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
steveg:
I do not agree that this situation is similar to someone who has the wrong room and merely knocks. He was trying to break down the door, refusing to stop when the owners told him to go away, they had called the police, told him they were armed, threatened to shoot, and then shot him. That’s a series of unfortunate events that are pretty rare to happen accidentally. In this case, it did, but the victim is responsible for getting himself into such an inebriated state that he acted so recklessly for his own welfare. It would actually be similar to someone getting drunk and then stumbling onto the freeway, jumping into a tiger enclosure at the zoo, slapping a gang member, or passing out underneath the tires of a parked and idling delivery truck.
As you may recall, a similar situation happened to my family many years ago. Someone tried to break in and my father chased him away merely by chambering a round on the other side of the door. He got a very sincere apology and the man left. My father would never have just stood there and let him come in, and then found out if he was a threat to his wife and children.
Darren: Thank you for the informative post. I agree that people who dislike the law should focus their ire on the law they want changed, not the homeowner who followed it.
Karen writes, “As you may recall, a similar situation happened to my family many years ago. Someone tried to break in and my father chased him away merely by chambering a round on the other side of the door. He got a very sincere apology and the man left. My father would never have just stood there and let him come in, and then found out if he was a threat to his wife and children.”
If that happened in California, and he shot before finding out why someone was breaking in, he’d be liable for harm caused if the guy simply thought he was breaking into his own house, for example. The presumption of intent to do great bodily harm only goes so far.
I remember taking the San Diego Police firearms course in the early 90s and being told to shoot first, figure out later what the fellow was doing breaking in. The police instructor even when so far as to say that if he’s running out of the house when you shoot him, drag him back inside! Absolutely bad advice on both counts under then-current California law which is still in effect.
Well said @stevegroen at 9:56 am.
The crime is public drunkenness.
The idiocy is losing control of oneself.
What happened here is the act of the drunk.
_____
Stay sober.
Never dive alone.
Caveat emptor.
Pay the piper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4en77mX6gOI
I am with the shooter and the state here. The idiot law student was trying to violently break and enter and after multiple warnings continued. I am surprised they stopped at 4 shots.
Someone brought up a good point of what if this kid was drunk, wandered into the street, and was killed by a driver. I have worked on many cases of shooters and drivers killing drunken fools. The drunken fool was @ fault. But, the death haunts the person who happened to encounter the drunk and kill him. Now, maybe the shooter has no guilt, no remorse. Maybe he’s pounding his chest and bragging. But, based on my experience, that is not very likely. We don’t know.
Having interviewed 10’s of thousands of people, I never cease to be amazed @ the insularity of people. Folks here are primarily, white, upper middle class, professional. That includes our host. This resonated w/ JT because it was a person of his profession, his class. Indeed, that is evidenced by the title. God forbid, this could have been his son. I doubt this would have been a post if the deceased were a 22 year old plumber from Indiana. That is my point. But, if it were a post involving a 22 year old plumber from Indiana, that would not have made the headline. I’m not whining, just being an observer of what motivates people. What causes people to feel empathy, to act. As the comments continue, I see a continuation of people viewing this incident from their own little world.
This is what I do for a living. I assess people and their motivations. I understand, on a profound level, we ALL have bias. There is nothing wrong w/ that, it’s human nature. It just interests me to see people projecting their bias on both the deceased and the shooter. I did that in my first comment. But, my assessment is based on spending a lot of time in Vegas and seeing drunken, entitled, a-holes like this guy. I am sorry he died. I’m sorry his actions caused his parents to have a horrible loss. But, I also have empathy for the shooter. To kill someone is also traumatic.
Being behind walls and then shooting resonates more with revenge than fear. Only when the barriers begin to crumble can one justifiably act
Being behind your door in the middle of the night….. while someone is battering it in, even when told that you have called the police or that you are armed and they don’t stop…..gives more than a reason to be fearful for your own safety. The door doesn’t have to be actually breached only the fear that it is soon to be breached and that you are in imminent danger. You are being attacked while in your house and on your own property. Castle doctrine. (BTW: law officer response time in our area is greater than 30 minutes and more like an hour. It isn’t their fault. They do the best they can given the size of their territory)
Of course someone just walking past your apartment door and you shooting out at them is crazy. Or just merely innocently near your property is not cause for alarm or of imminent danger or any justification to shoot them.
then I worry for your UPS delivery-person who, should the gate be open by accident, could wander in.
Not to worry. We know the UPS and Fed Ex guys personally and quite well. One of them is the husband of my daughter’s Jr High teacher. The gate is open during the day, unless we have animals on the property and don’t want them to get out onto the roads. We drive down to the end of the road to close it at night. A closed and locked gate is a quite clear signal that no one is invited to enter the property…doncha think? Just like a locked door. NO one has any legitimate reason to be on our property at night and would, of course, be given a ‘fair warning’.
You protect yourself the way you want. Good luck with that.
DBQ:
Randyjet ended his comment: “We have no idea of how close this drunk was to kicking the door down, so I cannot make a definitive judgement. If there is no real damage and no expectation of entry, then I would urge them to prosecute.”
And that’s the distinction I tried to make. Seeing an unknown person or persons on your property or outside your door is not the same as actually entering the home, or breaching the door. Shooting them without that distinction, as Randy noted, likely leads to jail for that homeowner. And if someone were merely “throwing rocks” as you said, the same would apply.
Shooting as a response to trespassing I think would fall outside the protection of the doctrine, and rightly so. And the legal expansion into vehicles makes sense: if the car is breached.
The law also states:
A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, is not sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.
Being behind walls and then shooting resonates more with revenge than fear. Only when the barriers begin to crumble can one justifiably act. If not, DBQ, then I worry for your UPS delivery-person who, should the gate be open by accident, could wander in.
Darren Smith,
“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.”
Are we in the same universe at this moment?
Lets compare deference to each, allowed or not allowed to use force against…
Person has.. ink pen, cellphone, candy bar, any non (actual) weapon.
Citizen: Not allowed
Police: Allowed
Person was.. walking with a purpose, reaching toward waistband, making furtive movement, in bladed stance, any non (actual) physical threat.
Citizen: Not allowed
Police: Allowed
“We have no idea of how close this drunk was to kicking the door down, so I cannot make a definitive judgement.”
However, one can make a reasonable judgment that the person on the other side of the door is not being deterred by the knowledge the occupants are armed and willing to shoot and/or that the police have been contacted. What is neither rational or reasonable is to expect the occupant to determine the extent of damage on the door, mental state of the aggressor or their level of intoxication.
I have second hand knowledge of a similar instance where a divorced co worker mom shot her ex through her apartment door, and did not even get a ride downtown. She had a restraining order against him, and he was drunk at night, actually started breaking down the door by kicking it in. She got her .357 and fired through the door as he was swearing to kill her. The cops came, asked for the restraining order, and simply said good shooting since she killed him. That is a justified case of self defense. The only way a reasonable person could conclude that this shooting was justified is if there is substantial damage to the door jam indicating imminent break in. We have no idea of how close this drunk was to kicking the door down, so I cannot make a definitive judgement. If there is no real damage and no expectation of entry, then i would urge them to prosecute.
Dave….regarding reading comprehension
From JT’s article and according to the Nevada law.
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
Also 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.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not waiting until the armed intruder is INSIDE my living room before protecting myself. 🙂
This could have just as easily happened in another country, resulting in the shooter(s) getting off due to self defense, castle law or not. This is where the judicial system either works/shines or doesn’t. Then perhaps the shooter(s) might have been held responsible for excess force.
Years and years ago when I lived in France, a homeowner was held responsible for blowing the legs off of a burglar. The home owner booby trapped the land around his country home to protect it while he was away, sometime for extended periods. The judge held the home owner responsible because he created dangerous situations that could harm or kill anyone who happened to be on his land, perhaps kids or someone taking a shortcut. Also, the home owner was protecting property and not necessarily himself as the booby traps were laid when he was not there.
Around the same time a baker shot and killed a 14 yr old kid who, with another kid, was burglarizing the bakery. The baker came down from his apartment and seeing two man sized figures in the dark, fired. One kid was killed and the other caught later. The judge declared that the baker was justified due to the circumstances: robberies in the area, man sized figures at night, private premises broken into, the baker protecting his life and the lives of his family.
It seems that in the US there is a strong desire for specific rules of engagement, protected by laws and/or the constitution. One has to wonder whether these absolutes are more valuable than common sense, especially when lives are lost. Perhaps one shot through the bottom of the door could have caught the drunk’s attention. The door was not breached. Is a drunk banging and yelling reason for a rational person to fire several rounds? There is a lot more America in this situation than simply the situation. There is a lot of “I warned him.” There is not as much ‘Zimmerman’ in this tale as in others but it is close.
DBQ 2:
The home is a passive entity. It is being destroyed by the invader who is battering down the door. You have a right to defend your ‘home’ and everyone in it.
– Damage to property doesn’t justify firing bullets. Once the door is battered and entrance occurs, then, legally, one can take out the threat.
My HOME begins at the gate at the end of my driveway and the fences surrounding the area. Go beyond that closed gate and you have now entered my “home” and are trespassing. Beware.
– I’m in favor of the castle doctrine. But I’m pretty sure the property is outside the castle. So you’re advocating something else. But go ahead and take someone out for trespassing on your property, outside of the home. I’m sure you won’t go to jail.
DBQ:
So, a person (or persons) battering down your door even when you told them you have called the police and you are armed is no threat?
– Of course it’s a threat. But they’re outside. The police should handle it: *unless they come inside.*
If that person was throwing rocks or hand grenades through your window it would be no threat because they are still ‘outside’.?
– Throwing rocks through the window doesn’t warrant firing bullets, no. And hand grenades? Why not an RPG or atmospheric EMP while you’re hypothesizing.
You want to wait until the person, who may or may not be armed has actually broken down the door and is now INSIDE your house before you protect yourself?
– Well, yes. Isn’t that the definition of “self-defense”? To respond to an attack? Hello?
Not knowing how many people are out there battering your door down, you should wait until they are in your living room and then count noses?
– What are you talking about. I stated that the homeowner has the right to shoot anyone inside the home, because the breach is the attack. Without a breach, it’s just trespassing, which I’m pretty sure doesn’t justify firing bullets.
I suppose if you were attacked by a charging bear, you would wait until you were on the ground and it had eaten off half of your face before you felt justified in protecting yourself.
– If I was inside a home and a bear was charging, I wouldn’t need to shoot it. Apples to apples, DBQ.
Geez. Some people have no survival instincts at all. The attrition of those who would rather curl up into fetal balls when danger arrives will do the rest of us good as a society.
– Reading comprehension is something you should look into. Re-read (or read for the first time) my comment and fetal position is the furthest stance I take. Self-defense requires proximity. Walls matter.
The home itself is defending the homeowner.
The home is a passive entity. It is being destroyed by the invader who is battering down the door. You have a right to defend your ‘home’ and everyone in it.
My HOME begins at the gate at the end of my driveway and the fences surrounding the area. Go beyond that closed gate and you have now entered my “home” and are trespassing. Beware.
A person outside the home and threatening to come inside, to me, doesn’t warrant self-defense:
@ Dave
So, a person (or persons) battering down your door even when you told them you have called the police and you are armed is no threat?. If that person was throwing rocks or hand grenades 😐 through your window it would be no threat because they are still ‘outside’.? You want to wait until the person, who may or may not be armed has actually broken down the door and is now INSIDE your house before you protect yourself? Not knowing how many people are out there battering your door down, you should wait until they are in your living room and then count noses?
I suppose if you were attacked by a charging bear, you would wait until you were on the ground and it had eaten off half of your face before you felt justified in protecting yourself.
Geez. Some people have no survival instincts at all. The attrition of those who would rather curl up into fetal balls when danger arrives will do the rest of us good as a society.
Even if drunk you should not be dumb enough to break into the door of some one else’s home.
FogDogSF never heard of the Darwin Awards, among whom I’d place the deceased as all-time winner.