• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police: Boy, 15, Shot By Homeowner After Knocking At Wrong House

longview said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-dead-and-the-homeowner-is-accused-of-murder/


There may be more recent information, but the police were not initially saying they knew who called.
Much of this hinges on the timeline, which has not been made public.
Click to expand...
I know I read that Lovell called on the way to the door. I will have to look for it later.

The case really relies on the fact that Dylan was unarmed and never threatened Lovell with harm. And the biggest piece of evidence is that Dylan never entered through the locked door. No matter how afraid Lovell was he did the wrong thing. He might of had a a case if the boy actually entered the house or at least threatened Lovell. But he didnt.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Lovell pulled the trigger, all of the responsibility lies on him. It is easy to see that if Lovell didnt get his firearm from his safe and had waited for the police that he called that no one would have died.
Click to expand...
I understand you want to blame something for the teens death, but his death is a result of his own poor choices.
I think Lovell is no more at fault than any other thing that causes teens deaths each year, because of poor choices.
Usually these deaths are preceded by the comment "Hold my beer, watch this", or it's equivalent.
 
ecofarm said:
That's not true. One can use lethal force to stop a forcible felony without any fear of life or harm. That's the point of Castle Doctrine and SYG. The threat is presumed by qualifying acts respectively.



Read SYG. No fear required, just forcible felony.



The lack of fear required because of Castle Doctrine and SYG indicate the protection of property. One needn't surrender a wallet to a mugger with a knife, to see what happens next.
Click to expand...

Don't SYG and Castle Doctrine statutues essentially pre-suppose a threat? That's always been my assumption and if I'm correct in that then it's again not a property crime that you are using deadly force against but a defense of self situation.

I understand that NY isn't the rest of country and it generally more restrictive about self defense than many other places but our self defense draw a sharp distinction between the
force allowable in defense of property and the force allowable in defense of self. You are only allowed to use force, as opposed to deadly force, to stop a property crime. You must be facing a threat to use deadly force. Our Castle Doctrine defense laws allows you, at least on paper my understanding is that practice may be different, to assume a threat and imposes not duty to retreat in your home.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I know I read that Lovell called on the way to the door. I will have to look for it later.

The case really relies on the fact that Dylan was unarmed and never threatened Lovell with harm. And the biggest piece of evidence is that Dylan never entered through the locked door. No matter how afraid Lovell was he did the wrong thing. He might of had a a case if the boy actually entered the house or at least threatened Lovell. But he didnt.
Click to expand...
I clearly disagree, I think it could be argued that the point of the teen breaking the glass, constituted
entry.
 
Gaius46 said:
Don't SYG and Castle Doctrine statutues essentially pre-suppose a threat? That's always been my assumption and if I'm correct in that then it's again not a property crime that you are using deadly force against but a defense of self situation.
Click to expand...

A threat is presumed, in either case. My point is that no fear of harm is required. One can have the situation under control and opt to use lethal force rather than make concessions to the offender.

I understand that NY isn't the rest of country and it generally more restrictive about self defense than many other places but our self defense draw a sharp distinction between the force allowable in defense of property and the force allowable in defense of self. You are only allowed to use force, as opposed to deadly force, to stop a property crime. You must be facing a threat to use deadly force. Our Castle Doctrine defense laws allows you, at least on paper my understanding is that practice may be different, to assume a threat and imposes not duty to retreat in your home.
Click to expand...

I don't think NY has SYG.
 
ecofarm said:
A threat is presumed, in either case. My point is that no fear of harm is required. One can have the situation under control and opt to use lethal force rather than make concessions to the offender.



I don't think NY has SYG.
Click to expand...

Got it. Understand your point now.

We don't have SYG in NY. We are a Castle Doctrine state in that there's no duty to retreat within the home. However given some DA's feeling about firearms and self defense how the law is actually applied apparently varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within the state. No first hand knowledge of that it's hearsay.
 
Gaius46 said:
Our Castle Doctrine defense laws allows you, at least on paper my understanding is that practice may be different, to assume a threat and imposes not duty to retreat in your home.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is correct. Rather, Castle Doctrines state that in the face of an established threat, a person in their home is not obligated to retreat. The home occupant, however, must still establish that a threat existed.
 
Cryptic said:
I don't think this is correct. Rather, Castle Doctrines state that in the face of an established threat, a person in their home is not obligated to retreat. The home occupant, however, must still establish that a threat existed.
Click to expand...

The Castle Doctrine, like SYG, isn't a law as much as an idea that forms the basis of some self defense law. The specifics vary from place to place so you really have to look at the laws of the state in question to understand how they've implemented the Castle Doctrine or SYG. To make matters even more interesting there's what's written and how courts choose to enforce what's written, which can be very different from what the legislature wrote.

In reality if someone's in your home in the middle of the night uninvited I don't think you're going to find many people who'll argue with you if you choose to shoot the person.
 
longview said:
I understand you want to blame something for the teens death, but his death is a result of his own poor choices.
I think Lovell is no more at fault than any other thing that causes teens deaths each year, because of poor choices.
Usually these deaths are preceded by the comment "Hold my beer, watch this", or it's equivalent.
Click to expand...

Blaming the victim is very stupid.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

You may say Nope all you want, but since the law was vaguely written, what
constitutes "in the dwelling" is open to interpretation.
Once the teen broke the glass, a good attorney, could argue that some portion of the teen's
body entered the dwelling.
 
This happened to a school mate of mine as he got super drunk and thought he was in his apartment but the key would not work so he tried to get in through the sliding glass doors and was cut in half by the guy living there by a double barrel shotgun.
 
longview said:
You may say Nope all you want, but since the law was vaguely written, what
constitutes "in the dwelling" is open to interpretation.
Once the teen broke the glass, a good attorney, could argue that some portion of the teen's
body entered the dwelling.
Click to expand...

Lol that is really grasping at straws.
 
longview said:
When does someone enter your property? how is it defined?
it varies.
Click to expand...

Even if you went into the hand briefly entered the home line of argument, the boy was shot outside through the door from the inside behind a locked door.. That outside area in the carport is not fenced in and has no signs telling visitors to not go inside the carport. That is why you put up fences and why the law requires you to post a sign saying no trespassing.

Lets go back to your blaming the victim argument for a second. So if a half deaf elderly neighbor came over and banged on the window and broke it, its the elderly persons fault if the homeowner shoots them?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Even if you went into the hand briefly entered the home line of argument, the boy was shot outside through the door from the inside behind a locked door.. That outside area in the carport is not fenced in and has no signs telling visitors to not go inside the carport. That is why you put up fences and why the law requires you to post a sign saying no trespassing.

Lets go back to your blaming the victim argument for a second. So if a half deaf elderly neighbor came over and banged on the window and broke it, its the elderly persons fault if the homeowner shoots them?
Click to expand...
So would the half deaf neighbor arrive in a group of 3, while drunk?
Would he scare the occupants of the home sufficiently, for them to call the police, and say someone is trying to break in?
You are the one grasping at straws.
Let's consider which of Lovell's rights the state has already violated.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

Lovell is being held, but is it based on a Grand Jury indictment?

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Click to expand...
No bail, sure sounds a bit excessive to me!
 
longview said:
Police: Boy, 15, Shot By Homeowner After Knocking At Wrong House « CBS Boston
I saw this story, and thought there has to be more here.
I am guessing the boys were banging loudly on the door, and perhaps refusing to leave.
At some point their knocking broke the window on the door, and the homeowner shot through the door.
Click to expand...

Sad all around.

In many states it is illegal to shoot even a person that really is trying to bust down your door to kill you until they are actually past the threshold. That may be the law that's being applied here. Personally I think that is wrong. The Castle Doctrine should apply even to those that haven't actually broken down the door and entered but are trying. After all, the defenders of a castle wouldn't wait to kill the people trying to force their way into a castle until they were actually in the castle would they?
 
DA60 said:
Nope I have three of them...two beside my bed (all loaded). Plus reloads (I got a discount).

And my security system would let me know the second they come anywhere near my place and screaming at them as soon as they entered my premises.

Plus, there are now tasers that can take out three people at once.

Sure, a large, well armed, determined group could take me out. But come on now...the odds of that are ridiculous.

And one thing is virtually certain...no children would be killed by mistake.


I am not going to get into some - 'yeah, but can your tasers do this' nonsense.

For 95+% of intruders I can handle it and the chances of an innocent getting killed is almost nonexistent.

You don't like 'em...whatever.

I do.
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out.

Nothing like taking a taser to a gunfight.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Even if you went into the hand briefly entered the home line of argument, the boy was shot outside through the door from the inside behind a locked door.. That outside area in the carport is not fenced in and has no signs telling visitors to not go inside the carport. That is why you put up fences and why the law requires you to post a sign saying no trespassing.

Lets go back to your blaming the victim argument for a second. So if a half deaf elderly neighbor came over and banged on the window and broke it, its the elderly persons fault if the homeowner shoots them?
Click to expand...
After all of your arguments, A Massachusetts Judge (Not a Jury) Found Jeffrey Lovell
Not Guilty of manslaughter.
I am sorry the teen died, but his actions led Lovell to believe that a break in was in progress.
The Judge clearly agreed with enough of the elements to find Lovell not guilty.
 
longview said:
After all of your arguments, A Massachusetts Judge (Not a Jury) Found Jeffrey Lovell
Not Guilty of manslaughter.
I am sorry the teen died, but his actions led Lovell to believe that a break in was in progress.
The Judge clearly agreed with enough of the elements to find Lovell not guilty.
Click to expand...

Yes after all my arguments justice prevailed. But I still think that the guy was irresponsible and a very bad example of a gun owner. I certainly wouldnt use this case for gun rights.
 
If Jeffrey Lovell would have been an off duty police officer I can guaranGoddamTU that we would have never had this conversation & there never would have been a trial for Lovell.

The 'just us' system ****s the civilian citizen & protects law enforcement, period.

I for one have had about enuff of this ****ing bull**** 'just us' system that protects law enforcement and puts non LE at risk when folks are doing nothing more than protecting their goddamn homes ...............
 
Betya this guy is on the cover of next month's NRA rag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom