Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[PartyGirlUK]

[ QUOTE ]
This guy is a hero. Now we can't know exactly what happened in the front yard but he definitely gave those criminals a warning to stop before he shot them.

** How do you know this ** ??

He also said they lunged at him. He sounds like a law abiding citizen so I'm inclined to believe him.

** lol?**


He was on his own property protecting himself. Why should he let a few low life thugs keep him from walking outside his own home? I'm sure his neighbors and the entire neighborhood is very thankful as well. Now all the criminals know that those people look out for each other and have guns. Better to stay away from robbing in that neighborhood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't tell if this is a level or not.

[NoahSD]

He fires two shots really quickly... I guess one for each guy. There's then a long pause and he fires another shot. You don't hear him reloading or anything (he just like [censored] it or whatever it's called) before the third shot. It doesn't make sense for him to wait so long before taking his third shot if someone's running at him.

Then the guy explains to the 911 guy that one of them is lying (presumably dead) on his lawn and the other ran away. Sounds like he either shot a guy who was already down or shot a guy who was running away.

[Deioces]

This is why I'm afraid of coming to USA, every person got a gun, I would feel much safer in Iraq! lol

[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.

[J.A.Sucker]

[ 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?

[Howard Treesong]

[ 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.

[Kiddmother]

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.

[KJS]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I think it is worth mentioning, however, that the state does not think death is a justifiable punishment for stealing from someone's property. This guy did. So he and the state have to know decide how to mediate the fact that he acted as jury and executioner instead of allowing the state apparatus deal with these men, as the operator was advocating.

I am not a lawyer but it is my belief that the laws that govern behavior such as citizens shooting other citizens exist to create a deterrent from citizens punishing people in lieu of the state doing so. Otherwise, this kind of force would be acceptable in many circumstances. And the state cannot tolerate that. So even if he did act out of human nature, it has to be a natural reaction that the state feels is OK.

I think it will be interesting to follow.

KJS

[hime]

[ QUOTE ]

Some of the posts here actually scare me. "possessions aren't worth life",

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, possessions are way more important than life.

[ohead]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just have to quote this and say Wow, are you for real? You are supposed to be able to control your human nature so you don't go around killing people and its an awful awful defense for anything like this.

This is like me saying that raping a good looking woman is just human nature! (extreme analogy)

Also the story about you and your mother as a child makes me drop my chin in how retarded it sounds, so you and your mother ran out and screamed at two thieves, accomplishing what?

And what the hell are you talking about in the last paragraph? He doesn't have to wake up in the morning for it to be premeditated, if he says out loud he's gonna go out and kill them over this then proceeds to do exactly this thats what I call premeditated.

Also NO material things aren't worth more then human lives, as someone has said before you can be rehabilitated pretty easily as a thief. If he doesn't go to prison for at least something I am gonna use this case as a defense for never ever going to Texas again and I will badmouth your gun toting ways.