Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[FlyWf]

"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."

Yes, it is. But most of the posts in this thread have been retarded "Them darkies got wat wuz comin to 'em!" idiocy.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.