Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[sharkscopeaholic]

They made the choice to go into someones house. They made the choice to steal from someones house. They made the choice to run away despite someone yelling to stop running while holding a gun. What did they expect? The civilian didn't create the threat, the robbers did when they decided to break into someones home.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
They made the choice to go into someones house. They made the choice to steal from someones house. They made the choice to run away despite someone yelling to stop running while holding a gun. What did they expect? The civilian didn't create the threat, the robbers did when they decided to break into someones home.

[/ QUOTE ]




You listened to the call right? This guy is guilty as hell. On what grounds should he be acquitted? It doesn't sound like the castle doctrine or make my day exception apply here at all. This was a case of vigilante justice gone wrong.

Of course they had the choice to not break into a house and take a VCR, but luckily that has no bearing on the decision. The ultimate decision rested upon the man, and it was his decision that resulted in two men getting murdered. Individual citizens do not have the right to use deadly force against someone fleeing from a burglary (from another's home). No matter how you slice it, they just don't unless THEY force a threat upon the person or their family. I have to go but there have been instances where someone was burgling a house, a citizen intervened and fired upon the thief, who then fired back, killing the man. The thief was not charged with murder.

[ChicagoTroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They made the choice to go into someones house. They made the choice to steal from someones house. They made the choice to run away despite someone yelling to stop running while holding a gun. What did they expect? The civilian didn't create the threat, the robbers did when they decided to break into someones home.

[/ QUOTE ]
You listened to the call right? This guy is guilty as hell. On what grounds should he be acquitted?

[/ QUOTE ]
He called the police who did not arrive. He went out to detain the thieves, and they ran at him. Frightened for his safety, he shot them. In Texas? I'm pretty sure he walks. I think he walks in San Francisco.
[ QUOTE ]
This was a case of vigilante justice gone wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
What would have been gone right? IMO, going out there and holding them at gunpoint would have been ideal, but the knucklhead robbers have something to say about that, however briefly.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course they had the choice to not break into a house and take a VCR, but luckily that has no bearing on the decision. The ultimate decision rested upon the man, and it was his decision that resulted in two men getting murdered.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe someone would actually write this. People breaking into the house had EVERYTHING to do with the decision. This guy wasn't holding up randoms on the street, he went out to stop two criminals victimizing his community.
[ QUOTE ]
Individual citizens do not have the right to use deadly force against someone fleeing from a burglary (from another's home). No matter how you slice it, they just don't unless THEY force a threat upon the person or their family.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether somebody is being threatened or not can be extremely subjective when he is frightened. The thief does not say, "I am not threatening you with violence" as he runs towards him. The guy gets back on the phone in a very agitated state saying they ran at him. Sounded believable to me.

[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]

[ 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.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


Was it robbery or was it burglary? It sounds like burglary, and every news article I've seen has referred to the 2 men as "burglars" as opposed to "robbers". This is huge in this instance. btw I brought up Garner to show that police have the right to fire upon fleeing violent felons, not just any joe who sees someone stealing a car or something. Apparently that's not necessarily the case in Texas. I found some interesting quotes from this article. Here are some:

[ QUOTE ]
The Pasadena man who killed two suspected burglars as they left his next-door neighbor's home did not intend to kill them when he stepped outside with his 12-gauge shotgun, his lawyer said Friday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, that's kind of interesting considering the number of times he said "I'm gonna kill 'em" (or something similar) over the course of a 6 and a half miunute phone call to the 911 operator.

Another quote:

[ QUOTE ]
"Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house. You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun," the dispatcher told Horn at one point.

"You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."

[/ QUOTE ]




[ QUOTE ]
Killed in the incident in the 7400 block of Timberline were Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston.

Each had a minor previous brush with the law. Records show DeJesus was charged with failure to identify himself to a police officer in July 2004. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 days in jail. Ortiz was charged with possession of marijuana in July 2005, but it was later dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]


So between the two, there hasn't been a single violent felony charge, burglary isn't a violent crime per se, and it hasn't been reported that they were armed. All you have is the man's testimony that they "ran at him". One thing I think is also strange is that you hear 2 consecutive shotgun blasts, a couple seconds of delay, and one final one. Could it be inferred that the 2nd man was fleeing but was then taken down by the 3rd shotgun blast several seconds after? This could easily be answered from looking at the crime scene, but I haven't found any info on that after a google search.



Finally:

[ QUOTE ]
Attorneys and legal experts said Horn's defense probably will be based on state law that allows people to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property.

"If you see someone stealing your neighbor's property, you can get involved and help to stop it," said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Others disagreed.

The statutes that allow people to use deadly force to stop a burglary appear to require that the incident be occurring at night, said Craig Jett , a Dallas criminal defense attorney and president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association.

"It can't be during the day," Jett said.

[/ QUOTE ]


It seems that the tipping point is the interpretation of the Texas statute, whether or not the man gets charged with anything. Personally, I think the 911 call revealed an intent; maybe he'll be bailed out by commanding them "to stop or I'll shoot", and if they were actually on his property, because this is Texas after all.


Definitely an interesting case though. Good posts Treesong, this stuff really interests me. The defendants are hispanic, not black as the man thought, if that changes anything.