Minneapolis firefighter charged in man's death

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tab, there are a lot of IF'S to this story for sure, but the story I read didn't state anything about the guy threatening his child. If that was the case it would put a different spin on the whole thing. Also, after reading the penal codes that were just posted, it seemed to point even more towards a self defence shooting. None of those codes stated that a weapon had to be present, just unlawfull force. The codes may be different in Minneapolis. Hopefully more facts about his case will come out soon and give us a little more insight into this.
 
Prosecutors said Huggett shot 29-year-old John Peach, the ex-boyfriend of the woman Huggett was dating, after Peach broke through the front door of the woman's town of Swiss home on Jan. 20.

Regardless of anything else, that alone screams good shoot to me. Not saying that Huggett didn't do anything, but at that point Peach should have left, not broken down the door. But...

A few moments later "the door flew open" and Peach entered the darkened home

Conflicting information. Not really enough to say one way or the other.
 
Whatever happened to punching a guy in the nose?

Deceased apparently did not have a weapon.

That firefighter is in deep doo-doo. The text messages are going to do him in.

He's lucky if he can plead out to one of the manslaughters.

This creep is trying to take over fathership of the kid-he's the new one on the block-the 'savior'. Where does he EVER get off saying that to the natural father of that child?

No, he's the sucker, because he got caught up in it for some p**sy and set the guy up to kill him. That is what will come out in this case, I do so speculate. Perhaps not, because it's a charge of second-degree intentional homicide.

I also speculate this is a 'Body Heat' type of scenario, with the firefighter playing the role of William Hurt and the woman being the character so ably portrayed by Kathleen Turner (but this lady's probably not that evil)! Pure speculative fun! The firefighter let his emotions get away from him. Cops and restraining orders would likely have resolved this. He had a clear motive to get rid of this guy, and though motive is not necessary, it certainly helps!
 
Last edited:
I don't know if the text messages will do him in. They may be considered prior events. If they are, the only things that will matter is what happened at the scene. Some states codes may not require a weapon to be present to be considered self defence. Take the Texas penal code already posted. It says illegal force, not force with a dangerous weapon, just illegal force. Is it illegal to hit/kick someone? Is to hit/kick someone considered force? If the answer is yes, than it may be reasonable that someone who forced their way into your home would use that type of force to severly injure or kill you.
 
If nothing else, this case shows how stupid it is to continue arguments with people for no particular reason. Get over it and move on with your life.
That and how stupid it is to get involved with someone who has this sort of ongoing drama.

Also, this did NOT happen in Texas. This happened in Wisconsin. If the boyfriend pushed the ex-boyfriend to attack him, and the ex-boyfriend did not have a weapon with him, then I think he's looking at manslaughter at a minimum, which is fine by me, as he seems to have baited the idiot in so he could shoot him.
 
Anytime there is a fight and someone is injured or killed, there will be an investigation. That investigation will look at any prior relationship between the two parties involved. If the investigation determines that this is a case of mutual combat, then don't be surprised if charges are filed. Even if it happens in one's home.

Castle doctrine does not give you the right to shoot anyone in your house who doesn't live there with impunity.

We don't know much about the prior history between these two. We don't know what the text messages said. But I'm sure the prosecutor has that information.

Things we don't know that may have contributed to the charges being followed:

1. What kind of visitation rights did Peach have with his son?

2. What did the text messages say?

3. What was the history between Peach and Huggett?

4. What did the statement Huggett's girlfriend gave say?

5. What kind of statements did friends and neighbors give?

All of those things could be contributing factors in the case. We don't know the answer to any of them.

Nowhere in the US, no, not even in Texas, can you escalate a conflict and then claim self defense when you kill your attacker. And you can't lure your enemy into your home in order to shoot him and claim protection under the castle doctrine.
 


White, once again you show you don't know what you're talking about. Thank Gawd what happens in Illinois stays in Illinois.
 
Last edited:
Dear csmkersh:

You don't have your Tesas CHL, do you? If you do, you must have fallen asleep during the class.

If you want to go quoting the Texas Penal code, I would suggest you read the whole pertinent section and put it in context instead of picking out the bits and peices you like in a transparent attempt at proof-texting.

Here, let me help you out:

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS


§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 2, eff. September 1,
2007.
 
Nowhere in the US, no, not even in Texas, can you escalate a conflict and then claim self defense when you kill your attacker. And you can't lure your enemy into your home in order to shoot him and claim protection under the castle doctrine.

This may be true. However, if someone breaks down your door, I would say you did not "lure" him into your home.

Refusing to answer the door seems to be a purposeful de-escalation.

According to the article, the firefighter didn't open the door, welcome him in, and blast him; the decedent forced his way into the house.
 


Apparently you didn't bother to read the article. Peach made threats, went to Huggett's home, kicked in the door and then faced the results.

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment
...​
Please pay attention to the facts not your emotions.

And, yes, I've a CHL and a Hell of a lot longer than you have. The deadly force portion was presented by a Bexar County ADA. What's your excuse?

Don't address me as "dear."
 
Sounds like the woman was playin' two lover-boys ??
Sounds like Peach didn't know when to quit ??
Sounds like Hugget had his enemy delivered into his hands while he was angry?

I expect Hugget to plea and accept reduced charges because - when Peach entered the house at that moment Hugget was 'not a willing participant', but on the other hand he did engage in fighting words.

So, if he accepts a plea, what do you suppose they'd be reduced to?
 
Apparently you are the one who didn't read the article:

According to the criminal complaint, Huggett and Peach traded increasingly argumentative text messages the day of the shooting.

Deputies who obtained copies of the text messages said Huggett belittled the fact that Peach was receiving Social Security Disability, and said he was going to replace Peach as the dad of the 5-year-old boy Peach fathered with the woman.

Peach replied to one message with an unspecified threat and said he was thinking about coming over to the woman's house where Huggett was.

Huggett briefly considered contacting police but chose not to, the complaint said. Instead he replied with a text message saying he was a 230-pound veteran of the Army National Guard and he didn't take the threat seriously.

If that's not provocation and escalation, I don't know what is. If you spit in a man's face, you have no right to get mad when he punches you in yours. Have fun on your "date" with Bubba up in Huntsville!
 
bdickens, I'm not sure what you're getting at with that code, but it doesn't seem relevant. Breaking into a house is hardly "seeking a discussion". Yes, there was some mutual arguing back and forth, but what happened at that house appears to be no more than a break-in based on the information given in the article. Text messages don't really warrant showing up at someone's house and forcing your way in.

For example, you and I could send angry PMs to each other all day (regardless of how base the comments are), but if either you or I showed up at the other's house and kicked in the door, what do you think would happen?
 
[moderatorMode]

csmkersh, bdickens,

Knock if off, the both of you, and return to firm civility.

[/moderatorMode]

As Jeff White pointed out, prior antagonistic relationships casts serious suspicion on claims of self defense.

A component of self defense in most jurisdictions includes a concept that the defender is an uninvolved innocent who has no part provoking or escalating an incident.

If you DO find yourself in such a circumstance, where you had a part in provoking or escalating, you must expect your self defense claim to be compromised.

Be aware that in most jurisdictions, breaking off and retreating ends that encounter, and if the other party chooses to pursue you, that opens a new encounter in which you may in fact be again an innocent, uninvolved person.

Again, the totality of the facts will control.
 


Bryon is playing, "Make it up as you go." First he attempts to ignore the relevant part of Tx PC §9.31 and my comments regarding Texas law. Having lost that, he moves things back to Wisconsin to cover his blunder.

lance22 is most likely correct; Huggett may well plead this out.



 
One thing to consider is that antagonizing someone via texting is one thing; going physical (especially if you have to travel to another location to do so) is quite another.
 
No, the relevant part of the Texas Penal Code it the part that says that if you provoke someone, escalate the situation, or engage in mutual combat, you lose your claim to self-defense. You remind me of Christian Fundamentalists who cite Ephesians 5:22-24 as "proof" that women are supposed to let their husbands walk all over them, but ignore the whole rest of the chapter that tells men that they are to respect their wives.

As far as:
And, yes, I've a CHL and a Hell of a lot longer than you have. The deadly force portion was presented by a Bexar County ADA. What's your excuse?

On what do you base that? You don't know anything about me. I don't care if you had your CHL back when Jesus was a Corporal, it's time for you to take a refresher course.
 
bdickens, you might want to review #40, in which a moderator told you to stand down.

And leave religion out of it, please.
 
From the first part of the Texas code posted (emphasis added),

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

it seems that the firefighter invalidated self defense with his messaging as all three conditions must be met, not just the first one that csmkersh posted back in #23.

According to the criminal complaint, Huggett and Peach traded increasingly argumentative text messages the day of the shooting.

Deputies who obtained copies of the text messages said Huggett belittled the fact that Peach was receiving Social Security Disability, and said he was going to replace Peach as the dad of the 5-year-old boy Peach fathered with the woman.

Peach replied to one message with an unspecified threat and said he was thinking about coming over to the woman's house where Huggett was.

Huggett briefly considered contacting police but chose not to, the complaint said. Instead he replied with a text message saying he was a 230-pound veteran of the Army National Guard and he didn't take the threat seriously.

As Jeff White pointed out in post #32, we don't have all the details to say one way or the other.
 
No, the relevant part of the Texas Penal Code it the part that says that if you provoke someone, escalate the situation, or engage in mutual combat, you lose your claim to self-defense.

And again, they appear to be separate encounters (an argument via text messaging is NOT part of the same situation as a physical confrontation in which one party goes after the other) as many have said, which makes that portion irrelevant. Like I said before, we could call each other names on THR all day, but if you show up at my house and kick in my door over it, and are subsequently shot for doing so, odds are I'm going to be fine, legally speaking.
 
Posted by bdickens
No, the relevant part of the Texas Penal Code it the part that says that if you provoke someone, escalate the situation, or engage in mutual combat, you lose your claim to self-defense.

You'd make a fine "latrine lawyer" in the military, but you'll never make it as a REAL lawyer.

Please show us where exactly in the law, as well as documented legal case histories---that someone mildly insulting you OVER THE INTERNET gives you the right to beat on somebody's door, bust the door down and commit criminal trespass, and attempt to attack an individual?

As for the obvious STRAW MAN that the deceased was trying to "pertect the little woomin and child"---please show us documented evidence that the shooter AT ANY TIME had threatened the woman or child.

Ain't it funny that the woman called 911 to report that the DECEASED had forcibly entered the house, and she NEVER said anything about any threat to herself or the child from the SHOOTER.
 
There's the spirit and intent of the law.

Each case turns on its own facts.

This firefighter is in extra, extra doo-doo.

Prior acts leading up to the shooting are totally relevant in determining intent, motive, etc.

10-1 he cops a plea to manslaughter, if the prosecutor is so kind enough to offer it to him.

It smells like 'murder' to me.

It seems almost as despicable as that moron shooting those two illegal immigrants for breaking into a neighbor's house. Watch what happens with that one! Killing two poor guys for a burglary of an uninhabited dwelling? GGgeesssshhhh....
 
I never said that
someone mildly insulting you OVER THE INTERNET gives you the right to beat on somebody's door, bust the door down and commit criminal trespass, and attempt to attack an individual
. Go back and reread my post. What I said was that if you provoke an attack, you can't claim self-defense. Both parties here are guilty. One is dead and one will probably going to jail.

And by the way, I didn't "bring religion into it." My point about Ephesians 5 is an entirely germane illustration to my point about people engaging in proof-texting.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top