Not so feel good stories

It is allways interesting to see what defense is raised in a criminal trial, when nobody had a guess as to what it might be.  In the Casey Anthony case, the defense just raised a very interesting, and plausable theory - that the child died in a swimming pool, and the mother covered it up out of fear and as a result of the years of abuse she suffered at the hands of her father.

Should be interesting to see what the evidence shows.

Also going on is the recent killing of Reynaldo Munoz, apparently while he was trying to steal a wave runner from the property of the father of the shooter.  Munoz was shot in the head with a shotgun during the crime, in daylight.  The Herald is reporting that Munoz was deaf and could not speak.  I question this only because a teacher who claimed to have taught Munoz apparently made no mention of it when she spoke to Channel 7 News.  Of course, Channel 7 is not the best source of information, unless you just like watching the weather.

I had an interesting discussion about this with a reader of the blog (hat tip to my one loyal reader who sent the Herald article to me), and I agree, no property is worth the life of another human being.  The law is in line with that sentiment as well; although we have the "castle doctrine" in Florida, take a look at the statute - it specifically covers the dwelling and porch of the home, no more.  I do not believe this shooting will be governed by the castle doctrine, even though Munoz was in the clearly enclosed back yard/curtilage of the home.

Of course, one cannot gloss over the fact that the shooter was a 14 year old kid, who was probably terrified when he confronted Munoz.  This should certainly play into any investigation the police are conducting.

Do any of my other readers believe that it is okay to kill somebody for trying to steal your property?

In other news, great Ninth Circuit opinion here, quoting from Twelve Angry Men.  No hat tips to any other bloggers - this is covered by the David Markus inevitable discovery doctrine.