In my torts class, we just discussed the privilege of self-defense, the Castle Doctrine, and statutory Stand Your Ground laws. There is a new case out of Indiana where Martell Pickens, 30, is facing reckless homicide charges for the shooting of Khadolphee Taylor, 25, outside his Fort Wayne home. The case shows the conflicts that arise in the application of both common law and statutory privileges in the use of lethal force.
Pickens told Fort Wayne police that he was woken up around 2:45 a.m. and saw a “suspicious” man walking around his neighborhood, according to the probable cause affidavit obtained by WANE.
Surveillance tapes reportedly showed Taylor attempting to break into Pickens’ home. He also alleged that Taylor had attempted to break into various cars.
Pickens grabbed a Glock .45 caliber handgun and went outside. He can be heard asking Taylor, “What are you doing?” and warned Taylor to “back up.”
According to Pickens, Taylor continued toward him but also acknowledged that Taylor was unarmed. He shot Taylor in the chest and he was later pronounced dead at the hospital.
Officers observed that Taylor appeared intoxicated or mentally impaired in a traffic stop twenty minutes before the shooting. He was also driving on a suspended license. He was given a citation and allowed to walk home.
In his affidavit, Fort Wayne Police Detective Brian Martin stated: “Based upon the investigation, Pickens knowingly armed himself and voluntarily exited the safety of his residence to confront Taylor,” concluding that there was “probable cause to believe Pickens recklessly killed Khadolphee D. Taylor by engaging in conduct constituting a plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm, the disregard involving a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.”
He is being held without bond and could be facing up to six years in prison for reckless homicide.
The Indiana Stand Your Ground provision states in pertinent part:
“A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.”
The Professor is quite right in his description of the issues at hand in this Case.
The security camera footage shall be the key evidence in the Trial.
The fact the Police stopped the Perp from driving determining him to be unfit to drive but allowing him to leave the scene on foot is also going to be a HUGE issue in light of what happened following that decision.
In the criminal case not so much…but in the Civil Case the PD is going to wind up as a donator to the dead Man’s net worth that shall be divided between his Next of Kin.
The Police should have done one of three things….arrest the Drunk Driver at the Traffic Stop location, called for a Taxi to fetch the unfit driver home or if he was close enough to home to walk…..have driven him home.
The Cops evidently decided to give the Perp a break and let him “walk” and in Court they shall have to fully explain why they did what they did that lead to a person being killed as a result of their decision.
As a former Police Officer I can assure you the PD is going to be busier than a Cat covering up Poop in this.
The Criminal Charges being filed are a direct result of Police Action and in my view gross negligence…one in letting the Perp go at risk to himself and the slumbering public….and in my mind are very much suspect in the filing of Criminal Charges against the Home Owner.
If I were to be sitting on the Criminal Case Jury….I would not convict the Home Owner as I see nothing that shows any Intent to do harm and only taking reasonable self protection measures any Home Owner might take in defense of himself and his property (and that of trying to protect his neighbors) in the middle of the night having been awakened by an attempted home invasion during the hours of darkness. (In my State that is considered a violent Felony Crime)
If I were on the Civil Jury I would find for the Plaintiff(s) against the Police Department including Punitive Damages but not find the Home Owner liable for anything. Depending upon the reasons for the Officer(s) releasing the Perp would determine if I would hold them individually culpable. If an emergency call or demand for immediate action by the Officer(s) called them from the traffic stop then I would not hold them liable but if for any other reason they would be personally liable in my view.
Estovir is Ralph Chappell claiming to be a former cop.
OT
AI—Artificial Intelligence
Congress has absolutely NO power to regulate the technology and software industry per Article 1, Section 8.
The technology and software industry in 1789 would have been equivalent to the precision-manufacturing and scientific-instrument industry.
Article I, Section 8, makes no mention of regulating that sector or any similar sector.
Any attempt to regulate AI would be irrefutably unconstitutional, understanding that the Constitution limits and restricts government while providing maximal freedom to individuals.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
In the United States there is no “privilege of self defense.” Or maybe there is. The Constitution as amended says I have the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t say I can use them. The declaration of independence is where my right to life is enumerated. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that, like many states, Indiana law specifies that I have the right to self-defense. So, the question is, if I place myself in danger to talk to someone who is without invite on my property, can I then defend myself with deadly force if I perceive that the danger to me is deadly? I assume that my perception is reasonable, which can be up to the law officers or court to determine.
This writer sees Johnathan’s topic this morning through the eyes of a 1968 law school freshman, now called L1. And the message is as humbling now as it was then. What do you have to know to be effective for the client? It’s humbling because the practical answer is everything. It’s humbling at the lectern to get the mass of that message moved. It’s humbling for the students to receive that mass. What helps? For this writer two situational awareness ideas help. The first is that the law is a seamless web. A touch to one strand can reverberate across the entire web. The second is that we are common law lawyers living in a code world. It is not enough to find the law from only cases. In many areas the caselaw answer has been overtaken by statute. A good example is Johnathan’s mention of different outcomes between criminal prosecution and civil tort litigation for a death. Why are not guilty verdicts juxtaposed against successful plaintiff verdicts in tort law? Because legislatures created statutory wrongful death and survival causes of action. There were none in the common law of torts. So when Johnathan opens a socratic class discussion about tort law, it’s not about the intersection of two country roads. It’s about stacked ramps of an interstate highway interchange.
“voluntarily exited the safety of his residence”
Given that “surveillance tapes reportedly showed Taylor attempting to break into Pickens’ home,” what “safety” are we talking about? The homeowner’s safety was shattered by the felonious actions of the perpetrator. Was the homeowner compelled by law to to hunker down and hope the suspect didn’t outmaneuver or overpower him, or set his house on fire, while awaiting the police (however long that might be)? Hunkering down and hoping does not equal safe.
Equally unsafe is exiting the home and confronting the perpetrator. So the homeowner had a choice of reactions, but neither offered him the safety he’d had prior to the intrusion.
The evidence suggests the homeowner challenged the intruder and warned him. There is no evidence the perpetrator reacted in any way to lessen the fear he’d already instilled in the homeowner.
Bang. Safety restored (except from the government).
There may be an argument that the perpetrator was too impaired to possess criminal intent, however, if that is the case, then he was certainly too impaired (for the safety of himself and others) to be allowed to walk away from the traffic stop.
The homeowner brandished a gun in a deadly threat. The guy he shot realized he could not outrun a bullet, and so attempted to defend himself as best he could. Being confused about which house he was at is not a break in attempt. Had the gun not been brought to the interaction, both would have remained alive and unharmed.
“surveillance tapes reportedly showed Taylor attempting to break into Pickens’ home,”
You ignore the facts provided and make-up one of your own (“the guy he shot realized he could not outrun a bullet”). You’re not worth my time.
And yet you responded. Had he succeeded in breaking in, and had he attempted to attack Pickens, then there might be an argument for the shooting. Clearly Pickens did not open the door to instant confrontation, so the dead guy wasn’t attempting to break in at that time. It’s also not clear from this what “attempting to break in” consisted of. Was he using a crow bar or a sledge hammer? Or was he doing what anyone mistaken about the location of his own home would do and try to deal with a stuck door? Was the dead guy’s intention to break into a stranger’s home? Pickens grabbed a gun to solve a problem that might have been solved with a bucket of water and a flashlight and asking the guy what he wanted.
Newsflash – burglars who break in don’t want to do so when people are inside. The occupants become witnesses and obstructions to the theft.
Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision to block his mail voting restrictions for the midterms, on Tuesday Donald J. Trump offered the justices $5000 each to change their minds.
In a leaked phone call with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump said that the 7-2 decision meant “I just need to find three votes.”
He told Kavanaugh that he was offering the money only to the four Republican justices who voted with the majority because “the three Democratic women are total losers who can’t be bought.”
In an effort to tempt Kavanaugh, Trump told him that he could spend “all five thousand dollars on beer,” but added, “It has to be American beer, Brett.”
Justices Thomas and Alito can’t be bought. The billionaires who own them are refusing to sell.
That $5000 would really help Clarence Thomas gas up his motor home.
Given diesel prices, he’d be lucky to get it filled twice…
–Shannon
Still far better than nuclear energy 😵💫
Bravo!
Thank you again, Professor Turley, for an informative, measured, thoughtful discussion and commentary.
Pickens could not have stayed in his house and used a non-deadly instrument – a telephone – to call the police?
These cases always remind me of the times civilians have asked me about this issue, then laughingly suggested that the shooter drag the victim into the house post hoc and claim self-defense. Contemporary forensic science might militate against the success of that claim. And what is funny about killing someone, whether or not, in legal terms, justifiable or excusable?
The man appeared intoxicated or mentally impaired while driving with a suspended license and the police allowed him to walk home? Where is this tactic taught in police training? It also bolsters the defense of being in reasonable fear because who knows what a crazy or intoxicated person who charges you in the middle of the night on your own property is going to do? Sounds like bad police work before, and after, the shooting if you ask me.
This is a tricky one. When I went through gun training, it was made abundantly clear you do not even point a weapon at anyone or anything that has not made a move on you, and that you do not actually intend to shoot; if you are pointing, that decision has already been made. This does indeed seem reckless to me; why would anyone need to stand their ground in this particular scenario?
I’m assuming you’re shot yourself in the foot multiple times.
I’m surprised at Professor Turley’s analysis that completely disregarded a significant defense for Pickins. The person with the gun must defend against the intruder overcoming that person, taking the gun and killing them. That gives the shooter just cause for shooting someone coming at them and looking to fight them for the gun. This case will be made on the video evidence and the size difference between the intruder and Pickins. The latter’s chances are improved by the impaired state of the intruder. Also, we need to check the past records of both the shooter and the victim here. A Glock 45 is a serious weapon. It is far more firepower than a homeowner needs to have. Is this a high crime area? These and other factors must be considered.
Surprised? So what. Ever think of brevity in writing? I’m surprised you didn’t know that. Thi sin particular is funny… more firepower than a homeowner needs? So what is the appropriate “firepower”? Good thing you’re not Pickens lawyer.
What does “It is far more firepower than a homeowner needs to have” mean? It is chambered in Caliber 9x19mm (9mm Luger). There is nothing extraordinary about the “firepower” of the caliber at all.
Standard Duty & Defensive Calibers include 9mm Luger (9x19mm), .45 ACP, .40 S&W, .357 SIG, .357 Magnum, 10mm Auto, & .44 Remington Magnum. Among the calibers listed, 9mm has the lowest Average Muzzle Energy: ~340 – 420 ft-lbs and 44 Remington Magnum has the highest Average Muzzle Energy: ~750 – 1,100 ft-lbs.
A homeowner needs to have whatever they can shoot accurately. A 9mm has lower energy and recoil when compared to the other defensive calibers and could be fired with great precision given the stability and quality of a full frame Glock 45. it is rather presumptuous for someone to determine what someone else should or should not have, given the existence of the 2nd Amendment coupled with the ignorance of the person making the determination.
Quibble: the .44 Magnum was explicitly designed as a hunting cartridge, and shooting one without hearing protection is likely to have permanent consequences. Even the .357 is unpleasant.
–Shannon
If no gun was present there would be no gun to take and no reason for an attack to happen. Moreover, if the homeowner had remained inside there would be no threat of being attacked at all.
Police use this excuse all the time in killing a flailing victim on the grounds that they thought the gun they brought to the scene might be taken from them and so they are excused for using the instrument that is the source of the charge.
This person did act criminally. He should be prosecuted. He was the aggressor.
Which “this person”?
All-knowing sally has spoken. she has the “correct” answer for all libtards to follow or else.
You know how libs think that a few innocent white people being killed by illegal immigrants is just the price we have to pay for a diverse and inclusive border policy? Well that’s exactly how I feel when a few bad guys are shot and killed when preying on society. It’s just the price we have to pay for law and order.
Neither party in the incident was an illegal immigrant. Nor were they at a border. So all immigrants are “bad guys”?
All illegal immigrants are “bad guys”, Dinkus
In my opinion, Self-defense is a god given right and should never be called a “privilege” especially by anyone looked at as a legal professional.
God given huh? You’re a threat to everyone. Your kind should be culled.
goodness gracious that is the dumbest thing I’ve seen on the internet today. Although it is early in the morning so maybe there is someone dumber than you.
Someone should be “culled” because they think that life is precious and should be protected? It’s a simple choice. I value my life and that of my friends and family more than that of a criminal. If they don’t value their life as highly, well… FAFO.
“Culled because they think” God wants them to have guns to kill criminals? Whew!
What criminal, can’t be a criminal if one is not convicted of a crime, as in this case. No crime took place except for the guy who killed an innocent man. Talk about dumbest, you take the prize anon. You got a gun, please use it on yourself.
Man, you need help. TDS has wrecked your brain.
As a legal matter, that’s not true. If your State removed the self-defense provisions from its homicide laws, you wouldn’t be able to sue them over it. It would be stupid and unjust, but lots of stupid and/or unjust things are legal.
–Shannon
hmm….are all criminals truthful when they say they aren’t going to harm you and they don’t have a gun?
He tried to break into the house. Then and there is rights ended
You are not a reasonable person. From your comment you are a threat to all. Including yourself.
MORON ANON
I am not kirk.
Has your mommy made your poptarts yet ANON?
I’d have to see what attempt was made. Somewhat rarely, drunk people get to a door they think is their house and try to open it. If the knob doesn’t turn they may push against it. They are not trying to break into a house, they are trying to enter their own house and are mistaken.
It would be interesting to find out just where the dead guy lived and see if the houses are similar.
So the police are essentially saying that the homeowner should have stayed “in the safety of his residence.” While that may have been the common sense thing to do, I don’t see where the law requires that he do so. He is allowed to exit his home and investigate criminal activity on his own property. Moreover, he pointed a gun at the trespasser; told him to “back up,” but the trespasser continued to approach him. To me, that means he is a dangerous character. He was likely planning to try to wrestle the gun away from the homeowner. I would side with the homeowner were I on the jury. That being said, the homeowner should have stayed in his house and called the police. Look at what happened to George Zimmerman. Although he didn’t go to prison, his life and marriage were ruined by defending himself against a vicious, violent thug.
Think what a reasonable person would do. You are not reasonable. You are a threat to all.
Now only if Pickins turned on the inside/outside lights and yelled I GOT A GUN from a window or doorway – fired off a round, called the police. Problem resolved, but NO… he sought conflict. MANSLAUGHTER … GUILTY as heck. Jail time.
“Fired off a round”? That is illegal discharge and reckless endangerment.
FAFO to the perp, or, as we used to say, “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”
Better illegal discharge than a manslaughter charge eh? If you have a gun please use it on yourself.
You obviously have diarrhea of the keyboard this morning with no knowledge of guns or the law.
Good points were made here, then you jump in with some movie style “warning shot” sort of nonsense. You aim center mass and you do not stop until the threat is neutralized.
Tip: don’t be a threat.
You are truly the stupidest mouth on the internet today. You have no knowledge of what you’re spewing. Really, you’re fing stupid.
better a manslaughter charge than dead. checkmate.
Better to stay in house, get gun, call police, wait for police. Better than manslaughter conviction and life in prison. Double checkmate.
Yeah, stay inside as they drive off in your car, steal or destroy what’s yours.
In this day and age of gun ownership, anyone that is crazy enough to break and enter, strong arm robbery, or car jacking is crazy enough or desperate enough to kill you. If you’re a senior citizen or have health issues, my belief is that you would walk on a shooting as such. A single punch or body slam could be deadly, age, prior injuries or health conditions are all good anchoring for a defense on fearing for your life and safety.
Castle doctrine and no mandatory retreat clause in stand your ground.
The bigger question we should all ask is why are we subject to the criminal behavior that requires us to purchase a firearm for self protection?
Clue: 14% responsible for 50%
Chamber a blank round. There doesn’t need to be a bullet to be useful in grabbing attention. In a semi-automatic the next round will be ready before anyone can even blink.
haha you dope! re-read your comment without the frame of reference of all the TV shows you’ve seen.
“Shoot him in the leg!” haha
Pres. Biden said, “Shoot him in the leg!”
That’s because Joe Biden is, as our cousins across the pond put it, ‘a bit thick.’ He’s also from Delaware, where you need a permit for anything more dangerous than a spork.
–Shannon
He also said,”My butt is wiped” and his son was the smartest person he knew!
The homeowner made a death threat and the dead guy, having no duty to retreat, did his best to defend himself.
If a foreign force enters the country, the invaded country has the historical right to expel the invaders, with force if necessary. Stand your ground laws are a localized version of this principle. Without the right to possess tools to expel the foreign force, there is no right, no principle, no recourse.
Don it was two Americans not a foreign force. Ya know what, you’re crazier than liberals.
We’ll file your comment under, “analogies, how do they work?”
Breaking and entering in Indiana (the foreign force being one drunk man ) vs. unknown country expelling invaders, just a man with gun confronting a drunk and kills drunk for attempted B/E). Got it. Best analogy ever. Your comment we’ll just pi_ss on.
How do analogies work? Answer: Only when they have a job?
Stand your ground laws are based on natural law, as in “fight or flight” Anger or fear. Both activate via the amygdala and have an accompaning adrenaline rush that calls your body into action faster than your forebrain can keep up. This same mechanism is triggered by rage-bait.
Oh, another analogy?
Let’s blame the amygdala, it’s the amygdala’s fault.
We need to remember that Trayvon Martin attempted to murder George Zimmerman, straddling him and bashing his head into the concrete pavement. These cases are not identical by any stretch. Zimmerman, part of the neighborhood watch, saved his own life from a vicious thug who was trying to kill him.
You’re right, the cases are different in many respects, but they’re the same in one critical respect: Democrats, including Obama, wanted Zimmerman imprisoned for using a firearm to literally save his own life. What these disparate cases prove is that it will never matter what the circumstances are, Democrats prefer us dead rather than armed, and that sadly is no exaggeration.
Part of the myth about Zimmerman is due to the family attorney who lied to the public (but did not appear in court) about the circumstances of the event. If all one hears is what that attorney said, Zimmerman is a predatory racist. If one looks at what evidence was produced in court, Zimmerman was entirely not guilty. The reason for the lies to the public were to apply pressure on the neighborhood association to cough up a large sum of money without the court case. Rather than risk those motivated by the lies burning the neighborhood to the ground, they settled.
True, except for the fact that ‘neighborhood watch’ is not really a thing. George Zimmerman shouldn’t have gone to prison, but that’s because being a total dumbass isn’t a crime. Dude shoulda stayed home.
–Shannon
Zimmerman was not “neighborhood watching” at the time he saw Trayvon window shopping.
Had Trayvon stayed home where his parent left him he would still be alive. If Trayvon had made the 100 yard dash from where he was to where he was supposed to be (he was on the football team, so 10-12 seconds) instead of stalking Zimmerman for 3.5 minutes, he would still be alive.
Next we should be allowed to shoot people whose opinions we don’t like.
I’ll second that.
The donkey party has already approved said behaviour…so…..
democrats already do that
If only I could ….
The police bear some responsibility since they removed his car and he was told to walk home. Inebriated individuals can get into trouble just walking or even can wonder into traffic. Was a cab called, how far was it to the Taylor’s house and was anyone notified to pick him up. I know that the police are not babysitters but he was deprived of his car (which he apparently could not drive) and one wonders if Taylor even knew where he was. Lot of questions to be answered but my initial impression is that the force may have been excessive but more needs to be established.
Blame the cops? Then their union. Then the town. Maybe the car manufacturer. Thinking the bar when Taylor drank. Then the bartender. The state liquor commission. Then blame Pickens parents for … whatever. And finally blame the entire system. Go after Trump?
You should move to Massachusetts. Your warped sense of reality would fit in there.
George, you out there, somewhere…. anywhere, jump in and insert your stupid comments.
All police departments should have a concierge service.
We already have that in Canada. Suckers!
GEB, you wonder if Taylor even knew where he was??? He was breaking into the defendants home! The police let this man, with a record and while driving impaired walk free and then charge the poor guy with defending his home and himself. If I was on the jury I would never find this guy guilty from what I read here.
He attempted, he did not breaking into. World of difference. You should know that as a retired lawyer, or so you say you are Bob Howard. Funny can’t find you listed in MA at any time ever.
The homeowner left his home to confront Taylor. He had absolutely no reason to go out to confront him. And… if he was slightly drunk or had some other issue that led the police let him walk home. It’s very likely he was only trying to open the door. He wasn’t trying to kick it in or violently bang on the door.
There was no imminent threat of bodily harm. Especially when the homeowner could have just stayed inside his home. The “poor” guy defending his home was overreacting to the situation. He was looking for a confrontation the moment he chose to leave the safety of his home.
Guilty as charged. Public hanging. Just kidding. Imagine this case in Massachusetts.
Breaking? Did he use a crow bar or was he rattling the doorknob?
I agree, the police should have arrested him for public intoxication and put him in a cell to sober up and face a judge in the morning.
People have been shot just going to the wrong door. If he was inebriated enough he might have mistaken the home as his own and was trying to find a way in to what he thought was his own place. Really does depend on his state of mind. It can be difficult to know where you are at nite, inebriated and in an unfamiliar area. Also alcohol intoxicated people have a tendency to fall and suffer head injuries, which over time can become fatal. A Frequent exercise occurs in emergency rooms when people show up “drunk” and are discharged with inadequate evaluation and then die because no one considered a head injury from a fall. Also he was noted by the defendant to be “unarmed”.
Maybe the PD should be disbanded for providing no public benefit like this one was after the local DA stopped taking its cases: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trinidad-police-officers-speak-on-state-decision-to-shut-department-down/ar-AA2ciZ74
No relevance to the today’s article.
An ‘unarmed’ criminal can certainly severely injure of kill you. Of course that is what the liberals want, you to be a crime victim and dead. Democrats want others living in fear. The guy was trying to break into his house and refused to back off when warned the homeowner had a gun. I find that justifiable.
I remember when Florida had a terrible carjacking problem, then Florida went concealed carry. The car jacking problem moved to the airport on cars with car rental stickers on them because criminals knew flyers couldn’t have a fire arm. Florida quit labeling rental cars and the carjacking problem almost disappeared. Criminals were on notice you will be shot and maybe killed if you try such foolishness. Criminals were put on notice, don’t do it, you will be the one ending up dead. That applies here too.
WTF does this incident have to do with liberals? I’d say you are a deranged MAGAot. Very much like a liberal eh?
Deranged MORON ANON
Whatever you say Dustoff.
PICKINS HAD A GUN.
STAY INDOORS.
LAW FULFILLED.
NO DEAD MAN.
NO CHARGES.
Indiana law allows defense of self and PROPERTY.
But their was no defense, it was an offense. Get that?
Yep, charges equal findings of fact. No defense. Anonymous says so.