My compassion for Matos is tempered by the fact that he should not be living on the streets, and I cannot assume that he has no other option. I don't know about New York, but in Los Angeles most of the time the homeless actually living in the streets do have the option to go to a shelter. They routinely refuse, claiming the rules are too restrictive. The reality is that they have become feral. Even such house rules as are necessary to keep individuals from harming each other are too much to ask. The homeless are accustomed to freedom from the responsibilities that most of the rest of us cannot allow ourselves to ignore. I don't know Matos' whole story, but if people continually refuse the help that is available because that is asking too much of them, that becomes their lifestyle choice. Every homeless person has not made the same choice, but our streets and sidewalks are full of people who, in the end, prefer their "freedom" to responsibility.
9
A frivolous use of the defense. A box on a public sidewalk is not a person's home. A stray kick that the kicker had no reason to believe was a person's "home" (because it is not) could not possibly justify chasing the kicker down the street with a knife. Mr. Matos belongs in prison or, at a minimum, in a locked psychiatric ward. He's more than demonstrated that he is a danger to the public.
33
Putting all issues aside, wouldn’t it be impossible for someone to ‘enter’ any dwelling that only a single person use cardboard box?
2
The article fails to consider the fact that carrying a knife in New York City is illegal, which would make his defense strategy pretty weak.
Also, why mention the guy's blood alcohol concentration as "almost four times the legal limit of .08 that is generally established for safe driving."? He wasn't driving, was he? So that makes his blood alcohol concentration not illegal.
2
Using the phrase that has become common in discussing gender, this situation is clearly not binary. All parties,the homeless man and the college kids, bear responsibility for the result. Aside from the obvious problem of homelessness that underlies this tale, we see a delay in the justice system that has kept one party in jail for an unreasonable amount of time. We need the wisdom of Solomon here but, from my reading, there is no way to assign unilateral blame here. Good luck to the judge here; better luck to the people who have added one more problem to their lives.
Drunk “victim” four times above .8 In itself generating reasonable doubt meaning Defendant most likely walking. Most likely outcome plea bargain drawing probation maybe minimum prison/jail time.
2
Oh boy. Mr. Matos will lose. 1. A cardboard box on a city street is not a domicile, at best it could be called a shelter. 2. The students could not have reasonably assumed someone was occupying the boxes. 3.The students were not armed and did not threaten him with bodily harm. Because you imagine you are being attacked does not make it so. Next!
9
We should be clear-- his lawyer-- no doubt in line for a huge payday from the taxpayer-- likely said it was "his home", right?
@Steve
I dont even get your comment. His lawyer (assuming its a public defender) gets paid regardless of what his legal defense is. There is no such thing as a "huge payday" for defending a homeless person in court.
16
When I read the fifth paragraph - acknowledging that homeless people also have responsibilities - I thought I was reading the New York post.
6
Even accepting the defendant's argument that his box is his castle, he is outside its protection when he chased after the young men and left the castle as it were. The castle doctrine, traditionally, applied to the residence and the curtilage immediately surrounding the residence. Once one leaves the cottage and the curtilage, the castle doctrine no longer applies.
104
@Bill
How are you defining curtilage?
Sounds to me like he was defending himself from a couple of drunks attacking him.
13
@magicisnotreal Traditionally, the area immediate to the residence/structure necessary for its support which includes porches, steps leading to the front door, and the immediate area next to windows or other doors and means of exit (e.g. a fire escape).
The curtilage in this case would not extend much further than a couple of inches but the "residence" is located on public right of way. The castle doctrine is based on the right of self-defense but also a right to defend one's property. In this case, the box was placed on a public right of way which limits his legal rights in terms of protecting his property. His only legal justification is self-defense, but that argument falls apart when he chases them with a knife. At that point, the boys would have been within their rights to use deadly force.
16
@magicisnotreal That certainly was not my impression!
While Mr. Matos use of deadly force seems excessive in order to protect his "home", it is conceivable that he felt he had to protect himself. With the number of homeless people that get assaulted and killed these days, he may well have been alarmed by his structure being kicked and being told that he was "nothing" (which implies that the attacker can do whatever he wants to him with impunity).
It also sounds as though Mr. Morales was so drunk that he doesn't know what he said or did. His report of what happened is full of "probably" and what he does or doesn't think he would have done - which certainly suggests that he doesn't remember.
I don't know what should be done with this case. I can only say that it is sad. Sad that people are living on the streets and are afraid. Sad that many people do not regard the homeless as people deserving respect and compassion.
95
@drmaryb ‘being told that he was "nothing”’ — he wasn’t told that. He inferred that: “When he goes past me, he rubs his shoulder at my chest like, like, ‘You ain’t nothin’”
11
@drmaryb He wasn't "told he was 'nothing.'" That's his spin, not their statement.
17
@drmaryb Thank you for having a sympathetic voice. So many of the comments here seem to be voicing the opinion that people "shouldn't be living in boxes anyway"... completely tone-deaf to the realities far too many people face (and frankly, there but for the grace of the gods could go I, or you, or any of us, far too easily). Respect and compassion are in short supply lately.
20
A homeless man once asked me for help on way back from work. As I ignored and walked past him - he said - "Get home safe". And I replied without thinking - "You too"
1
Walking down the street kicking boxes? Sure, who doesn't do that? Aren't there laws against public drunkenness?
1
Mr Mateos I feel your pain . But you did overreact that night.... How many times have you done that in your life. You should consider some anger management and hopefully some jail time will provide it. As for the defendant, well this was a hard lesson to learn and an unfortunate one for sure. Hopefully some good will come out of this for both of you.
2
22 years of government housing can be had, if only the homeless start committing murder?
This is absurd.
House people.
4
@American:
Murder?
If Mr. Matos was living in San Fransisco, District Attorney Chesa Boudin would defend his actions.
5
Matos should be in prison.
4
@manta666:
And what if Morales really did kick the box repeatedly and then return to confront Matos?
Regardless of the material used, it is his home.
11
While it is conceivable that a kick to the box in which he was sleeping would have startled, alarmed, and potentially caused Mr. Matos to become defensive, it is not severe enough to chase people down the road and stab them. Yell at them, sure. Move to the church for the night (where he is now staying), yes. I would not know a cardboard box (or boxes) outside of a building from a shelter in daylight, but two drunk college students should at nighttime?
26
Leaving aside the actual case at hand (I'll leave that to the courts), this story reads like a thought experiment, exploring the outer limits of the "castle doctrine" in order to help determine if the doctrine makes sense in the first place. I'm tempted, here, to conclude that it makes no sense - that the doctrine itself rests on specious premises (or, rather, it covers no ground that other, more basic laws, don't already adequately cover). Not sure, just a thought...
1
I applaud Mr. Matos for not accepting a plea deal! Let the prosecutors PROVE their case.
One aspect I noted was the bail set at $100,000. Since Mr. Matos was homeless, this amount was obviously beyond his means and, I believe, excessive thus violating the 8th Amendment. His court-appointed attorney should have made a case for a lower bail or even no bail at all.
14
I envision a couple of drunk cocky college students harassing a homeless person and an unexpected reaction. Maybe they should realize you just cant go around disrespecting people, period.
37
@Mark Maybe they really thought they were kicking a bunch of boxes? Not a "home".
12
@Mark Drunk. For the record you can go around disrespecting people. That isn't against the law. Stabbing someone because you were disrespected is against the law.
10
@Mark Just because you envision a couple of drunk college students harassing a homeless person does not mean that is what happened. The students did not see him. They did not know he was in the box and that he considered the box his home. The students were leaving, he chased them down and stabbed them. He may have acted out of fear, but what he did was wrong.
2
This story is sickening.
Two brutes kick and attack a sleeping homeless man and when he fights back and defends himself, he is put on trial?
No one is buying, "they thought it was trash story," they knew a human being was lying in there and they attacked him. It was a premeditated and unprovoked attack.
You can't just attack someone because they are homeless. You can't strip someone's civil liberties because they are homeless either.
34
@Gus But that is not what this is about. Unless you have inflation not in the article, they did not attack the box, they kick it. It is different. In fact, Mr Matos run after them and attacked them. While there may be some kind of attenuating circumstance for Mr Matos reaction (he was startled and woke up suddenly scared that someone may attack him). But running after the two students and attacking them with knife when they were clearly running away from him is not self defense any longer.
2
@SE Oops. I meant "less you have information not in the article, they did not attack the box, they kicked it."
If a cardboard box was all you had, you'd defend it, too. Try it sometime.
20
Mr. Matos was in a public space, not a private space. Private ownership should be the essence of the "castle" defense because it confers the right to control entry into that space.
16
The problem is that he stepped outside of his home and onto the street.
6
I know it's an aside, but, the richest country on the planet and we have, what, a million people living in boxes, and two million homeless children. Meanwhile, one man, makes more that all of his 100,000 employees - combined.
13
Some trash near the road isn't a home. It's a place to crash. Far different from demonstrating criminal intent of intentionally trespassing and breaking into a domicile for criminal activity.
This tale sounds like both sides are lying and the truth is likely a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B. Those young men sound like they were looking for some trouble and found it. Regardless, stabbing one of them was a definite overreaction. I doubt murder was intention but unintentional manslaughter sounds about right.
6
Regardless of the truth of the “first aggression” matter, it wasn’t deadly to Mr. Matos, and further, for him to say “I didn’t do anything wrong” indicates a profound lack of understanding, reasonableness, and most importantly remorse. Chasing, stabbing, and gravely injuring two young men who did Mr. Matos no physical harm personally is wrong by any standard.
15
"he goes past me, he rubs his shoulder at my chest like, like, ‘You ain’t nothin’" -- seems like this was just the last drop in a string of indignities inflicted on this homeless man by society over time, and he snapped. It's a reaction not just to what the two students did, but to what many people did over time. That doesn't justify his act, but gives the background against which it must be judged. The background should matter at sentencing.
3
I am not well acquainted in the legal theories at work here. Yes, a man may defend his home. Apparently the degree to which he may attack the person menacing his home varies. In stand your ground states, there is precedence that it's fine to kill a trick or treating teenager with your shotgun if he knocks on your door, as long as he's not white. In civilized areas more judgment is required.
Even if the cardboard boxes are a home, is that home legally HIS? I have over the decades read a number of times about burglars who ate and boozed until they fell asleep in somebody else's home. Sometimes they were belligerent when the person whose home it was returned and disturbed their slumber. Does such a burglar, like Mr. Matos, have the right to defend with deadly force what is in no way legally HIS home?
4
What is the definition of a home in this day and age. If the accused lived in a tent would that be considered a home? If he can't afford a tent or it is stolen and he resorts to cardboard boxes is that a home? I believe a court will ultimately find that his boxes are indeed a home. Whether he wins this first case is questionable though. An enlightened judge and jury may acquit.
4
This is heartbreaking on all counts. Yes he should do some jail time but a possible 22 years? What bothers me is the lack of compassion by many who don't seem to care that in a city that houses so many wealthy people, where millionaires and billionaires buy apartments as tax write off there is such a huge homeless population. The fact that this man, who apparently goes South, in the cold months has decided to stay around and take his chances with the court system. My mother used to say "There but for the grace of God goes you" whenever we saw someone who was homeless or who had no one or nothing. Even one of the victims seems to be a compassionate to his plight. Come on people we can be better than this. Maybe the NYC government can work on providing affordable housing for the people that actually live in this city.
2
Does a cardboard shelter constitute a home?
If so, does the kick of a wall from a passerby constitute a threat to a person residing within?
If so, how far can the resident pursue the passerby before castle doctrine protection evaporates?
3
Why aren't there special protections for people who can't rely on the conventional protections afforded by "a permanent structure with a roof"? We all understand on some level the contributing factors to homelessness, but how many of us comprehend the deep stresses of sleeping in public night in and night out? When we look to judge Mr. Matos' actions from this distance, we simply must account for his probable state of hyper-vigilance that comes from belonging to such a vulnerable population.
5
Please ponder the following dynamics:
-How do we define a "home" in a society plagued by homelessness?
-Should claims of self-defense by a population of society's most vulnerable receive favored consideration when this population's belief they have nothing more than a life to lose and/or protect has "indisputable" validity?
-In a society where mental health is the fashionable advocacy subject of the moment, should we be alarmed compounding trauma, stress, anxiety and forced circumstantial adaptation aren't the first factors we consider when pursuing what should be a fair and just resolution in situations like these?
-In an era of growing language fluidity and evolving context, could the use of the phrasing "castle doctrine" be distorting our outlook of what this law is intended to convey/protect?
-Should the pre-cursor action(s) of one person, which play a role in facilitating a violent counter-reaction from another person, be the sole determinant of what the consequence for the counter-action should be thereafter?
-Does a person's repeated verbal employment of the word "probably", during their conveying of pertinent details, equate to credibility lost?
-Does one's "existence" in a public place void their pre-existing right to defend their personal space?
We must not allow common sensibility to go extinct and be permanently replaced by the “quick-fix throw away of a life” that continues to stain the moral and ethical fabric of this society.
5
Regardless of whether the box was considered a home or not isn’t the real issue for me. I just can’t stab someone for kicking my door. Lethal force should be used to save a life.
17
@Phillip A.
Read the article and think.
1
I read the article. He ran after the boys and stabbed them. Well outside his home (castle doctrine no longer applies) and stabbing someone in the back is further evidence that it was not self defense. Sure there are mitigating circumstances that would argue for leniency in sentencing of his crime. But they do not absolve him of responsibility.
Is it legal to establish a temporary ‘domicile’ on the streets of NYC? It seems to me that this is an important consideration in the case.
8
it's a home, not a house. There is an story within the story: who pays 100K out of kindness? I'd love to to know about those good (American?) people.
4
@MCG The bond money is returned at the conclusion of the case.
It would be good if you didn't get drunk and harass homeless people.
51
@Chris --What does that have to do with the issues here? Most actions that are not "good" do not justify a stabbing.
3
@Chris
Agreed. Protecting his home or not seems a moot point - he was startled out of sleep by three drunken college age students and then confronted by at least one o them. My experience with drunk college aged men when they have the advantage in numbers does little to convince me they're not to blame. A simple apology (if it was an honest mistake) and a peace offering of a few bucks would probably have ended the situation - but puffing up your chest doesn't end well most of the time.
3
Breaking into a home or kicking an unmarked box by the road are different things. Anyone can call anything a home. Define home. It does not give the man the right to stab.
39
@PK Jharkhand
National parks are also public spaces. If I were camping and someone tried to break into my tent, I'd certainly defend myself.
4
If only those who have experienced what it is like to have no shelter and to sleep on the street and then to be kicked in the head responded. There would be no responses here. Put your selves in the tired worn shoes of someone who is hanging on by a cardboard box and trying to survive by getting through the night. Sleeping on the streets forces you to be wary, to be on edge. This is horrible situation but c'mon you can't kick someone on the street and its not an excuse to say "I didn't know anyone was in the box".
50
@Harris silver
Sure - because implicitly kicking someone's cardboard box gives them the unvarnished right to attack you with a knife and stab/slash you multiple times.
I mean... it's only common sense.
34
@Harris silver
Some people come from societies where no one lives in a box. When I first moved to New York I kicked a couple myself, oblivious that someone might be inside. Please.
14
@Mexico Mike Why would you kick a box?
3
So, not only being homeless is treated like a crime, peole cannot even defend themselves if they are homeless.
21
@Pam The article clearly states he chased the unarmed students and stabed them in the back.
33
@Pam someone kicked his box. He wasn't personally attacked, and then went and stabbed two people.
20
@Pam Sorry but stabbing people walking down the street is not the answer to the issue of people living on the street. What kind of precedent will this set ? Even if a kid is drunk and acting stupidly he should not be a legal target for assault with a deadly weapon as he moves away from the attacker.
23
Classic misdirection. They can't win arguing that it's right to attack people with a knife so they're confusing the issue with a discussion of whether a cardboard box is a house.
17
I'm not sure there's a "legal limit" on alcohol for walking around the streets, the way there is for driving.
78
@Pete I know, ridiculous! Why is that in there?
14
@Hunter Probably to show how drunk he was. If his BAC was .08, it would be a different story.
1
@Pete Does NYC have a public intox law?
1
Mr. Matos was merely responding to threats against him and was not the aggressor. Pursuing the aggressors down the street may be foreign to those of us who have a more secure existence, but the streets are a rougher existence where a more aggressive stance may be necessary to protect onesself against drunkards.
That a prosecutor would suggest a long custodial sentence for self-defense shows manifest incompetence.
26
@Herr Andersson Unless I missed it, there's no indication in this article that that the prosecution is actually suggesting a long sentence. The only mention of the sentencing is "What happened next could send Mr. Matos, 57, to prison for more than a decade".. which is just speculation.
I would agree that this is a case where the sentence should be more lenient given the situation, but the article is unclear.
1
@Herr Andersson
Sure, just let him chase the young men down the street and stab them without facing repercussion. If you think Morales was an aggressor because he kicked a box while Matos was concealed inside, then Matos massively escalated the incident by attacking him and his companion with a deadly weapon. "He started it", is the argument of a small child. If that becomes the legal standard for potentially lethal assault on the streets of New York, we are in bigger trouble than I thought.
105
What about people who are walking on the streets? Do they not deserve protection too, or only those who sleep on them?
15
This is very similar to a case from the old, original “ Law and Order “ TV series. In the episode, I think the Court ruled the
“Box” was his “ Castle “. I agree. Yes, the injuries are unfortunate and severe. However, this person needs to be assessed for mental illness, yesterday. Attempted Manslaughter, at most. Note to drunk College Kids : Don’t drive, go home, sleep it off.
Just saying.
3
@Phyliss Dalmatian They weren't driving; they were walking. And were assaulted by a crazy person.
42
Yes, I know. I meant in general, for everyday.
Cheers.
3
This is a very sad story but Mayos should be jailed for attempted manslaughter. The wounds the 2 boys received sound pretty severe.
43
@Joe Mama
Mr. Matos has already spent six months in jail. You make it sound like he as had no repercussions from his reaction upon being suddenly awakened by a kick to the head.
1
@Joe Mama But if he had a legitimate porch or doorway and had given them the same injuries, we'd accept that he had a right to defend himself. Let's punish him again--being homeless isn't punishment enough.
1
Can it really be YOUR "castle", if it's a public space? I think these two college kids were wrong, but I think the defense does not hold water.
50
@kz Well think about this. Had Mr. Matos been a middle class white man sleeping in his tem bt in a public campground and some person comes along and tried to tear the tent down, would Mt Matos has the right to defend his tent and himself? Of course he would.
17
@Jeff With "reasonable force." Not chase the person down the street and stab them after they fled.
15
@Jeff
A tent is a recognized habitation. Specious argument.
9
Both parties are in the wrong here. This guy shouldn’t be living in cardboard boxes as a home and the young men shouldn’t have been so drunk (drunk & disorderly). Public streets are just that: public. As such then setting up a makeshift home on the street does not constitute private property. Therefore the guy has no case under the castle doctrine. However the young men were so drunk they don’t even remember what happened so their testimony is virtually useless. They may be guilty of assault at least. Will be interesting to see how this case is decided.
4
@Mike L: You are so right Mr. Matos should not have been sleeping in that box but should have been in his king sized bed in his high-rise apartment.
12
@Mike L
Assault on a cardboard box?
4
I hope the jury is sympathetic to him.
If you kick a sleeping person on the street, even if that person is in a box, you should be prepared for what comes next.
The two men who were harmed should chalk this one up to their own drunkenness and poor judgement. And to the complexity of a city where some sleep on the street —and vulnerably. This man should not go to prison.
42
@Jamie On the flipside, I can totally believe that the man simply thought it was a box without a person inside of it. I wouldn't blame getting STABBED on being drunk either that seems a little victim blamey.
Overall this seems a silly mistake that escalated to harsh consequences. I hope everyone involved leaves it with some sense of alleviation.
6
@Jamie: Evidently the boy only kicked what appeared to be a cardboard box, not “a sleeping person on the street“.
12
Why must anyone be homeless
and why are the doors to Churches locked
with the homeless sleeping outside of them ?
Yes, some of the homeless might do damage to the
Churches if allowed 24 hour access, but most would not.
Churches are the House of God
and God is the Father of all of us.
They are the home of the homeless
just as much as those who only come by to worship
for one hour on the Lord's Day.
17
@John Brown The doors to the Churches are locked because #1...many of the items would be stolen. This is New York, not Idaho. We've had a string of occurrences where Churches have been vandalized and burglarized. One church was even set on fire recently.
#2 It costs money to keep a church open when not in use for Mass. You have to pay extra utilities, staff, etc, and not every congregation can afford to cover those costs. Some churches have a running budget in the high six to seven figures, and every dollar their receive via the collection plate, donations, or fundraisers is accounted for to the penny. So no.
27
@John Brown How quaint! Churches have never been the houses of God. They are monuments to the wealth of the parishioners. Is your church open 24/7 for anyone who needs a place to sleep?
7
@AmericanBornTrini: LI don't life in Idaho but I do live in a small town. All the churches and synagogues keep their doors locked except when the congregation is using them.
3
Why is Cy Vance prosecuting a homeless guy to begin with? What is wrong with the Manhattan DA's office?
10
@Carlo Probably because the homeless guy stabbed someone's liver and lacerated their face with a knife? I dunno, just a guess.
75
@Carlo Does being homeless make you immune from prosecution when you commit a crime?
26
I'll give him it's his home but it wasn't reasonable of him to believe that the college students were entering without permission or seeking to commit a crime- because he knew or should have known that he and his home looked like a pile of garbage.
39
There are two glaring problems here: homelessness and the "castle doctrine."
The former has not proven to be easily solvable, even with sufficient money.
The latter could easily be changed by legislation that requires a duty to retreat. And it should be.
8
@JL
Why should someone be legally forced to run in fear from someone invading their own home? That law would essentially mean you are not even safe in your own home. And what if your home is an apartment in a multistory building? Should a homeowner have to jump out a 2nd or third story window all to prevent harm from a criminal? After living somewhere with such a law and experiencing that same situation myself I am now glad to say I live in a state where I have the RIGHT to defend myself in my own home. THAT IS "AS IT SHOULD BE"
10
@JL a “duty to retreat”?! That’s insane.
5
@Mike Many states have a "duty to retreat."
3
Not really related to the merits of the case, but why is .08 described as the "legal limit" for alcohol in this article? It is the minimum value which is considered prima facie evidence of being intoxicated when operating a motor vehicle, it is not illegal to drink more than that.
136
this is how practical concern (safety on the roads) becomes moral prohibition. Americans are particularly skilled at nudging these lines
27
@Andrew had the same thought
4
@Andrew
What you say is valid, though Mr. Morales was drinking underage (which is illegal). Also citing the legal limit gives the reader a way of conceiving of just how drunk he was.
36