[MovingTarget]

Originally Posted by Juballharshaw

I've always understood it that if you're going to use deadly force you should aim to kill. If you don't aim to kill then deadly force isn't necessary. Plus if you do kill them then there's only one side of the story. Your's.

Yeah...but he shot them in the back and you heard him in the recording...he said he was going to do it regardless the circumstances...and then when he was outside you can hear him yelling "You are DEAD" I think twice...then you hear the shotgun....

You would be cleared if they were charging after you in your own home and even if they had nothing in their hands you could then kill them and not have to worry about anything....except having to fix the holes in the walls and the blood off the floor.....I guess new carpet would take care of that part....

[PencilWntGtU2TheMoon]

Originally Posted by MSP

There are all sorts of self defense laws related to this. The way I understand it is if a guy charges you with just his fists and you shoot him dead you're probably going to the grand jury. But if you shoot him in the leg, or use some other form of non-lethal defense you're OK. In my mind, if I have a gun and a guy keeps charging at me then HE is going to have a gun. The part about this story that disturbs me is that he said he was going to kill them before he went outside, and then shot them in the back. Premeditated, and kinda hard to declare self defense when they were heading in the opposite direction.

My point was not about the law, it was about the ethical considerations - in my opinion people are not ethically required to let other people rob them.

However, you bring up an interesting point. Self defense laws vary widely state by state so they can not be covered with a blanket characterization. Further, although he said the usual stuff when the cops showed up (I was scared for my life, yada yada), once he met with a lawyer they did NOT pursue a self-defense position. Self defense was not required to justify this shooting and self defense was not an issue. The laws aren't that way everywhere, but they should be. I think the idea that you have to fear for your life to use deadly force is a dangerous idea. And a rather new one, regardless of how ubiquitous it may be in our societal consciousness nowadays. Anyone tries to commit a felony against me or someone in my midst, and there is no doubt about the situation (my responsibility to determine), I believe I should be able to threaten deadly force to end it. Nobody else is going to stop it. And, in the case of a robbery, nobody else is going to retrieve the stolen property, either.

[tex]

Originally Posted by MSP

There are all sorts of self defense laws related to this. The way I understand it is if a guy charges you with just his fists and you shoot him dead you're probably going to the grand jury. But if you shoot him in the leg, or use some other form of non-lethal defense you're OK.

Varies by state. In Texas, law says you shoot to kill. Common sense says shoot to kill so the asshole doesn't come back and sue you.

[MSP]

Losers usually have relatives that would come back and sue anyway. But yeah, I wish I lived in Texas!

[DrX]

No remorse for these two. You break into someones house and start stealing shit, you pretty much just signed away your life. I would've done the same thing in his situation.

[Juballharshaw]

Originally Posted by DrX

No remorse for these two. You break into someones house and start stealing shit, you pretty much just signed away your life. I would've done the same thing in his situation.

A) Not his house.

B) Not his stuff.

C) No one was in physical danger or jeopardy.

D) The guy called 911 and informed the officer he was going to kill them.

E) Make sure you do it in Texas as every other state in the Union considers it 2nd Degree Murder.

Originally Posted by MovingTarget

Yeah...but he shot them in the back and you heard him in the recording...he said he was going to do it regardless the circumstances...and then when he was outside you can hear him yelling "You are DEAD" I think twice...then you hear the shotgun....

You would be cleared if they were charging after you in your own home and even if they had nothing in their hands you could then kill them and not have to worry about anything....except having to fix the holes in the walls and the blood off the floor.....I guess new carpet would take care of that part....

Not arguing this guy was acting in self defense, just adding clarification to MSP's post.

[PencilWntGtU2TheMoon]

Originally Posted by Juballharshaw

A) Not his house.

B) Not his stuff.

Your ethics, apparently not his.

C) No one was in physical danger or jeopardy.

Not legally relevant.

D) The guy called 911 and informed the officer he was going to kill them.

Not a crime.

E) Make sure you do it in Texas as every other state in the Union considers it 2nd Degree Murder.

Incorrect. From Florida (first Google hit since their legislation is the most recent):

..providing that a person is justified in using
deadly force under certain circumstances;
declaring that a person has no duty to retreat
and has the right to stand his or her ground
and meet force with force if the person is in a
place where he or she has a right to be and the
force is necessary to prevent death, great
bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible
felony;

They are in good company of about 20 states. And, being a newcomer, their statute is a little more restrictive about justification for the use of force.

Not arguing this guy was acting in self defense, just adding clarification to MSP's post.

The grand jury did not consider self defense when they let him go. That was not his position.

[PencilWntGtU2TheMoon]

Originally Posted by Juballharshaw

A) Not his house.

B) Not his stuff.

Your ethics, apparently not his.

C) No one was in physical danger or jeopardy.

Not legally relevant.

D) The guy called 911 and informed the officer he was going to kill them.

Not a crime.

E) Make sure you do it in Texas as every other state in the Union considers it 2nd Degree Murder.

Incorrect. From Florida (first Google hit since their legislation is the most recent):

..providing that a person is justified in using
deadly force under certain circumstances;
declaring that a person has no duty to retreat
and has the right to stand his or her ground
and meet force with force if the person is in a
place where he or she has a right to be and the
force is necessary to prevent death, great
bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible
felony;

They are in good company of about 20 states. And, being a newcomer, their statute is a little more restrictive about justification for the use of force.

Not arguing this guy was acting in self defense, just adding clarification to MSP's post.

The grand jury did not consider self defense when they let him go. That was not his position.

[Torx]

an example needed to be made.. thats all i have to say.

[Juballharshaw]

Originally Posted by PencilWntGtU2TheMoon

Your ethics, apparently not his.

Obviously my ethics, I'm not a big fan of shooter those non-whites.

Not legally relevant.

Not in the state of Texas but most other states (20 out of 50 isn't a majority though I think you're pulling that figure out of thin air).

Not a crime.

Conspiracy to commit murder followed by murder in the second degree. If Texas did not have the particular statute under it's law he would have been guilty of both of these offenses. Hell, if he were in a blue state or even a purple state he would have been liable anyways.

Incorrect. From Florida (first Google hit since their legislation is the most recent):

..providing that a person is justified in using
deadly force under certain circumstances;
declaring that a person has no duty to retreat
and has the right to stand his or her ground
and meet force with force if the person is in a
place where he or she has a right to be and the
force is necessary to prevent death, great
bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible
felony;

They are in good company of about 20 states. And, being a newcomer, their statute is a little more restrictive about justification for the use of force.

Did not know about Florida, adding it to the states on the "do not move to" list.

Edit: Most states also only consider Grand Theft a felony so he'd be taking a pretty big leap of faith to assume they stole in excess of the baseline for Grand Theft.

The grand jury did not consider self defense when they let him go. That was not his position.

Grand jury let him go because it wasn't illegal in Texas. See my points and posts above.

Really, in a thread where MSP and myself stand on the same side of an issue (the fact that it was essentially murder because he informed 911 that he was going to kill them), I may not just be playing devil's advocate.

Second edit: nice double post.

[PencilWntGtU2TheMoon]

Originally Posted by Juballharshaw

Not in the state of Texas but most other states (20 out of 50 isn't a majority though I think you're pulling that figure out of thin air).

You said: E) Make sure you do it in Texas as every other state in the Union considers it 2nd Degree Murder.

I said: Incorrect.

I'm right, you're wrong. If you are concerned about a majority of states, express your opinion without mistakenly trying to refute my comment.

Conspiracy to commit murder followed by murder in the second degree. If Texas did not have the particular statute under it's law he would have been guilty of both of these offenses. Hell, if he were in a blue state or even a purple state he would have been liable anyways.

You said: D) The guy called 911 and informed the officer he was going to kill them.

I said: Not a crime.

It is, indeed, not a crime to tell someone that you are going to kill another under legal circumstances. Again, if you wish to opine about the implications of evidence on a hearing or trial, go ahead. But don’t quote me in an attempt to tangentially refute simple facts.

Grand jury let him go because it wasn't illegal in Texas. See my points and posts above.

You said originally: Not arguing this guy was acting in self defense, just adding clarification to MSP's post.

I pointed out: The grand jury did not consider self defense when they let him go. That was not his position.

Then you said: Grand jury let him go because it wasn't illegal in Texas. See my points and posts above.

IF he had claimed self defense, you can bet your ass it would have mattered. The grand jury most likely would have evaluated the case on a self defense basis, and he would be expected to meet the criteria for self defense. Even if his actions were legal under an alternative defense.

[MSP]

I think we should all pause and celebrate that Jubal and I are arguing together for a change.

[SoulAssassin]

Originally Posted by PencilWntGtU2TheMoon

You said: E) Make sure you do it in Texas as every other state in the Union considers it 2nd Degree Murder.

I said: Incorrect.

I'm right, you're wrong. If you are concerned about a majority of states, express your opinion without mistakenly trying to refute my comment.

IANL but you may want to provide extensive evidence instead of pointing your finger and whining about who is or isn't right.

MSP and Juball are right - it's premeditated murder

[Juballharshaw]

[Goofus Maximus]

I see someone breaking into the neighbor's house. I'm going to go out there and SHOOT them dead. I call 911, telling the operator that I see someone breaking into the neighbor's house, and I'm going to go out there and SHOOT them dead. I go out there and tell the people breaking into the neighbors house, "I'm going to SHOOT you DEAD!" They run, and I SHOOT them dead, shooting them in the back.

Yup. That's premeditated, it's murder, it's NOT self-defense, it's not even his property, and he told the world and everyone his plans to murder two thieves.

Like shooting a cheating spouse, it may be understandable, but it's still murder.

[nidex]

Haha, only in Texas would he get away with something like that.
But hell, they were illegals, and the one was obviously just a piece of shit here to take advantage of hard working Americans.

Good job Joe!

[kip59]

What would have been the outcome of this scenario if guns were outlawed?

This time the original criminals robbing a house were not armed.

Is this type of scenario something that would possibly make people change their stance on gun ownership?

[mistawiskas]

FROM THE NRA: HOW TO INSTALL THE NEW HOME SECURITY SYSTEM:

1. Go to a second-hand store and buy a pair of men's used size 14-16
work boots

2. Place them on your front porch, along with several empty beer cans,
a copy of Guns & Ammo magazine and several NRA magazines.

3. Put a few giant dog dishes next to the boots and magazines.

4. Leave a note on your door that reads:

'Hey Bubba, Big Jim, Duke and Slim, I went to the gun shop for more
ammunition. Back in an hour. Don't mess with the pit bulls -- they attacked the mailman this morning and messed him up real bad. I don't think Killer took part in it but it was hard to tell from all the blood.
PS - I locked all four of 'em in the house. Better wait outside.'


INSTALLATION COMPLETE!!!!

[bigwill51534]

Originally Posted by mistawiskas

FROM THE NRA: HOW TO INSTALL THE NEW HOME SECURITY SYSTEM:

LOL!!! I used to use my old dog as my form of self defense. Everyone was scared to death of her! She is a 45-50lb female Pitbull. Funny thing, though, is that she is completely harmless. She puts on a good show at first, but will eventually just wind up sitting at their feet demanding attention.... Damned attention whore.... LOL

~Will Courtier~