Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
The guy probably saved a few lives by doing this. If the criminals tried to rob the house when someone was home unexpectedly, what are the chances of them shooting the home owner? What are the chances these guys commit another crime when they get away with this? What are the chances they kill someone next time? What about all the other criminals or would-be criminals that hear about this and think again?

[/ QUOTE ]


You have to consider the merits of the case, and saying this is a HUGE leap of assumption.


Lol at "they have a bag of loot!" Also LOL at him saying "I had no choice man! I had no choice!" He had enough time to make about 200 choices, as he was CALMLY speaking to the 911 operator. The opportunity for him to choose was presented an ample number of times, he chose to go outside with gun drawn after 6 and a half minutes of a phone call. I understand trying to protect your neighbor but jesus this is ridiculous. This guy's gonna get pwned in court.



And wtf were the police? 8 minutes+? This shows yet again that the responsibility of individual protection falls on the citizen, and not the police.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest I have no problem with what the guy did. I think that shooting people robbing houses isnt a real bad thing for society to have. Things like calling the guy a hero are what is completely baffling to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well not to be a nit but they were burglarizing an empty house, burglary<robbery. That's an important distinction. Protecting your own house with deadly force is completely fine with me, but going around taking the law into your own hands over a "bag of loot" is going way too far. The two thieves were probably scum bags, but people don't have the right to just go around greasing those they determine to be scum bags.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest I have no problem with what the guy did. I think that shooting people robbing houses isnt a real bad thing for society to have. Things like calling the guy a hero are what is completely baffling to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well not to be a nit but they were burglarizing an empty house, burglary<robbery. That's an important distinction. Protecting your own house with deadly force is completely fine with me, but going around taking the law into your own hands over a "bag of loot" is going way too far. The two thieves were probably scum bags, but people don't have the right to just go around greasing those they determine to be scum bags.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen any mention of the guys being unarmed. Were they?

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

I don't think anyone can argue with:
- the guy went outside because the burglars were "getting away" with "a bag of loot", not because they were threatening him or his neighbour or anyone's property.
- the guy went outside with the intention of killing them.

in civilized countries this would be premeditated murder, not manslaughter or self-defense. Civilization is relatively new to Texas and to the US in general: it is a very young state and it isn't long since it was an untamed frontier. It's standard that countries like that have less respect for the rule of law. Vigilante justice is commonplace in such countries: research for example the Texas Rangers, Hamas or Mapogo a Mathamaga.

Texas has to decide whether it wants to take another step towards civilization, but I suspect Texans are perfectly happy with the way it is.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Newspapers (some at least, I've only read a couple) are reporting it as "Move and your dead" .... I dunno.

I'm curious to hear how more people feel. I just can't get behind the absolute assertion that the guy was wrong. And I really don't think this is a strong case for gun control, or at least, not as strong as some people seem to think.

The guy realy sounds to me like he felt he didn't have a choice - he felt duty-bound to try and stop the thieves. He may well be an idiot, and he may really have been wrong. But I listen to the tape and it's just not so simple for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think the neighbor's VCR was worth the lives of two men? This guy did. He thought about it, the 911 operator urged him repeatedly to cool down, and then he decided that yes, he should kill (or run a very high risk of killing) two people to save his neighbor's stuff. That's evil and depraved. Valuing consumer electronics over people's lives is exactly the sort of thing we need to be locking people up for.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Do you really think the neighbor's VCR was worth the lives of two pieces of trash?"

Did the two robbers think their lives were worth a VCR? They made the choice to steal and they paid the price. Do you think anyone will steal from that neighborhood again in the next 5 years?

edit: They knew they could get shot in texas (or anywhere else) by breaking in to someones house and they did it anyway. Also he told them not to run and they ran, i wish the guy was my neighbor so i didnt have to lock my doors when i leave.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

911 guy: "Don't go outside", "stay in your house" etc

a little while later, after the shootings:
Shooter: "I had no choice..."
yeah, the house was burning you had to go outside

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

Fly,

"This thread is an embarrassment to EDF, fwiw."

How so?

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Valuing consumer electronics over people's lives is exactly the sort of thing we need to be locking people up for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree here.

I hate to be racist or value one person over another, but these 2 burglars arent exactly model citizens. They are a leech on society, and they are certainly going to rob someone else. Who knows if they are armed, and if they will harm someone else while robbing them?

I really can't blame someone for killing 2 thieves.

[/ QUOTE ]

i used to think you seemed like an ok guy. this post is horrific.

your point is not that they posed an imminent threat and the guy had to defend himself. your point is that they were bad people so who cares if someone shoots them. just wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably phrased my point poorly, blah.

I was trying to get at that these guys could very likely harm other people when robbing another house. Maybe they think the house is empty, go inside, and are startled by a resident, and they end up shooting them.

EDIT: WTF I didnt say "they are bad people, who cares if someone shoots them".

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest I have no problem with what the guy did. I think that shooting people robbing houses isnt a real bad thing for society to have. Things like calling the guy a hero are what is completely baffling to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well not to be a nit but they were burglarizing an empty house, burglary<robbery. That's an important distinction. Protecting your own house with deadly force is completely fine with me, but going around taking the law into your own hands over a "bag of loot" is going way too far. The two thieves were probably scum bags, but people don't have the right to just go around greasing those they determine to be scum bags.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen any mention of the guys being unarmed. Were they?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not too sure, even if they were the man had the ultimate decision whether or not to stay inside. He created the threat. If they were clearly armed an officer would be justified in opening fire thanks to the ruling in Tennessee Vs. Garner (the police have the right to fire at a fleeing violent felon). The same does not apply to civilians

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

Tennessee vs. Garner for anyone who's interested

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

They made the choice to go into someones house. They made the choice to steal from someones house. They made the choice to run away despite someone yelling to stop running while holding a gun. What did they expect? The civilian didn't create the threat, the robbers did when they decided to break into someones home.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fly,

"This thread is an embarrassment to EDF, fwiw."

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's full of politics, for one thing. I guess that's the cause of the other thing, the extreme absurdity of people seriously saying "What about all the other criminals or would-be criminals that hear about this and think again?", so I guess it's just that one thing. But really, it's a politics thread, so you've got some incredibly retarded things being said.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
They made the choice to go into someones house. They made the choice to steal from someones house. They made the choice to run away despite someone yelling to stop running while holding a gun. What did they expect? The civilian didn't create the threat, the robbers did when they decided to break into someones home.

[/ QUOTE ]




You listened to the call right? This guy is guilty as hell. On what grounds should he be acquitted? It doesn't sound like the castle doctrine or make my day exception apply here at all. This was a case of vigilante justice gone wrong.

Of course they had the choice to not break into a house and take a VCR, but luckily that has no bearing on the decision. The ultimate decision rested upon the man, and it was his decision that resulted in two men getting murdered. Individual citizens do not have the right to use deadly force against someone fleeing from a burglary (from another's home). No matter how you slice it, they just don't unless THEY force a threat upon the person or their family. I have to go but there have been instances where someone was burgling a house, a citizen intervened and fired upon the thief, who then fired back, killing the man. The thief was not charged with murder.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest I have no problem with what the guy did. I think that shooting people robbing houses isnt a real bad thing for society to have. Things like calling the guy a hero are what is completely baffling to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well not to be a nit but they were burglarizing an empty house, burglary<robbery. That's an important distinction. Protecting your own house with deadly force is completely fine with me, but going around taking the law into your own hands over a "bag of loot" is going way too far. The two thieves were probably scum bags, but people don't have the right to just go around greasing those they determine to be scum bags.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its pretty sweet that burglars now have to worry about getting shot a bit more than they once had.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tennessee vs. Garner for anyone who's interested

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting case but am I right in thinking that it has no bearing in terms of precedent or anything else because it is state court and not federal, correct?

As far as this case goes I agree that no life is worth property. I don't care how much is being stolen. I was raised that if someone wants to steal your car you just hand it over because 'its just a car and items can be replaced.' Killing somoene so that they can not escape from a burglary boggles my mind as do the posters (other than boris who is obviously trolling) who defend the neighbor's actions

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

meh i would prefer people not have to replace their car. Also less people would have to replace their car if carjacker is lying on the ground dead imo.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

I'm a gun rights proponent and I have a concealed weapons permit, that said, this guy talked himself into what he thought was justifiable homicide. If evidence is presented that the men were armed, or attempted to attack the shooter, then and only then will I change my view.

I'm saddened that this man was doing what he thought was the honorable thing and misunderstood his rights within the law. We tend to think of our neighborhoods as part of our home, but the law states differently.

When he exited the house and gave what was an insufficient amount of reaction time to presumably unarmed men, and then shot them, if this is indeed the way it happened, he commited murder.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They made the choice to go into someones house. They made the choice to steal from someones house. They made the choice to run away despite someone yelling to stop running while holding a gun. What did they expect? The civilian didn't create the threat, the robbers did when they decided to break into someones home.

[/ QUOTE ]
You listened to the call right? This guy is guilty as hell. On what grounds should he be acquitted?

[/ QUOTE ]
He called the police who did not arrive. He went out to detain the thieves, and they ran at him. Frightened for his safety, he shot them. In Texas? I'm pretty sure he walks. I think he walks in San Francisco.
[ QUOTE ]
This was a case of vigilante justice gone wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
What would have been gone right? IMO, going out there and holding them at gunpoint would have been ideal, but the knucklhead robbers have something to say about that, however briefly.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course they had the choice to not break into a house and take a VCR, but luckily that has no bearing on the decision. The ultimate decision rested upon the man, and it was his decision that resulted in two men getting murdered.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe someone would actually write this. People breaking into the house had EVERYTHING to do with the decision. This guy wasn't holding up randoms on the street, he went out to stop two criminals victimizing his community.
[ QUOTE ]
Individual citizens do not have the right to use deadly force against someone fleeing from a burglary (from another's home). No matter how you slice it, they just don't unless THEY force a threat upon the person or their family.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether somebody is being threatened or not can be extremely subjective when he is frightened. The thief does not say, "I am not threatening you with violence" as he runs towards him. The guy gets back on the phone in a very agitated state saying they ran at him. Sounded believable to me.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
waa - Let me get this straight. The man decided to be a highly responsible gun owner and educated himself about relevant Texas gun laws. He demonstrated this knowledge to the 911 dispatcher, repeatedly. Then all of a sudden he goes outside with the express intent of using his weapon in an unlawful manner. Riiiiiiiiight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply said I interpreted his statements to the operator to be him rationalizing shooting the men before going outside. Part of this rationalization process is assuring himself that he can legally shoot the men before doing.

So if he goes outside and uses his shotgun it will be in a lawful manner (and if he is not charged an apparently correct assumption).

As many others have mentioned he had called 911 and was on the phone for 6 minutes with a dispatcher who repeatedly told him to remain inside. The non-spontaneity of the act combined with what his perceived knowledge of the law (believing that he could likely kill the burglars legally) leads me to conclude that he went outside planning to shoot, not simply to detain them for the police to arrive.

That is why I find his actions despicable.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

I'm not a Texas lawyer, so this is not legal advice, etc. Here are what I believe are the applicable statutes, including the law that went into effect in September (the protection of property defenses don't apply because they only justify the use of deadly force at night):

§ 19.02. MURDER.
...
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits
an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an
individual; ...

§ 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:
...
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; [and]
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used;
...
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
...
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force,
...
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, [and] who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, ... is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
...
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
...

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
The guy gets back on the phone in a very agitated state saying they ran at him. Sounded believable to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took the man's state to be very calm initially. "Get the law over here quick. I managed to get one of them in the front yard over there.....etc around the 7:10 of youtube video).

He then quickly states I had no choice they charged me, then states they were in his front yard. Things that he would say to legally justify his shooting. All immediately said when he picked up the phone.

I found it to be very rational and interpreted his statements as calculated.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

CT,

"The guy gets back on the phone in a very agitated state saying they ran at him."

It's quite possible he could be in shock or something, but his initial demeanor when he got back on the phone sounded quite calm and composed to me.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

And he also then said one of the guys ran away.

So for him to be innocent

- He said he was gonna kill them to the phone operator
- Said he wasn't gonna let them get any with the loot

Then he went out into his garden just to protect his property, issued a warning telling them he had a gun. Then, rather than running away, or surrendering, or freezing, they ran at him. He then shot one of them, but the other one kept coming despite this(hence the need to fire a second shot). He then had to fire a 3rd shot.

But why would he fire the 3rd shot if the guy was indeed running away as he said in the phone call?

It doesn't add up.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

James: Really interesting topic, thanks for posting.

Ike: Your characterization of this guy as a "mouth breather" suggests you're reacting emotionally rather than intellectually. Property and property rights matter, and matter seriously. This is actually a pretty technical debate that's worth some thought. I for one don't think it's anywhere close to clear-cut.

Fly: your position seems really dumb to me. I think this is very clearly a nuanced situation that hinges on interpretations of key facts. There is no clear result here and it's highly debate-worthy.

All: Garner is irrelevant to this case. Garner dealt with state action and a 1983 claim, which asks if a police policy or procedure violated someone's constitutional rights. Here, the shooter is a private citizen and federal limitations on state power don't come into play. This case is a pure application of Texas state law.

My views: One point I don't seem mentioned much is the guy's statement to the dispatcher that the thieves "lunged" at him. That's a big fact and is likely key here. If he believed they were coming at him with intent to harm him, he likely walks on a self-defense theme.

Apart from that, there's a technical issue lurking here. Section 9.31 of the Texas statute says that deadly force is permissible to stop a robbery. A robbery is theft by the use of force, but the force has to be used before the theft is complete. If the thieves are still on the property, there's a possibility the theft isn't complete -- and if they lunge at the shooter, he is within his rights to use deadly force. I need to look up the Texas definition of robbery to be sure, and Mrs. Treesong is yelling that dinner is ready.

If, on the other hand, he tells the thieves to stop and they stop but then he shoots, he should get convicted, probably with manslaughter but possibly with murder two. I don't think a first-degree murder charge is ever in order here.

Quite frankly, I think this legislative scheme gets it right. Property rights matter. This guy did the right thing by calling the police. It's certainly much more controversial, but I also think he did the right thing by trying to stop the thieves when it became clear that the police would not arrive in time to stop the crime. The only real question here is whether he should have pulled the trigger. In my view, he should have a right to do so if he subjectively felt threatened and if an objective observer would say his belief was reasonable. If the thieves lunged at him or headed towards him when he said stop, I submit that he did in fact feel threatened and that his belief is reasonable.

If he is making that up for the benefit of the dispatchers, then I go the other way.

I also believe this guy will never never never get convicted of any form of homicide, and will right now lay 10:1 on my $100 on anyone who thinks he'll get convicted of same for this situation.

Edit: there's also an issue whether the shooter "provoked" a threat to himself.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]

I also believe this guy will never never never get convicted of any form of homicide, and will right now lay 10:1 on my $100 on anyone who thinks he'll get convicted of same for this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with you, Howard. An interesting, but somewhat tangential question is: How would your price change if this guy was a 30 year old white guy? How about if he was black or brown?

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

burningyen, Howard T. - good posts.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

Sorry pittm. I exaggerated. sue me.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's quite possible he could be in shock or something, but his initial demeanor when he got back on the phone sounded quite calm and composed to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

He sounded composed but agitated, if that makes sense. He was still articulate and able to clearly say what he meant; and he could respond to questions. But his voice was fast and loud and suggested he was excited.

I don't think his state matters much if at all. This isn't an irresistible impulse case. I don't see any language in the Texas statute that forbids him from putting himself in this situation. In fact, it expressly permits him to stop a list of delinated crimes by use of deadly force -- including robbery.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I also believe this guy will never never never get convicted of any form of homicide, and will right now lay 10:1 on my $100 on anyone who thinks he'll get convicted of same for this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with you, Howard. An interesting, but somewhat tangential question is: How would your price change if this guy was a 30 year old white guy? How about if he was black or brown?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think my prices change unless I know the jury composition is white and the defendant is black or vice versa. In those, I think chances of a conviction are better. I also would need to know the extent to which Al Sharpton or Rush, as the case may be, get involved and turn this into a political football.

edit: My ten to one line assumes at least two whites and two blacks on a twelve-person jury.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
On the one hand you think the guy is guilty of first degree murder. Which honestly doesn't make any sense because why call the friggin cops in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

A person can believe his actions are legal and still be guilty of first degree murder.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

"Fly: your position seems really dumb to me. I think this is very clearly a nuanced situation that hinges on interpretations of key facts. There is no clear result here and it's highly debate-worthy."

Yes, it is. But most of the posts in this thread have been retarded "Them darkies got wat wuz comin to 'em!" idiocy.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

Howard Treesong -- I didn't want to quote your long post but your first post is by far the best in this thread. It seems the most rational and well thought of any that I read. And I would like to think our jury system would act similarly.

Some of the posts here actually scare me. "He shouldn't have gone out there", "possessions aren't worth life", "He's guilty as hell, open and shut case", etc. But what you forget is that HUMAN NATURE plays a huge role here.

I actually had a similar situation to this when I was a young girl. My mother and I saw two robbers (we are white and so were the robbers although I think that is somewhat irrelevant) leaving our neighbor's house in broad daylight. My mom called the police and then we both went on the front porch and started yelling at them, etc. Big difference is that we didn't have a weapon and were totally unprepared had they done anything to us. NOW I can see that was VERY STUPID but it was just a gut reaction and not rational or thought out at all.

To think that someone could go to prison for this is scary as hell to me. This man didn't wake up that morning with the intent to kill two black men. He was given a set of circumstances and he acted. Was it the wrong -- probably. Would you, I or anyone else do what he did --- probably not. That's just my point ---- each one of us can THINK we know what we would do but you don't know until it happens to you and each person would do it a little differently. Should he be robbed of his freedom for his actions that day ---- I don't think so.

Great topic though --- I enjoyed reading about it and the discussion.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the one hand you think the guy is guilty of first degree murder. Which honestly doesn't make any sense because why call the friggin cops in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

A person can believe his actions are legal and still be guilty of first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to be an idiot. I really don't think you're right - first degree murder, as I understand it is the opposite of anything that could be believed justifiable.

But I'm not a lawyer. Obviously.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's quite possible he could be in shock or something, but his initial demeanor when he got back on the phone sounded quite calm and composed to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

He sounded composed but agitated, if that makes sense. He was still articulate and able to clearly say what he meant; and he could respond to questions. But his voice was fast and loud and suggested he was excited.

I don't think his state matters much if at all. This isn't an irresistible impulse case. I don't see any language in the Texas statute that forbids him from putting himself in this situation. In fact, it expressly permits him to stop a list of delinated crimes by use of deadly force -- including robbery.

[/ QUOTE ]


Was it robbery or was it burglary? It sounds like burglary, and every news article I've seen has referred to the 2 men as "burglars" as opposed to "robbers". This is huge in this instance. btw I brought up Garner to show that police have the right to fire upon fleeing violent felons, not just any joe who sees someone stealing a car or something. Apparently that's not necessarily the case in Texas. I found some interesting quotes from this article. Here are some:

[ QUOTE ]
The Pasadena man who killed two suspected burglars as they left his next-door neighbor's home did not intend to kill them when he stepped outside with his 12-gauge shotgun, his lawyer said Friday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, that's kind of interesting considering the number of times he said "I'm gonna kill 'em" (or something similar) over the course of a 6 and a half miunute phone call to the 911 operator.

Another quote:

[ QUOTE ]
"Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house. You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun," the dispatcher told Horn at one point.

"You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."

[/ QUOTE ]




[ QUOTE ]
Killed in the incident in the 7400 block of Timberline were Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston.

Each had a minor previous brush with the law. Records show DeJesus was charged with failure to identify himself to a police officer in July 2004. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 days in jail. Ortiz was charged with possession of marijuana in July 2005, but it was later dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]


So between the two, there hasn't been a single violent felony charge, burglary isn't a violent crime per se, and it hasn't been reported that they were armed. All you have is the man's testimony that they "ran at him". One thing I think is also strange is that you hear 2 consecutive shotgun blasts, a couple seconds of delay, and one final one. Could it be inferred that the 2nd man was fleeing but was then taken down by the 3rd shotgun blast several seconds after? This could easily be answered from looking at the crime scene, but I haven't found any info on that after a google search.



Finally:

[ QUOTE ]
Attorneys and legal experts said Horn's defense probably will be based on state law that allows people to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property.

"If you see someone stealing your neighbor's property, you can get involved and help to stop it," said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Others disagreed.

The statutes that allow people to use deadly force to stop a burglary appear to require that the incident be occurring at night, said Craig Jett , a Dallas criminal defense attorney and president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association.

"It can't be during the day," Jett said.

[/ QUOTE ]


It seems that the tipping point is the interpretation of the Texas statute, whether or not the man gets charged with anything. Personally, I think the 911 call revealed an intent; maybe he'll be bailed out by commanding them "to stop or I'll shoot", and if they were actually on his property, because this is Texas after all.


Definitely an interesting case though. Good posts Treesong, this stuff really interests me. The defendants are hispanic, not black as the man thought, if that changes anything.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the one hand you think the guy is guilty of first degree murder. Which honestly doesn't make any sense because why call the friggin cops in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

A person can believe his actions are legal and still be guilty of first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to be an idiot. I really don't think you're right - first degree murder, as I understand it is the opposite of anything that could be believed justifiable.

But I'm not a lawyer. Obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Premeditation is what makes a murder in first degree. Not that it is believed justifiable.

edit: lol, i didn't word that last sentance quite right.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the one hand you think the guy is guilty of first degree murder. Which honestly doesn't make any sense because why call the friggin cops in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

A person can believe his actions are legal and still be guilty of first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to be an idiot. I really don't think you're right - first degree murder, as I understand it is the opposite of anything that could be believed justifiable.

But I'm not a lawyer. Obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yea the requirements for someone to receive a 1st degree murder charge is pretty much impossible to get unless you display slam-dunk intent, premeditation, and it was particularly heinous. Man 2,1 or Murder 2 could both be considered possible though.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the one hand you think the guy is guilty of first degree murder. Which honestly doesn't make any sense because why call the friggin cops in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

A person can believe his actions are legal and still be guilty of first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to be an idiot. I really don't think you're right - first degree murder, as I understand it is the opposite of anything that could be believed justifiable.

But I'm not a lawyer. Obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yea the requirements for someone to receive a 1st degree murder charge is pretty much impossible to get unless you display slam-dunk intent, premeditation, and it was particularly heinous. Man 2,1 or Murder 2 could both be considered possible though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intent means that you intend the act. Whether the actor thinks it is lawfull doesn't matter.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
Intent means that you intend the act. Whether the actor thinks it is lawfull doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I know, but as it's discussed here [ QUOTE ]
In criminal law, for a given actus reus ("guilty act"), the requirement to prove intent consists of showing mens rea (mental state, "guilty mind").

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Intent means that you intend the act. Whether the actor thinks it is lawfull doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I know, but as it's discussed here [ QUOTE ]
In criminal law, for a given actus reus ("guilty act"), the requirement to prove intent consists of showing mens rea (mental state, "guilty mind").

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

"guilty mind" is that you intend to kill. Knowledge of law is rarely an element of a crime.

Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To
 

So I actually did some research here and dug up the following:
[ QUOTE ]
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

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.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that, it seems that killing fleeing burglars probably is OK. The best counterargument is probably that the killer used an unreasonable amount of force. Which is possible, but hard to tell without knowing more about the details of the shooting. Texas craziness FTW.