Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fishythepete t1_j6u6wmv wrote

Reply to comment by drsherbert in Man claims self-defense in Providence landlord homicide by Rogue-Island-Pirate

This is actually a really interesting case. Let's see if there's a good answer in the books on whether or not self-defense here could presumably be lawful under the castle doctrine, even in the face of an illegal self-help eviction.

The statute codifying the doctrine in RI is:

>§ 11-8-8. Injury or death — Defense.
>In the event that any person shall die or shall sustain a personal injury in any way or for any cause while in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in §§ 11-8-2 — 11-8-6, it shall be rebuttably presumed as a matter of law in any civil or criminal proceeding that the owner, tenant, or occupier of the place where the offense was committed acted by reasonable means in self-defense and in the reasonable belief that the person engaged in the criminal offense was about to inflict great bodily harm or death upon that person or any other individual lawfully in the place where the criminal offense was committed. There shall be no duty on the part of an owner, tenant, or occupier to retreat from any person engaged in the commission of any criminal offense enumerated in §§ 11-8-2 — 11-8-6.

Key here - a tenant, or even a mere occupier (who presumably has an even more tenuous grasp on possession than a tenant) are protected here with a rebuttable presumption. The defense offered by a rebuttable presumption of self-defense is significant, but not absolute. Let's look to §§ 11-8-2 — 11-8-6, part of RI's B&E statutes to see if the landlord's conduct even falls under those crimes delineated in § 11-8-8. The closest I found were § 11-8-2 & § 11-8-2.2, with the latter secondary to the former, so we only need review the latter:

>§ 11-8-2. Unlawful breaking and entering of dwelling house.

>(a) Every person who shall break and enter at any time of the day or night any dwelling house or apartment, whether the dwelling house or apartment is occupied or not, or any outbuilding or garage attached to or adjoining any dwelling house, without the consent of the owner or tenant of the dwelling house, apartment, building, or garage, shall be imprisoned for not less than two (2) years and not more than ten (10) years for the first conviction, and for the second and subsequent conviction shall be imprisoned for not less than four (4) years and not more than fifteen (15) years, or fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both.
The language of the statute is unambiguous, even if the intent is not. If the owner (landlord) gives consent, then it is not a crime under § 11-8-2 — 11-8-6, and the presumption of self-defense is not afforded under RI's castle doctrine.

5

orm518 t1_j6upibe wrote

I think you need to reconcile the fact that when you lease a property you no longer have full reign over the space. Here the owner can’t consent to her b&e simply because she owns it, if the property is leased out. The tenant has a right to possession and use of the space.

Also, what the LL here is doing is illegal anyways there is no what are called “self help” evictions in RI, check the Landlord Tenant Act. See 34-18-44 about self help.

Disclaimer: I’m a lawyer but don’t really do this work, but I definitely think your reasoning that LL can just consent away b&e is dead wrong.

13

fishythepete t1_j6vlgr1 wrote

>I think you need to reconcile the fact that when you lease a property you no longer have full reign over the space.

That is not relevant here.

>Here the owner can’t consent to her b&e simply because she owns it, if the property is leased out.

This isn’t how the law works. There are undoubtably other crimes and torts the owner could be charged with here. That’s irrelevant to whether or not the castle doctrine could apply to the tenant’s self defense claims. RIs castle doctrine laws limit application of that defense to B&E cases as defined in the statute.

The owner did something wrong. That something wasn’t B&E, so the castle doctrine won’t provide a defense here.

>The tenant has a right to possession and use of the space.

Right. Again, other torts and crimes, not relevant to the castle doctrine. Which is what I was writing about. Specifically.

>Also, what the LL here is doing is illegal anyways there is no what are called “self help” evictions in RI, check the Landlord Tenant Act. See 34-18-44 about self help.

That’s probably why I specifically stated that the landlord was engaged in an illegal self-help eviction. Because they’re not legal. I mean, I’m guessing that was my thought process.

>Disclaimer: I’m a lawyer but don’t really do this work, but I definitely think your reasoning that LL can just consent away b&e is dead wrong.

Disclaimer: I’d say I think that you’ve been on the wrong end of “I’m a lawyer”ing me before, but a good lawyer does not just think, they confidently assert.

−5

orm518 t1_j6yzif1 wrote

No a good lawyer knows what the fuck he’s saying and then confidently asserts. The worst “lawyers,” are the Reddit ones, Fishy Pete, spouting off theories.

2

Dangerous_Public_164 t1_j6u8ar3 wrote

the above does not preclude a claim of self defense, it merely precludes (or would preclude, if a court accepted it) a statutory claim of self defense under ch 8 specifically.

3

fishythepete t1_j6uacdg wrote

Which is why the opening paragraph specifically outlined that the question I was answering wasn't whether the fact pattern precluded a claim of self defense, but rather whether "there's a good answer in the books on whether or not self-defense here could presumably be lawful under the castle doctrine, even in the face of an illegal self-help eviction.

−1

Dangerous_Public_164 t1_j6ug0er wrote

yup, you were specific. I was also being even more specific because your comment was potentially misleading to a layperson.

good luck with your bad self dude.

2

[deleted] t1_j6uickn wrote

[removed]

0

Dangerous_Public_164 t1_j6xkr85 wrote

I'll tell you what, if you weren't intending to be misleading in your "analysis" you certainly succeeded despite yourself. That's why I chimed in. I'm genuinely unsure what you thought was worthwhile about your limited discussion of RI castle doctrine under ch 8 but, your comment was not expansive enough to provide the context to a layperson reader that it was simply your thoughts on a very, very limited slice of a single defense that could be raised at trial.

I am an attorney, I adequately understood what you were trying to say, which was also clear by my post.

again tho--good luck with your bad self. I won't engage with you again, sir lord of logic.

edited to add, if anyone is reading these posts by this exhausting dumbass i just blocked and is temped to think he knows what he's talking about, try to figure where he pulled the fact pattern he's referencing from and consider whether he evidences any understanding of applied jurisprudence on ri's castle doctrine particularly as it pertains to any duty to retreat. or whether maybe he's just pretending to understand a complex thing because he read a statute. which is sort of like walking into your doctor's office with a mayo clinic diagnosis.

1

fishythepete t1_j6ye0vh wrote

>I'll tell you what, if you weren't intending to be misleading in your "analysis" you certainly succeeded despite yourself.

You've called my post misleading three times now. With literal 0 explanation on what part of it you find misleading. Feel free to flesh out that thought a little bit. Because I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

>I'm genuinely unsure what you thought was worthwhile about your limited discussion of RI castle doctrine under ch 8 but,

And... you're an attorney? Let me spell it out for you.

  1. It's an interesting fact pattern, as most self-defense / castle doctrine defenses arise out of attacks by unknown assailants, vs. a known person with a reasonable (if unlawful) goal.
  2. RI is a duty to retreat state. The shooter breached that duty.
  3. There are few exceptions to that duty. § 11-8-8 outlines the exception provided by the castle doctrine.

>your comment was not expansive enough to provide the context to a layperson reader that it was simply your thoughts on a very, very limited slice of a single defense that could be raised at trial.

Unless the layperson reader read the first paragraph... Again, the opening didn't state that I was undertaking a comprehensive review of defenses available to the shooter. It also wasn't silent on the scope of review. It detailed the exact question I was looking to answer. Are you under the impression that any analysis which doesn't boil the ocean is misleading by design?

It's like you just opened a can of carrots you bought and you're getting all worked up about being misled because the carrots are a slightly different color than those on the tin. And there are no peas. You were sold carrots, you got carrots, and any angst that comes out of the transaction exists entirely within you.

>I am an attorney, I adequately understood what you were trying to say, which was also clear by my post.

Lulz

>again tho--good luck with your bad self. I won't engage with you again, sir lord of logic.

Oh no

2