Hraefn
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 2,311
- Reaction score
- 6,422
IMO, it depends.Let's pretend Amber was in her own apartment; would she have been justified in shooting the intruder?
Has the defense shown any signs that they will try to expand the Castle Doctrine to a person who claims they thought they were in their own home? And if they do make that argument, what standard of review will apply? An objective reasonableness standard?
IMO it's not relevant what would happen if she had been at her own home, but rather whether the defense is trying to claim her alleged belief of being in her own home as triggering the broad protection of the Castle Doctrine.
What was or was not in Jean's apartment is completely irrelevant.Whoa! You're making a number of unfounded assumptions. "Forcing" her way into apartment? Incorrect. The door was left cracked open (recall, victim had drugs in his system). Getting wasted? No proof. Amber was exhausted from protecting citizens from criminals. Weren't drugs found in the deceased apartment?
I agree with all of this ^No. Except the getting wasted part I'm not basing it on "assumptions." I'm basing it on statements by eye witnesses, by herself and by tenants who live there and stated that those doors self-close. They don't stay open as she tried to lie and say.
That's evidence. Not assumption. Evidence that is highly likely to be introduced at trial.
And if she was exhausted she had an even higher duty of care when it came to her weapon.
Finally, it is irrelevant that the victim in this case had marijuana in his apartment. Expect for the fact that the police used it to try to influence the public that somehow he was a bad guy who caused or deserved his own death.
Looks like it worked.
Again, really curious how this issue will play out.Castle Doctrine doesn't apply, however, when it's not your home. Even if you're exhausted from work.