was happening. Kelliher mistakenly thought Robinson made the noise and started upstairs toward him.

Robinson retreated into his apartment, left the door unlocked and got his single-shot, 20-gauge shotgun out of a guitar case. He cocked it, aimed it and waited.

Kelliher went in, cursed Robinson and asked if he was going to shoot him. Robinson shot him dead.

In closing arguments, assistant prosecutor Michael Hunt called the crime second-degree murder punishable by as much as life in prison.

“It was a trap,” Hunt said. “All he had to do was close the door, lock the deadbolt and we’re done.”

Instead, Hunt said, “Without saying a word … he fires that load of buckshot and wadding into his face.”

Defense lawyer Kevin Regan countered that a man’s home is his castle under the law, and Robinson had no duty to hide in it. Robinson retreated, but the intruder kept coming in; he died about six feet inside the apartment, Regan said.

Regan noted that Kelliher, a recovering heroin addict, had told a witness not to go near him on Sundays because he did not have methadone and became irritable.

“His actions, irrational, illegal and wrong, caused this,” Regan said of Kelliher.

As for his client carrying a loaded shotgun in a guitar case for protection, Regan said, “It does seem eccentric, but my client is not on trial for being eccentric.”

Atwell decided the crime was voluntary manslaughter, which is defined by sudden passion from adequate cause.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reach Joe Lambe, Jackson County courts reporter, call (816) 234-4314 or send e-mail to jlambe@kcstar.com.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.kansascity.com

[MarkV]

Sounds like Kelliher should have called the cops if there was a problem with his neighbor. He had no right to enter Robinson's apartment locked door or not.

[chicane]

That seems wrong to me. I bet if he lived in a house, with a yard that the neibor had to cross this would be a different story. If my neibor comes at me yelling, and tries to follow me into my house, Still yelling at me... I consider that reason enough to put my 870 right in his face. If he takes one more step towards me while saying "what are you going to do, Shoot me?" Then Yes, I am unloading 1 2.5" round of #3 buck shot right into his center mass.

I thought I understood that leaving your door open is legal but stupid? As in, You can leave it wide open all night and if someone enters without permission you can determine that they are trying to cause you harm?

I would like to hear some others thoughts on this.

[liliysdad]

For a burglary charge, as opposed to simple trespassing, one must unlawfully enter a residence, builting, or vehicle with intent to commit a crime. Simply walking in is not enough for more than a simple trespass charge. I have not reviewed the Castel Doctrine laws to see how this affects the use of force to repel an intruder.

I will say this much. If someone neters my residence, ai m of the thoery that I will barricade myself in my room, along with my family. The intruder can have my TV and stereo, they are simply material possessions. If he breeches the room, then there will be issues.

[Michael Brown]

You don't chase a predator into his own lair.

You don't enter someone else's house without their permission. If you do, you take your life in your hands.

While I will not kill someone over a t.v. or stereo, I don't think its totally incumbant to determine a criminal's intent in your own home.

Michael Brown

[NikatKimber]

Amen MB, if i KNEW all they wanted was PBJ sandwich, make yourself at home!! but I don't know that when they come in. The guy was on medication and admitted to being "irritable" when off, how'd the defendant know that he wasn't off medication and looking for a fight? I can't say I would have acted in the same manner, I also can't say that I would not have. He didn't knock, did he? I hope this case does not get used to strip rights away.
Brent

[Michael Brown]

Amen MB, if i KNEW all they wanted was PBJ sandwich, make yourself at home!! but I don't know that when they come in. The guy was on medication and admitted to being "irritable" when off, how'd the defendant know that he wasn't off medication and looking for a fight? I can't say I would have acted in the same manner, I also can't say that I would not have. He didn't knock, did he? I hope this case does not get used to strip rights away.
Brent

I think its just an aberration by a liberal prosecutor. I don't think its currently a worry, particularly in Oklahoma.

Overall, I think the red states are moving much closer to sensible self-defense laws despite the blue states' losing their minds.

There are exceptions and problems but I think overall we're in pretty good shape as far as legal protection for justifiable self-defense.

Michael Brown

[okie of crosstimbers]

I doubt susch a thing would happen in Oklahoma. Hopefully, by the end of Missouri's legislative session, such a thing won't be happening in Missouri anymore either. The Jackass County, MO prosecutor, who's office prosecuted this case, is not known for being a Leftist although the rest of county government is as are most of the city governments in Jackass County most definitely are.

Until then, those of you who enjoy Branson--BEWARE! It's a bit more sensible politically than the Kansas City area, but the same silly state laws apply. Currently, in Missouri you have a duty to retreat if you can without further endangering yourself--even in your own home. The Castle Doctrine has been interpreted by the MO Supreme Court as applying only at the magical moment that the intruder is crossing the threshold form outside of the Residence to the inside of the Residence (includes motel rooms). Once the intruder is inside, the Resident has the duty to retreat and can only use deadly force when Rape or other grevious bodily harm is threatened. Basically, an intruder can take over your home and there's nothing you can do about it until the police arrive to evict him. If you do attempt eviction yourself, you become the agressor.

[NikatKimber]

I didn't lose any sleep over it MB, just stating my thought.

[Ram_Tough_Truck]

Big story in the paper today about LE and DAs opposing it in its current form. They felt that they wouldnt be able to detain people properly to investigate whether a shooting was justified. It was also mentioned that it would hinder the ability to prosecute certain gang shootings. Im going to look for the story online and post it here if I can find it.

[spamby]

I don't claim to have esp, nor do I claim clairvoyance so I wouldn't bet my life on knowing what a person is planning or is thinking about doing to me once they have me in their grasp. I personnally wouldn't leave my door unlocked or would I not call the police and who really knows how quick or crazy the events really happened. I will say it sounds like the person who got shot got what he deserved, it reminds me of a saying I once heard "It's better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six". I would hope I'm never in this sitution.

[NikatKimber]

Good point there Spamby, that I wish the public understood. We are PREPARED to defend with deadly force. But I, like you and others here, hope to never be in such a situation in the first place. I practice as often as I do both because I enjoy shooting, and because I want to be capable of defending myself and those I love. I do not desire to kill another person.

[tacmedic]

There are a lot of important details not included in this story. I am sure that is not an accident on the part of the media either. They say the door was unlocked...was this because the man was fleeing to retrieve his shotgun because he was afraid of the perp who was hot on his heels and he felt he had no time? What was the perp doing when shot? Hands in pockets, raised in fists? Was he standing there or was he charging the shooter? Personally once a gun is out its going to get used. I am not about the get into a fight for my gun. If you have made me feel threatened enough to draw my weapon then you have threatened me enough to get shot. Obviously they were close range since both were in the appartment, plenty close for the perp to be a physical threat and close enough to make a lunge for a shotgun. The deceased man's mental state was obviously unstable. To chase someone into their home and ask if they are going to shoot? Being in medicine I can tell you people withdrawing from drugs are extraordinarily dangerous, as much so as someone under the influence of drugs.
My vote is MO law sucks!

[okie of crosstimbers]

Excellent points. The Defendant also made a big mistake by waiving his right to a jury trial and allowing a judge to act as judge & jury I'm thinkin'!

[Michael Brown]

Excellent points. The Defendant also made a big mistake by waiving his right to a jury trial and allowing a judge to act as judge & jury I'm thinkin'!

Bingo!

There is no freakin' way I'm trusting my fate to a person who sucks bad enough as a lawyer that he becomes a judge.

Michael Brown

[trade_sniper]

Bingo!

There is no freakin' way I'm trusting my fate to a person who sucks bad enough as a lawyer that he becomes a judge.

Michael Brown

+1 Hahahahaha :laughup:

[surpip]

umm i think the dude went a little far shooting the guy in the face, he knew he was coming up, and he was just mad, not trying to kill anyone
i would not have shot him.

i wouldent pull the trigger unless my life or someone elses life was in danger, and in this case, from what i read, it wasent.

[mikeyinokc]

umm i think the dude went a little far shooting the guy in the face, he knew he was coming up, and he was just mad, not trying to kill anyone
i would not have shot him.

i wouldent pull the trigger unless my life or someone elses life was in danger, and in this case, from what i read, it wasent.

If someone is in my house/apartment and I didn't invite him in, I would consider my life in danger!

[surpip]

If someone is in my house/apartment and I didn't invite him in, I would consider my life in danger!
smoeone? anyone? some little kid just rolls in that don't know any better?


where do you draw the line?

[mikeyinokc]

smoeone? anyone? some little kid just rolls in that don't know any better?


where do you draw the line?

Come on. You read this story just like I did. This WASN'T some little kid that just rolled in, or didn't know any better, that's an absurd angle.This was an adult that according to the article was mad and followed the person into his apartment.

No one belongs in a persons abode without their invitation or permission.:nolike:

[surpip]

i agree, just making a point..
if someone came in my house without my permission i would be pissed, but i would kill the guy, and i wouldn't wait for him behind my door with a shot gun, especially if i knew he was unarmed.

[skyydiver]

First: I say justified, but I probably would have turned the deadbolt given time...

second:
In closing arguments, assistant prosecutor Michael Hunt called the crime second-degree murder punishable by as much as life in prison.

Heh, Mike Hunt is now practicing law. The hole thing smells fishy.

[okie of crosstimbers]

I would say that the risk of allowing someone who means to do you harm, to get control of your firearm, is a reasonable fear of death or grevious bodily harm.

[tacmedic]

Any one who has been in a court or around a liberal should know its all in how you spin it!

Lets look at the facts: 1. know drug scumbag is pissed because he believes the defendent made noise that woke him up. 2. scumbag exits his apartment in a rage and persues the defendent up the stairs and into his apartment. 3. defendent obviously feels threatened as he flees (here's his duty to retreat) to his apartment. 4. He is afraid enough to arm himself. 5. scumbag enters apartment and upon seeing the shotgun does not retreat or make any actions indicating submission or surrender, in fact he challanges the armed defendent in his own apartment by asking if he's going to shoot him.

Liberal spin: the poor sick withdrawing drug addict who was minding his own business and trying to sleep when he was wrongfully awakened by the defendent. The deceased then because he was without his prescription methadone and could not control his behavior chased the defendent into his apartment because he was emotionally unstable due to a medical condition. The deceased only asked if the defendent who was lying in wait to ambush him if he was going to shoot because he was obviously presenting no serious threat and therefore couldn't have believed the defendent would shoot.:bigeye: And we all know it is against the law to shoot someone because they are suffering from a medical illness. I mean come on, you would never condone shooting a person for suffering the consequences of diabetes or a heart condition now would you. :nolike: