Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[ElSapo]

[ 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.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ 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.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ 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.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ 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.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ 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 ]

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ 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.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didnt read your edit, what are we even arguing about? Let's continue this thread hmm?

[bobman0330]

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.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yea wow, looking at that certainly makes it seem that he was justified. Texas craziness is right...

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, looks like he's 100% within his legal rights. texas is a sick place.