Richard Rizal McGee, third-year law student at Whittier Law School, was shot and killed last week in another case involving a mistaken shooting under “Castle Doctrine” laws. McGee appears to have been drunk and banging on the wrong door in Las Vegas when the occupants warned him and then fired through the door four times. The shooter is unlikely to be charged in the killing.
McGee had been drinking all night after starting at the Hyde nightclub inside Bellagio. They left the club around 2:30 a.m. and took an Uber to the Crazy Horse, a strip club about 3 miles away. McGee had left a strip club with one friend but they had apparently forgotten the third friend at the club while he paid the bill. They took Uber to the complex and somehow were separated. McGee had only been to the apartment once and appears to have been very drunk and very confused on where the apartment was. He went into the wrong building and tried to get into an apartment. He kept pounding on the metal door despite the occupants telling him to go away and that they were armed. They called the police before the shooting. When he kept trying to get into the apartment, one fired through the door and hit him repeatedly, including in the neck and torso.
Here is the Nevada provision:
NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.
[1911 C&P 129; RL 6394; NCL 10076]-(NRS A 1983, 518)
Just this year, Nevada expanded the Castle Doctrine law to include the use of lethal force in vehicles and not just dwellings. It also added protections from civil lawsuit.
So long as the occupants can claim a reasonable fear that McGee was trying to break into their home, the shooting is treated as justified. Moreover, Nevada like some other states allows for the use of the power not just in the home but around its immediate exterior or curtilage.
The shooting is reminiscent of other such mistaken shootings through doors, including the notorious case of the killing of a Japanese student in Baton Rouge.
This is a terrible loss for McGee’s friends and family. There was a “paddle out” for McGee by his grieving friends in California this morning.
Source: Review Journal
Nick, the castle doctrine is the point, not the so-called status of the individual. If it was a plumber, the debate remains the same. Stop whining.
A person outside the home and threatening to come inside, to me, doesn’t warrant self-defense: because he or she is, literally, outside the home. The home itself is defending the homeowner.
Once inside, however, any homeowner should have the right to shoot. The initial attack is the break-in. And not knowing who is in your house, how many are in your house, or their intentions while in the house, should permit you as the homeowner to neutralize the threat (which is no longer potential, considering the assault on entering the home).
Dave writes, “A person outside the home and threatening to come inside, to me, doesn’t warrant self-defense: because he or she is, literally, outside the home. The home itself is defending the homeowner.”
Absolutely, well-stated, unless you’re in Georgia which apparently allows you to shoot somebody stealing your garden hose or lawnmower.
I believe rather than shouldering an individual who was fearful of being burglarized and harmed by someone acting as this student is alleged with responsibility for castle doctrine laws that many object to, we have to look at this from an individual criminal law perspective as applied to the homeowner.
The decision not to charge the homeowner criminally lies with the state as prescribed by law. From a criminal justice perspective we have to judge the person by any perceived act or omission that violates a statute. If the elements of the crime of homicide are not satisfied or there is an affirmative defense then no conviction will be successful in a legal sense against the homeowner.
We then also come into the realm of prosecutorial discretion. The prosecutor can decide whether the possibility of an acquittal outweighs the costs and time dedicated toward trial and investigation. The burden of proof of self defense in this case is lower than that of a crime. In all likelihood if the facts alleged in the case are going to show by a preponderance of evidence that a self-defense claim has merit, there is not going to be a conviction for manslaughter. Moreover, I don’t know if it is the case with this state but in several if a person is found not guilty of an assault charge and there is a finding of self defense (which is certainly paramount in this incident) the state might be liable to reimburse the defendant for his legal costs–again influencing the cost/benefit of pursuing prosecution.
Another standard to be recognized is the fact that ordinary citizens are given a wider amount of deference in use of force justification than would be expected of a police officer (which we have on this blog discussed in great detail over the years). This is because they are not extensively trained or experienced in these matters.
To re-emphasize we cannot burden the individual defendant with objections to a particular law. The law is for the legislature to address not something to justify scapegoating an individual.
Perhaps he should have identified himself as a Whittier 3rd year law student or a “non-traditional” person just trying to advance his station in life and they would have been less likely to shoot.
FogDogSF, I cannot picture you doing any of the things you suggest, I can however see you in your footy pajamas and cocoa begging for the police to save you from this menace to society.
Such a tragic and shocking waste of a young life
The science geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
The next time you’re at a Nevada Motel 6 and knock on the wrong room (“habitation”) door because you forgot your key card was on the TV table, beware.
I would suggest the next time you are at a Nevada Motel 6, or anywhere else for that matter of fact, don’t get black out drunk. Beware….anything can happen. You can get shot, run over by a car, get mugged, fall into a ditch and freeze to death.
Stupid is as stupid does……even for “law students”.
Stir clear of the Waffle House in the wee hours of the morning. Black man shoots drunk white guy messing with him all caught on video. Crazy.
The “law student” headline implies he was a law abiding citizen, and thus no threat, and that his loss was especially heinous. (Although we do know about lawyers and law students who turn out to be criminals, even murderers.) But anyone can be law abiding, besides a doctor, lawyer, etc. What about a cook or a bellman? Or a stripper?
Karen writes, “The “law student” headline implies he was a law abiding citizen, and thus no threat, and that his loss was especially heinous. (Although we do know about lawyers and law students who turn out to be criminals, even murderers.) But anyone can be law abiding, besides a doctor, lawyer, etc. What about a cook or a bellman? Or a stripper?”
True. The headline was probably not appropriate if one believes in all people being equal, but there are many on this list who regard a caste system as appropriate. In that perspective, perhaps including that the deceased was a law student is appropriate?
Nick, with due respect to graduates of Whittier Law School, including the school in the headline didn’t do much for me. That’s a third-tier law school, and I’d bet the deceased was a non-traditional student trying to advance his station in life. He should be commended for going to law school, especially one where he’ll be paying back a huge student-loan debt with less hope of getting a good enough job to pay it back.
The implication I think was that the deceased would have known better than to knock on the wrong door in “a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner” (this outrageously low threshold would theoretically include a lost pre-adolescent turning the door knob) indicating that he wanted in, perhaps like his buddies were crashed out on the couch and wouldn’t wake up. This scenario is very real and could happened to anyone, even teetotalers. The next time you’re at a Nevada Motel 6 and knock on the wrong room (“habitation”) door because you forgot your key card was on the TV table, beware.
The Nevada law protects perpetrators of homicide more than it does ordinary, innocent people.
A stranger was trying to get into their apartment, despite having been warned to go away. I presume they also told him the police were on their way. It’s tragic, but justified. I cannot imagine anyone here would think everything was going to be OK, and not to worry, if someone was in the act of breaking down their door. They would not think, oh, this is just a simple case of the wrong address…and the guy simply does not believe us.
Here is another close call. My friends from work caravanned to an event. One of my coworkers got separated, and accidentally followed a different car. She noticed her tail, and tried to lose him. He thought his friend was just playing around, and playfully chased her, at high speeds. She drove home. He thought his friend must have stopped at home to get something, so he followed her. She was sobbing and closed the garage door, and he tried to crawl underneath. He was out there laughing, when the garage door opened again…with her 6′ plus husband standing on the other side of the door. He did make it to his car without getting beaten. But he was a complete idiot to let this go on as long as he did without realizing he might be behind the wrong car and checking the driver’s identity.
What I want to know was if he was making progress in getting through the door. If the hinges were starting to go, then he was an immediate danger. I do not know the state of the door or his attempt at entry.
Fogdog:
The gun was not their first response. Their first response was to tell him to go away. Their second was to call the police. Their third was to tell him they were armed. Their fourth was to warn they were going to shoot. Their fifth was to tell the police they were going to shoot. Their sixth was to shoot when they thought he was getting in.
He could have been there to break someone’s knees, and be at the wrong apartment. He could be yet another mentally ill homicidal maniac. He could be a psycho stalker who thought his wife was inside. WHY would you give the benefit of the doubt to a stranger who was breaking into your house, who didn’t stop when you told him you would shoot???
A gun should never be used as a first response.
@FrogDogSF
It wasn’t the first response. They repeatedly told him that he had the wrong apartment and to GO AWAY and that they were armed. They called the police. Someone of “Las Vegas sensibilities” (that’s pretty funny) would certainly have had experience with crazy people, thieves, methed out druggies and other wackjobs, That’s why they have a METAL door.
A crazy person in the middle of the night banging repeatedly on your door, who will not go away despite being warned is a clear threat to your safety. They did take that moment to go to the door and engage they guy. GET AWAY. YOU HAVE THE WRONG PLACE. WE ARE ARMED. I’M CALLING THE POLICE.
Should they have invited him in for some soft words, tea and crumpets?
As stated above, actions have consequences and choices have consequences. OR to put in in other words…..stupid is as stupid does.
FogDog is using his life experience and being condescending. As I said, we DO NOT KNOW the life experience of the apartment dwellers. Someone sitting in their comfortable suburban home can be magnanimous. I have lived in big cities. I have lived in the inner city. There are many different realities.
Tragic yes.
But I have little sympathy here.
You don’t go around demanding entrance to someone’s private residence, and then after being warned that they are armed and will shoot, to keep banging down the door.
Terpsucka has the analogy down good.
A gun should never be used as a first response. Someone banging on the door who had a malicious intent would not be banging on the door in the first place and it should have been evident to someone of Las Vegas sensibilities that someone had a problem that could have involved impairment. It takes only a moment to go to the door and engage in some conversation with the person and to ask if they need help. This could have been accomplished without having to open the door and they could peer through a window. Problem here is that too many people love using guns and killing people, legislating to make it legal, and lawyers are excited by it.
Where is Whittier Law School? California? Is California a Caliphate? Things that play in Vegas should stay in Vegas.
Steve, We will respectfully disagree on the justification. I wasn’t there. I don’t know the circumstances of the apartment dwellers, what was said, etc. But, I don’t have strong thoughts or emotions on it.
Let’s focus on the class aspect of this. The title of the post starts w/ “Whittier Law Student.” Do you think there would even be a post starting “22 year old Indiana plumber.” ?
Nick: Regarding the heading, it really didn’t matter than a law-school student was the one killed justifiably by this insidious law, it could have been anyone under the same circumstances and the law would have still been insidious. (And, by the way, Castle Doctrine here in California I do support under the Homeowners’ Bill of Rights in that there must be entry and the presumption of self-defense must be reasonable.) Perhaps his occupation as a law student (and I do mean occupation to the fullest extent of the word) was an attention-getter, and you’re right to point that out.
However, I also note the irony in your shrug-of-the-shoulders indifference otherwise to a caste system. 🙂
Best regards,
It appears that the statute allows this shooting or allows a court to hold that it was justified. No exception for drunk on the weekend at the barbeque. Dont bang on someone’s abode door at night and keep insisting on getting inside. They should have taught this in the first year of the dead guy’s law school. Also, when you go to the cathouse you should get laid, in the shade and go quietly home to wifeypoo and lie about where you were and how much you won at the casino. Over and out.
If, in his confusion, he’d wandered out in traffic and was killed by a motorist, would that homicide be more justified?
Nick and Fleisher: Nuts! In the majority of states, I’d guess, the Castle Doctrine requires the apprehension of great bodily harm to be reasonable AND the dwelling has to have been broken into. The Nevada law goes too far by allowing the shooter to squeeze off a few rounds and think later.
“[B]ad choices . . . .” Get real.
Steve, If the kid were a 22 year old plumber from Alabama the column would not have been written.
Life has consequences.
Mr. McGee made bad choices – his consequences were just higher than most; only reason that the column was written.