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 asked 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.”
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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?
PICKINS HAD A GUN.
STAY INDOORS.
LAW FULFILLED.
NO DEAD MAN.
NO CHARGES.