[Howard Treesong]

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.