Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[waarior]

[ 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.

[El Diablo]

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.

[PartyGirlUK]

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.

[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?

[Boris]

burningyen, Howard T. - good posts.

[Boris]

Sorry pittm. I exaggerated. sue me.

[Howard Treesong]

[ 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.

[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.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ 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.