NY guy charged with manslaughter for killing a home invader

That's what you get for pretending to have rights in New York.
 
It does in Texas and Oklahoma.

In Florida you can hunt and shoot people in the street. Your prey doesn't even have to be armed.

"Castle Doctrine"? Waiting for someone to break into your home and brandish a weapon before you can put a bullet in them? Texas and Oklahoma are for pussies.
 
In Florida you can hunt and shoot people in the street. Your prey doesn't even have to be armed.

"Castle Doctrine"? Waiting for someone to break into your home and brandish a weapon before you can put a bullet in them? Texas and Oklahoma are for pussies.

The good thing is they don't even have to have a weapon just breaking in is consider a threat, as it should be.
 
In Florida you can hunt and shoot people in the street. Your prey doesn't even have to be armed.

"Castle Doctrine"? Waiting for someone to break into your home and brandish a weapon before you can put a bullet in them? Texas and Oklahoma are for pussies.
Looks like we got us a badass here.
 
Do you have more information because the link was not clear on what actually happened?

Weird story.

http://m.thetimes-tribune.com/news/...nna-killings-guilty-of-manslaughter-1.1618199

Why wouldn't they just call the cops?

Mr. Thomas killed the men when they approached the Pine Ayre Drive residence through the woods after their car was hit by a bullet as it traveled on Dubois Street, near the Thomas property. Just before the shooting, Mr. Rogers told his live-in girlfriend, Lena Clark, that he and Mr. Alvarez were going to find the person who shot the vehicle.

Mr. Thomas took the stand as the only witness for the defense Thursday morning. He detailed his actions during the morning hours of Feb. 11, 2012 - admitting he fired guns from the deck of the home in an attempt to keep squirrels from further damaging the bird feeders.

Mr. Thomas told the jury he was in his home when he saw Mr. Rogers and Mr. Alvarez approach the side of the residence from a wooded area, then separate with Mr. Rogers heading to the back of the house and Mr. Alvarez going toward the front.

He said he peered out a door and could see and hear Mr. Rogers on the lower deck of the home. He said he then saw Mr. Rogers emerge from the lower deck area into the backyard. He told the jury he then saw Mr. Rogers point a shotgun at him.

"I fired twice," Mr. Thomas said.

Mr. Thomas said he then went to check the family's gun shop located on the premises. He said he exited the door of the shop as Mr. Alvarez walked out of the garage. It was in the front of the home where Mr. Thomas told the jury that he thought Mr. Alvarez was reaching for a handgun.

"I shot him," Mr. Thomas said.

He told the jury the entire incident happened in less than one minute.

District Attorney Jason Legg called state police Cpl. Patrick Zirpoli to the stand for a second time, where he said that he and Trooper Michael Joyce returned to the scene the day after the shootings. Cpl. Zirpoli told the jury he stood on the upper deck area - in the spot where Mr. Thomas had told the jury he was when he fired at Mr. Rogers - and Trooper Joyce went to the lower deck.

Cpl. Zirpoli said from his vantage point he could not see below him Trooper Joyce - who was the same height as Mr. Rogers, six feet, three inches tall - wielding a 36-inch umbrella. The umbrella was just a little longer than the shotgun Mr. Rogers carried.

"Standing there, you can't see the gun," Cpl. Zirpoli said.
 
Last edited:
Eh, the jury convicted him. I'll trust they know the details much better than the posters on Sherdog.
 
Yea sounds like he over reacted and fire at them in his yard, castle doctrine does not allow this. It sounds like he went above that is legal and common sense.

One of the men was armed on his property, the other he assumed was also armed. He shot both. I'm saying, even in the states with something most people would call "castle doctrine" the right to shoot still doesn't exist. The guy in PA is likely going to jail because the jury thinks he instigated the confrontation and then because he likely chased the unarmed man down in the yard and killed him. To the jury it was irrelevant that the intruders were armed.
 
Eh, the jury convicted him. I'll trust they know the details much better than the posters on Sherdog.

If you're ever charged with a crime you might rethink that. Juries fundamentally don't understand what evidence means regarding the laws, they're given a few hours of explanation then told to figure it out. Bench trial is by far your best chance at getting a fair legal hearing, the guy in PA probably would have got off if he waived trial by jury.
 
If you're ever charged with a crime you might rethink that. Juries don't understand what evidence means, they're given a few hours of explanation then told to figure it out. Bench trial is by far your best chance at getting a fair legal hearing, the guy in PA probably would have got off if he waived trial by jury.

I've never been convicted of a crime but if I were, don't I have the choice of trial by jury or judge?
 
I've never been convicted of a crime but if I were, don't I have the choice of trial by jury or judge?

As far as I know most states allow you to waive trial by jury and request the Bench trial. I'm not sure if the requests are always, rarely, or sometimes granted for criminal trials.
 
As far as I know most states allow you to waive trial by jury and request the Bench trial. I'm not sure if the requests are always, rarely, or sometimes granted for criminal trials.

If that's the case, it's his own fault for choosing trial by jury.
 
Back
Top