Castle Doctrine fail

[RPB]

Interesting, but a lot of info ...

Several articles; 3 day trial

Hopefully I'll post the facts right below:

History of the 61 year old female homeowner previously being beaten up by the deceased.
ongoing disputes and threats passed between the two neighbors
Deceased goes to 61-year old woman's door
Door is opened to the extent of the chain
Deceased yells about 61-year-old lady's lawn sprinkler hitting her with water
61 year old lady uses pepper spray, then shoots the deceased.
61 year old lady convicted of murder

Defendant in murder trial says she was terrified
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/no ... artner=RSS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hopkins said when she heard a knock on the door, she grabbed her pepper spray and pistol — a custom she picked up since she said she was beaten up by Goodwin. As Goodwin made her way to Hopkins’ porch, the 61-year-old defendant said she told Goodwin to leave her alone. When Goodwin reached the porch, Hopkins reported she sprayed her neighbor with pepper spray, and when that didn’t stop her from advancing, shot her once with the pistol.

“I was terrified,” Sanders said, reading from the statement. “I knew if she got her hands on me I’d be dead.”

Murder trial jury hears 911 calls in Hopkins case (shooter called 911)
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/no ... artner=RSS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The second call was made by Dianne Hopkins, the 61-year-old woman charged in the murder of Jamica Goodwin.

Hopkins’ first words described a woman coming up to her and said that she “had to shoot the woman.” She identified herself and Goodwin, and she gave dispatchers her address.

“She came up to my door ... and was verbally abusing me again and threatening,” Hopkins told a second dispatcher. “She’s on my front porch folded over.”

The dispatcher asked Hopkins to stay on the line and questioned whether Goodwin had any weapons.

“Her hands are her weapons,” Hopkins replied.

DIANNE HOPKINS MURDER TRIAL, DAY 3: Small disputes led to tragedy
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/no ... -in-trial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Woman convicted of murder
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/no ... artner=RSS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
After about seven hours of deliberation jurors sentenced Dianne Hopkins to 20 years in prison

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“She said ‘your sprinkler shot me in the face’ and the gun went off.”

Obviously, the jury didn't believe it was a justified shooting covered by Castle Doctrine.
I'm posting this because on another forum I no longer visit, people insisted they could just shoot trespasser "just because".
(People here know better)

[Beiruty]

Castle did not help maybe the dead nevervtrief to enter the shooter house nor the life of the shooter was in danger to justify deadky force. Where is the confusion about this case?

[RPB]

Both parties apparently were known to carry guns and have physically violent encounters with each other.
It was an odd relationship over years where they were friends, the deceased became an employee of the shooter, they became enemies to the point of the shooter being beaten to the point of a metal screw in her spine being broken, so she had fear for her life historically, but not yet on that day, not to the point of justification.

If she had waited a few moments until her door chain's 2 little screws was kicked in ... yet she was in fear of her life based on prior events

Castle Doctrine/Self Defense was the defense they tried, which didn't work on a shooting decided to be non-justified .

Just a case I found interesting.

Personally, I drive through sprinklers, cheaper than a car wash ... it's all attitude

I'm also kinda posting this because your sprinkler threw water in my face ... viewtopic.php?f=26&t=39934" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
My dad and I have, in the past, confronted people about putting garbage in our ears, but nowadays I just tell kids something like "I read that Wifebeaters often get frustrated at not having an adequate vocabulary to argue effectively, therefore they try violence, you be sure to stay in school" And sometimes others hear me, and get quiet. (I didn't direct my remarks to anyone)
I generally avoid conflict nowadays, I might wait until we get in the car to tell the kids.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Castle did not help maybe the dead nevervtrief to enter the shooter house nor the life of the shooter was in danger to justify deadky force.

I agreed. From the report, it doesn't appear the deceased "attempted to enter unlawfully and with force" as required to trigger the presumption that the defendant reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary. Since the presumption wasn't available, she had to prove she reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary and I don't see evidence of that in this short report.

Chas.

[RPB]

Right.
Basically the convicted woman used deadly force in response to verbal abuse from the lady standing on her front porch that day.
She might have done better with that prior history, with "the burning bed" (temporary insanity, after 13 years of abuse) because it wasn't Castle Doctrine facts on that day.
(Hence, the title "Castle Doctrine fail")

[Keith B]

Another piece that plays into this are past encounters. If the woman had truly been assaulted by the deceased woman in the past, then the prior should have known not to open the door, and called the police and waited. We also don't have knowledge of anything that the woman said prior to shooting the deceased woman that may have provoked the deceased into further escalation of verbal or physical violence. You can't incite a fight and then decide you are suddenly in fear of your life unless you try to abandon it and retreat. In the end, if the woman had made ANY kind of attempt at preventing the deceased woman from gaining access to her (shutting or not opening the door to begin with, etc.) and tried to deescalate the encounter, then she would have had a lot better chance at proving self defense.

[Texas_Gal]

Jamie Goodwin was shot in the side not in the front of her body. It is kind of hard to justify leathal force under the Castle Doctrine when the person in not facing you or trying to break into your house. She was not facing the door when she was shot.

[RPB]

Jamie Goodwin was shot in the side not in the front of her body. It is kind of hard to justify lethal force under the Castle Doctrine when the person in not facing you or trying to break into your house. She was not facing the door when she was shot.

Hi Texas Gal, happy new year and welcome to the forum.
I'm sure that's something which would come up at trial probably. Might be a reason why she was convicted.

Pays not to talk to police until a lawyer is present and time goes by to calm down and brain calms.
(Imaginary statement after a day goes by : "Yes I shot her in the side as she turned/twisted sideways to me while she yelled 'I'm going to get you out of your house ...I'm reaching into my crossdraw holster which slipped back to 9:00 and going to blow your brains out' And as she turned and twisted, I fired before she could draw.") Of course ballistics/ trajectory angles etc might disprove that, and juries are unpredictable.

Cross examination:
Isn't it a fact that she was just adjusting her underwear and didn't yell anything except "I'm going to get you out of there"?

[ELB]

Jamie Goodwin was shot in the side not in the front of her body. It is kind of hard to justify leathal force under the Castle Doctrine when the person in not facing you or trying to break into your house. She was not facing the door when she was shot.

Isolating this one fact -- shot in the side vs front -- does not indicate anything about the "justification" of the shot. People who are attacking and being resisted/shot at do not stand still, facing you square on like the cardboard and paper targets at the range. People move and twist and dodge. Get a paintball gun and invite somebody to attack you from three feet away. If you even get a chance to shoot and hit him, you are likely to put rounds in all kinds of odd places. Some of them may even hit your opponent.

As for the Castle Doctrine itself -- if they meet the criteria of unlawful entry with force, I don't see anything in the law about where on their you may not shoot them. Being in your habitation unlawfully with (very minor) force is the trip wire. (Being on the porch was not). Again, in confrontation, you are unlikely to get a nice clean defined full frontal target in clear light. The intruder is much more likely to moving and when the bullet strikes won't be oriented the same way as when your mind made the decision to shoot a few tenths of a second earlier.

Update:
In fact, this video, http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play ... &wpid=1277" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, from another thread on this forum,clearly shows one of the burglars/robbers turning sideways toward the homeowner as they faced off with guns. Had the homeowner fired and struck the burglar, the impact zone would have most likely been along the burglar's right side.

[snorri]

Jamie Goodwin was shot in the side not in the front of her body. It is kind of hard to justify leathal force under the Castle Doctrine when the person in not facing you or trying to break into your house. She was not facing the door when she was shot.

If I slam my shoulder against your door to break the chain and force it open, does that mean I'm not actually trying to break into your house because my side is facing you?

Anyhow, based on the testimony, the rest of the neighborhood is probably happy they don't have to live next to either of them now.