Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[waarior]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howard,

I agree with many of your points but don't quite understand where you are coming from with this. Are you saying that anybody/everybody should try to stop illegal actions they see taking place? Especially in this situation the 911 dispatcher explicitly tells him to remain inside and says that it is alright if they get away before the police arrive.

As others have pointed out if people feel they have such an obligation it seems to be a very quick and slippery slope into shooting of pranksters/neighbors checking up on neighbor's houses on vacations etc...


Around the 5:00 Minute mark of the Youtube video the dispatcher asks him if he knows the neighbors. He responds,

"No I don't really know these neighbors at all."

I'm not a lawyer but wondering if that statement also impacts the applicability of the statutes?



[ QUOTE ]
(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.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howard,

I agree with many of your points but don't quite understand where you are coming from with this. Are you saying that anybody/everybody should try to stop illegal actions they see taking place?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I'd arrogate to myself the judgment you suggest. What I do think is that our society generally should permit citizenry to stop serious crime when it can. Mrs. Treesong and I got in a discussion on this point over dinner: she articulated that she'd be absolutely furious with me if I pulled out a shotgun to defend our neighbors' house from a burglary. She had a different answer, however, when I asked about the situation where I saw two evildoers break into the house next door if I knew that only the wife were alone at home. And it's a no-brainer to defend Chez Treesong and the Little Treesongs with deadly force in the awful event that's necessary.

My own personal limits aside, I see at least some justification in what the shooter did. Enough to let him walk? I think likely yes, but I'm clearly troubled by what he did -- as we all should be.

[ QUOTE ]
Especially in this situation the 911 dispatcher explicitly tells him to remain inside and says that it is alright if they get away before the police arrive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't give a rat's ass what the dispatcher tells me to do if I'm in the shooter's position. It's a judgment call based on what I'm seeing.

[ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out if people feel they have such an obligation it seems to be a very quick and slippery slope into shooting of pranksters/neighbors checking up on neighbor's houses on vacations etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does. Here, though, I think the shooter knew damn well that the guys breaking his neighbor's window with a crowbar and coming out five minutes later with a full bag of stuff aren't pranksters or caretakers. If they are pranksters who know the guys who own the house, then they of course aren't guilty of either burglary or robbery, in which case the shooter's actions pretty clearly aren't justified. So the shooter takes a risk of a homicide prosecution if he gets it wrong -- which I think is exactly the right result.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a lawyer but wondering if that statement also impacts the applicability of the statutes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I read this statement to mean that the neighbors aren't his friends -- but that he could identify who it is that his neighbors are, and that he clearly knows the guys busting into the house aren't actually the people that live there.

[burningyen]

All,

The most reasonable reading of the "at night" element of Section 9.42 is that it applies to all of the victim's offenses, not just the criminal mischief and theft offenses. That's why I didn't include 9.42 in my statutory excerpts. I don't see how the guy can claim justification under that section.

Still, I agree with Howard that it's unlikely that this guy gets convicted, although I'm inclined to take him up on his 10:1 prop bet. IMHO a lot will depend on what the forensic evidence shows in terms of where exactly the victims were when they were shot and why the guy shot that delayed 3rd shot. If he was legitimately taken by surprise that the burglars were closer to him than he expected, then I think it's more likely he will get off, especially given his obviously heightened emotional state. But I count a good 5 or 6 seconds between the 2nd shot and the 3rd, and he says that the 2nd burglar was "down the street," not in his yard. Also, his statements to the 911 dispatcher that he had a right to defend himself when he was clearly not in any imminent danger are somewhat damning. It seems to me that yes, he wanted to defend his neighbors' property, but that he had already made up his mind about shooting and was even already in cover-your-ass mode.

[burningyen]

Hmm, on second thought, I may have been too hasty on the "at night" point. 9.42 may be applicable after all.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

The most reasonable reading of the "at night" element of Section 9.42 is that it applies to all of the victim's offenses, not just the criminal mischief and theft offenses. That's why I didn't include 9.42 in my statutory excerpts. I don't see how the guy can claim justification under that section.

Still, I agree with Howard that it's unlikely that this guy gets convicted, although I'm inclined to take him up on his 10:1 prop bet. IMHO a lot will depend on what the forensic evidence shows in terms of where exactly the victims were when they were shot and why the guy shot that delayed 3rd shot. If he was legitimately taken by surprise that the burglars were closer to him than he expected, then I think it's more likely he will get off, especially given his obviously heightened emotional state. But I count a good 5 or 6 seconds between the 2nd shot and the 3rd, and he says that the 2nd burglar was "down the street," not in his yard. Also, his statements to the 911 dispatcher that he had a right to defend himself when he was clearly not in any imminent danger are somewhat damning. It seems to me that yes, he wanted to defend his neighbors' property, but that he had already made up his mind about shooting and was even already in cover-your-ass mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. 9.43 wasn't in the original post quoting 9.41 and 9.42, and it's really broad -- it wraps in all of 9.41. I think the "at night" requirement is an artifact of old common law, where burglary had to be of a dwelling house and at night. Most modern statutory schemes write that requirement out, but Texas would appear to be stuck in the 1600s.

Action is still live, yen. I'm happy to ship $1K to El D if you want an escrow. Gotta cover a couple of details, but I'm pretty confident this guy doesn't get convicted of homicide of any kind.

[ChicagoTroy]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is really well-put and reflects exactly what I thought about it.

[KJS]

I am gonna think of this guy and this thread when someone gets murdered using a Slim Jim to retrieve their own keys or climbing in their window because they are locked out.

KJS