# Vigilante shooting in Texas



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

I can certainly understand the frustration that would lead someone to do this, and I doubt he will be convicted in Texas, but I do believe this is going to far. He wanted to go out and kill these guys.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma...VCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/30/wuspolls330.xml


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

In the dead of night, breaking and entering multiple residences on the street, advancing (holding a crowbar) on a middle aged, overweight, physically unfit but, armed (with a firearm) homeowner, after being cautioned not to move...seems we have not only a justified shooting but also, a couple of additional candidates for the next edition of "America's Dumbest Criminals!"


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

We have a man armed with a shotgun who went from a position of safety to confront two burglars, after expressing the intention to kill them, and then he killed them.
How is this not premeditated murder?

I know the expression that it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six, but he was in no danger. Do you believe the bogus story that he had to defend himself because they were lunging at him with the crowbar? Or, to be more specific, do you believe he was in danger of a crowbar attack from the second guy after he killed the first guy? I sure don't.

If he can do this, why can't all of us start roving the streets and shooting anyone we think is violating the law?

And, by the way, where the hell were the cops? It sounds as though they should have had time to get there.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

What cracks me up is the tone of the article. Brits more worked up about TEXAS??? than the SUDAN???

Compare the tone in this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/30/wsudan230.xml

What a spineless article...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Keep in mind I am a gun owner.

The guy clearly went looking for a fight. I doubt if a Texas grand jury will indict him, but he broke every rule about responsible gun ownership IMO. He should be convicted of murder IMO. He is going to be poster child for the gun confiscation people.


----------



## samblau (Apr 2, 2005)

I don't advocate for what happened but I do feel that criminal activity in some parts of this country is practically sanctioned and must be addressed. What happened in Texas is wholly unacceptable. If the shooter's home was invaded he had a right to defend himself. Here he was likely defending property, a key distinction in that defense of property is not legal justification for utilizing deadly force. I think the facts (which we may never no for sure what happened) are the key. If the man tried making a citizens arrest and was attacked than the fact that he fired is an unfortunate result. If he went out with the mens rea "guilty mind" and planned to open fire than he is in my mind a murderer or at least guilty of manslaughter. These distinctions are found under state law. 

I beleive that the US should maintain a tough stance on crime however our system of criminal "justice" is backwards. Our prisons do not rehabilitate but rather create a sub-class of angry non-skilled umemployable thugs at a cost far greater than what it what have cost to provide these individuals with a solid foundation to create a better life. We have the highest % of population in prison and the statistics relating to minorities is staggering. Justified or not it is easy to see why there is distrust of the police, especially in urban areas. I don't believe that encouraging gun-toting vigilantes is the solution. Perhaps a more thorough training course should be required before being issued a full-carry permit including a test regarding local legal standards for when force may be used.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

The 911 operator said it correctly:

"Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

samblau said:


> If he went out with the mens rea "guilty mind" and planned to open fire than he is in my mind a murderer or at least guilty of manslaughter.


Go read the transcript. He clearly verbalized he was going out to kill them.

Something else you said though makes me want to remind you, never confuse the legal with the moral.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

One thing is for certain, those two burglars will not do it again.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> He should be convicted of murder IMO. He is going to be poster child for the gun confiscation people.


I agree. Based on the available information this clearly doesn't look like a situation for self defense. The support for his actions blows my mind. Up here in the NE he'd never have been let free.

-spence


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

samblau said:


> a key distinction in that defense of property is not legal justification for utilizing deadly force.


In Texas it actually may be. See Texas Penal Code 9.41-9.43. Depending on the exact facts, this man's behavior may be legal in Texas.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

hmmmmm...........


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Vladimir Berkov said:


> In Texas it actually may be. See Texas Penal Code 9.41-9.43. Depending on the exact facts, this man's behavior may be legal in Texas.


https://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.41.00

It seems like it turns on if his neighbor asked him to look after his place and/or if they are related.


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> He is going to be poster child for the gun confiscation people.


Maybe the poster child for the gun confiscation people to stay away from gun owners' guns.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

samblau said:


> If he went out with the mens rea "guilty mind" and planned to open fire than he is in my mind a murderer or at least guilty of manslaughter.


Isn't that assuming he doesn't have an affirmative defense? I don't think anybody has yet looked into if he was specifically asked to watch over the property. Also, how certain are we that he didn't think the house's resident was there? TX is an interesting place. Also, anybody know TX's citizens arrest laws? I wondew how preventing escape laws play in (though I guess their only having a knife gets rid of this one).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tripreed said:


> Maybe the poster child for the gun confiscation people to stay away from gun owners' guns.


Then maybe the police should remove his guns.

I am pro-gun ownership and pro-carry, but as conservatives are fond of saying, with rights come responsibilities. This guy firmly ignored his and went looking to kill. IMO, he should not be allowed to own guns. He actively sought out a confrontation that did not have to happen and he went out looking to kill or hurt those men. There might be an emotional appeal to this vigilante justice, but really, I do not want every idiot and yahoo thinking they have free reign to be judge, jury and executioner, as you can bet the farm every case will not be as simple appearing as this one is.

Again, I think the guy is safe, no jury in Texas is going to indict. And again, I own guns, am pro-gun ownership, and pro-carry. I just think once you demonstrate you are not fit to own, you should pay the consequences.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

radix023 said:


> The 911 operator said it correctly:
> 
> "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"


You obviously don't own an iPhone. They're VERY cool

(I'm kidding here. Not about iPhones being cool, but about it being worth shooting someone over. Tasering them, yes. Shooting, no.)


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> You obviously don't own an iPhone. They're VERY cool
> 
> *(I'm kidding here. Not about iPhones being cool, but about it being worth shooting someone over. Tasering them, yes. Shooting, no.)*


:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

There are two justifications I can think of off the top of my head:

1. It is perfectly legal in Texas to use deadly force when it is necessary to prevent a criminal from escaping with your stolen property. Unfortunately for this gentleman, the Texas statute that codifies this doctrine only protects a burglary victim when the property in question is one's own, not that of another. This seems to be an arbitrary and unjust distinction. After all, the just use of deadly force applies equally to self-defense as well as defense of another. The defense-of-property principles should apply equally to your own as well as property of another that one _knows_ is being stolen.

2. It is also legal in Texas to use non-deadly force to prevent the escape of felons, such as burglars. If, in the course of detaining these criminals, the gentleman reasonably believed himself threatened with death or serious bodily harm (as armed criminals caught red-handed are wont to inflict), then that belief would be an independent justification for dispatching them from civilized society.

The idea that the police, government employees all, are specially and _exclusively_ empowered to defend the basic, human rights to life and property is terribly strange. These government employees could only acquire such power if it were delegated to them by the free people who employ them. Therefore, if we assume that the police can do such things, it is only because free people can do such things. It makes no sense, then, to suggest that by employing these government employees to defend our lives and property that we are somehow divested of that prerogative. If I hire a man to cut my grass, I do not, by virtue of that employment, lose the right to cut it myself.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Then maybe the police should remove his guns.
> 
> I am pro-gun ownership and pro-carry, but as conservatives are fond of saying, with rights come responsibilities. This guy firmly ignored his and went looking to kill. IMO, he should not be allowed to own guns. He actively sought out a confrontation that did not have to happen and he went out looking to kill or hurt those men. There might be an emotional appeal to this vigilante justice, but really, I do not want every idiot and yahoo thinking they have free reign to be judge, jury and executioner, as you can bet the farm every case will not be as simple appearing as this one is.
> 
> Again, I think the guy is safe, no jury in Texas is going to indict. And again, I own guns, am pro-gun ownership, and pro-carry. I just think once you demonstrate you are not fit to own, you should pay the consequences.


Very well said...even though I'm not as pro-carry 

-spence


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

I'm inclined to say this guy did go too far, but...I have to think what I would have done in his position if some guys were robbing my neighbor's house and I knew the cops weren't going to get there to stop them. I certainly wouldn't have the intent to kill them, but I'd probably want to stop them if I could.

Brian


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Phinn said:


> After all, the just use of deadly force applies equally to self-defense as well as defense of another. The defense-of-property principles should apply equally to your own as well as property of another that one _knows_ is being stolen.


I think this is a massive stretch. Would the local PD be able to legally justify killing the robbers in the same situation? I can't believe they would.

The precident this would set is really, really troubling.

-spence


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Spence said:


> I think this is a massive stretch. *Would the local PD be able to legally justify killing the robbers in the same situation? *I can't believe they would.
> 
> The precident this would set is really, really troubling.
> 
> -spence


No, they wouldn't be justified either. We would all be hearing about police brutality, and what thugs the cops are if that were the case.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> No, they wouldn't be justified either. We would all be hearing about police brutality, and what thugs the cops are if that were the case.


Are you sure? I would say it's definitley on the fence. If a cop comes up to a robbery in progress, if the suspect comes at him with a crowbar (as may have been the case), then he can shoot. Though if he runs away with nothing more than a crowbar he typically cannot shoot as I understand things.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Are you sure? I would say it's definitley on the fence. If a cop comes up to a robbery in progress, if the suspect comes at him with a crowbar (as may have been the case), then he can shoot. Though if he runs away with nothing more than a crowbar he typically cannot shoot as I understand things.


Yeah, I guess if the guy had a crowbar, but there would still be cries of police brutality. Can you imagine the outcry if a cop used a taser on a poor criminal like this? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

1066 Hastings England. Harold has just completed an epic two way forced march to first defeat a northern Viking army and then south again to face William. He can easily wait William out, let winter and the destruction of most the norman fleet give an easy victory. But a small saxon village killed a wayward shipload of normans and was butchered down to the smallest child in reprisal by William. Harold hears of this and gathers his army, consisting at best half his professional fighting housecarls and the rest civilian fighters. His choice of battlefield is superb, much changed from today: William is trapped on a narrow strip of manueverable terrain facing uphill .The roughly equal in number armies meet and for the better part of a day the Saxon line holds behind the deadly two handed axemen keeping even the norman mounted knights at bay. In desperation William feints a retreat and the civilian fighters rush forward for spoils. The Bayeaux tapestry tells us either an arrow as Harold lifted his helm or a sword slash brought him down during this break in the line. And on yet another battlefield history changes. But has it? America shares a long history of common law with England that dates far before the Magna Carta.Harold is no different than that shotgun wielding texan. He WAS NOT safe because his people weren't. If two men were observed burglarising multiple homes how was this texan's home ( or castle, remember?)any different? Perhaps he could have, should have remained inside, fell back like Harold and let villages be butchered. No, he chose his battlefield and won. Forget syntanctic debates about ' A well regulated militia' and read some of our other documents and history. Things like 'Provide for the COMMON defense.' Things like even more ancient Saxon codes of conduct that remain ingrained in our culture and psyche. When it comes to Harolds and Williams, I want my Sam Hober square to portray a saxon axeman, not some norman thief.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

samblau said:


> I beleive that the US should maintain a tough stance on crime however our system of criminal "justice" is backwards. Our prisons do not rehabilitate but rather create a sub-class of angry non-skilled umemployable thugs at a cost far greater than what it what have cost to provide these individuals with a solid foundation to create a better life. We have the highest % of population in prison and the statistics relating to minorities is staggering. Justified or not it is easy to see why there is distrust of the police, especially in urban areas. I don't believe that encouraging gun-toting vigilantes is the solution. Perhaps a more thorough training course should be required before being issued a full-carry permit including a test regarding local legal standards for when force may be used.


I have been around people that went through rehabilitate and schooling for skills and given good jobs when they left prision and less than a week they were back behind bars for criminal activities. There is way more to crime than Robin Hood. What about the educated criminals that get caught? Some criminals a good education will help them, but, some need to be beaten until they get it through their head crime isn't worth it.

I think it is more harsh to let criminals stay criminals, as weak people will do. I say "Spare not the rod".


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> In the dead of night, breaking and entering multiple residences on the street, advancing (holding a crowbar) on a middle aged, overweight, physically unfit but, armed (with a firearm) homeowner, after being cautioned not to move...seems we have not only a justified shooting but also, a couple of additional candidates for the next edition of "America's Dumbest Criminals!"


Yes after he left his home to confront them, ignoring warning from the 911 operator. hopefully he spends his dying days in jail.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Go read the transcript. He clearly verbalized he was going out to kill them.
> 
> Something else you said though makes me want to remind you, never confuse the legal with the moral.


A moral mind in Texas, something to ponder.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Would the local PD be able to legally justify killing the robbers in the same situation?


That's the reverse of the situation I was describing.

We, as free people, have the power to do anything so long as we do not infringe on the rights of others. The first rule of civilization is self-defense, and logic dictates that the right of self-defense extends to the defense of others. The felon is the aggressor, and cannot complain about the measures used by necessity to stop his felony, no matter who employs them.

As a matter of practical convenience (although misguided as a matter of economics), we delegate a portion of our powers as free people to our agents. Some of these agents acting on our behalf are policemen who are employed to engage criminals. Police can have no *more* legitimate authority than us. They cannot do things that we could not do ourselves. But they can certainly be delegated _*less*_ than the full scope of the powers we hold. Police can only have a subset of the powers that a private person holds. Although the extent of that subset can be debated, an agent can never have more authority than the principal that empowers him.

Therefore, even if you would not want to authorize a policeman to use deadly force under these circumstances, that reservation of powers doesn't address the issue of whether a private person can properly do so.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Phinn said:


> We, as free people, have the power to do anything so long as we do not infringe on the rights of others. The first rule of civilization is self-defense, and logic dictates that the right of self-defense extends to the defense of others. The felon is the aggressor, and cannot complain about the measures used by necessity to stop his felony, no matter who employs them.


Which is precisely why we have laws to help maintain order.

My point about the police wasn't to argue they had more rights to use lethal force, but that they are probably more practiced in understanding what those limits actually are.

-spence


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Phinn said:


> Therefore, even if you would not want to authorize a policeman to use deadly force under these circumstances, that reservation of powers doesn't address the issue of whether a private person can properly do so.


It's a nice thought experiment, but unless TX is unique in this, courts typically hold that the private citizen is bound to the same limits as police in preventing the escape of a felon.

Also note that citizens arrests are no longer allowed in many states, so sometimes when we delegate powers we truly delegate them, not simply share them.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I live in Houston. Most of us are glad the guy did it. This includes me.

We used to have a lot of kick-in burglaries and car-jackings here. Then in one week three victims shot and killed the perpetrators. The kick-in burglaries and car-jackings stopped. That was several years ago.

We also had a guy who went after these roving pit bull dogs a week or so ago. Shot one dead. Great news!

M8


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

Street justice, I like it!


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

Phinn said:


> There are two justifications I can think of off the top of my head:
> 
> The idea that the police, government employees all, are specially and _exclusively_ empowered to defend the basic, human rights to life and property is terribly strange. These government employees could only acquire such power if it were delegated to them by the free people who employ them. Therefore, if we assume that the police can do such things, it is only because free people can do such things. It makes no sense, then, to suggest that by employing these government employees to defend our lives and property that we are somehow divested of that prerogative. If I hire a man to cut my grass, I do not, by virtue of that employment, lose the right to cut it myself.


I understand what you're saying here, but in fact we actually empower these same government employees with more authority than we have ourselves as private citizens. Police officers, for instance, may make arrests on probable cause for various felonies and misdemeanors in cases where citizens may not, such as for crimes not committed in their presence. Police may also use force, including deadly force, in instances where citizens may not, as noted by the doctrine in many states where a private citizen must escape if reasonably able to, whereas police need not retreat.

T3G


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I am suprised few noticed or have commented on Los Angeles' own poster child for civic duty. Rodney King was in the news again. This time he was riding his bicycle and supposedly accosted by a car full of assailants tryng to bikejack his ride. Rodney pedalled home with several birshot pellets in him from a shotgun blast. The police, and he is no longer in L.A. County found his household all intoxicated and hostile to any investigation. In a later T.V. interview his uncle commented the police were better than they have come to expect. So, years later, a riot that took 50 lives, destroyed businesses (most torched after the armed owners were dispersed by the police) 2 officers given prison terms: We have yet again Rodney in a 'situation.' During the riot I commented to a native californian black couple that had Rodney run over a little girl in pressed white cotton dress enrout to church his own community would have killed him. They agreed. An organised police force is a nice sign of civilisation, assuming we have a more or less civil society. There was, and still are times when theft of property; a man's horse, food, clothing etc. was tantamount to murder as they insured his very survival. And while an IPOD is hardly a horse or sack of flour, that ethos still exists. There is some further defect in criminal minds to think all people are sheep and not wolves, and because the sheep elected to be vegetarians the wolves agree. Even sheep come with horns.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Kav said:


> I am suprised few noticed or have commented on Los Angeles' own poster child for civic duty. Rodney King was in the news again. This time he was riding his bicycle and supposedly accosted by a car full of assailants tryng to bikejack his ride. Rodney pedalled home with several birshot pellets in him from a shotgun blast. The police, and he is no longer in L.A. County found his household all intoxicated and hostile to any investigation. In a later T.V. interview his uncle commented the police were better than they have come to expect. So, years later, a riot that took 50 lives, destroyed businesses (most torched after the armed owners were dispersed by the police) 2 officers given prison terms: We have yet again Rodney in a 'situation.' During the riot I commented to a native californian black couple that had Rodney run over a little girl in pressed white cotton dress enrout to church his own community would have killed him. They agreed. An organised police force is a nice sign of civilisation, assuming we have a more or less civil society. There was, and still are times when theft of property; a man's horse, food, clothing etc. was tantamount to murder as they insured his very survival. And while an IPOD is hardly a horse or sack of flour, that ethos still exists. There is some further defect in criminal minds to think all people are sheep and not wolves, and because the sheep elected to be vegetarians the wolves agree. Even sheep come with horns.


I am strong believer in _Castle Doctrine_.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Just a question here. Who actually took the time to read the transcripts of the 911 call?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Just a question here. Who actually took the time to read the transcripts of the 911 call?


I did 

It would have been pretty amusing had it not been real.

-spence


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Just a question here. Who actually took the time to read the transcripts of the 911 call?


I listened to the audio recording of the 911 call.

Brian


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I read the transcript. The two of you that have knowledge of the actual transcripts...was this in any way "defense" or do you agree he clearly told the operator he was basically going out there to kill those guys?


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I read the transcript. The two of you that have knowledge of the actual transcripts...was this in any way "defense" or do you agree he clearly told the operator he was basically going out there to kill those guys?


Just cause you warned someone that you were going to shoot people doesn't mean it couldn't be considered defense. Granted, it'd be more difficult to establish, but it's still possible.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I read the transcript. The two of you that have knowledge of the actual transcripts...was this in any way "defense" or do you agree he clearly told the operator he was basically going out there to kill those guys?


I read the transcript when I first heard of the story. At first he sounds generally concerned for the property of his neighbors, who he admits he doesn't really know. As things move along he clearly sounds like he's moving on the offensive and yes, I believe says he's going to go out and kill them. From the transcript (and yes, I wasn't there) it doesn't really appear he's in any danger until he goes outside and confronts the two men when they are exiting the property. They might have been crossing through his gate, I'd have to go reread it.

Perhaps the guy just wasn't very bright, or perhaps he was just itching to killing someone and the opportunity crossed his path...literally. But hey, this is Texas after all. The state where they used (perhaps they still do) award prosecutors a plaque with crossing syringes for a successful death penalty verdict.

(For the record I've been to Texas about 6 times this year and actually like it.)

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Just cause you warned someone that you were going to shoot people doesn't mean it couldn't be considered defense. Granted, it'd be more difficult to establish, but it's still possible.


Oh, I have no doubt a good liar...er, lawyer, could establish black is white, up is down, and redefine the word "is". Oh wait, that last one has already been accomplished.

You are safe in your house. You tell someone I am going outside to kill two people. You go outside and kill said people. I have to agree with Jack for once, and that really pains me. It was premeditated murder IMO.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh, I have no doubt a good liar...er, lawyer, could establish black is white, up is down, and redefine the word "is". Oh wait, that last one has already been accomplished.
> 
> You are safe in your house. You tell someone I am going outside to kill two people. You go outside and kill said people. I have to agree with Jack for once, and that really pains me. It was premeditated murder IMO.


I think it's a good liberal weenie thought exercise here to imagine if it was a black man shooting two white burglers. Yikes...

While I'm not an attorney, I'm not sure you could argue the killing was premeditated. He certianly had no intention of killing anyone until he noticed the robbery in progress and thankfully had the wits to call 911 before taking action on his own. It's quite reasonable to think he got caught up in the moment and wasn't thinking all that straight, relative to his normal state of mind.

That being said, I do think he killed them unjustly and should be held to account.

-spence


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I read the transcript. The two of you that have knowledge of the actual transcripts...was this in any way "defense" or do you agree he clearly told the operator he was basically going out there to kill those guys?


Well, he certainly put himself into a potentially dangerous situation. As the call goes on he does get more & more worked up and when he racks his shotgun, he (to me) clearly has his mind made up as to what he's going to do.

Brian


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

vwguy said:


> Well, he certainly put himself into a potentially dangerous situation. As the call goes on he does get more & more worked up and when he racks his shotgun, he (to me) clearly has his mind made up as to what he's going to do.
> 
> Brian


When one goes into a combat situation, it is wise to do so with a loaded weapon. Circumstances may not allow the time necessary to chamber a round, once the fight is on! I am unaware of any police officers who carry their sidearms without a round in the chamber. While his words may be somewhat more damaging, chambering a round does not demonstrate any clear intent. We seem to have lost sight of the fact he was confronting two (armed) career criminals.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh, I have no doubt a good liar...er, lawyer, could establish black is white, up is down, and redefine the word "is". Oh wait, that last one has already been accomplished.
> 
> You are safe in your house. You tell someone I am going outside to kill two people. You go outside and kill said people. I have to agree with Jack for once, and that really pains me. It was premeditated murder IMO.


This is voluntary manslaughter at most. There's no way it gets to first degree murder.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> This is voluntary manslaughter at most. There's no way it gets to first degree murder.


Well Jack is a lawyer with many years experience. I'll let you two battle it out.

Just for my curiosity, do you think premeditation requires an extensive time frame? Is talking to someone and saying you are going to kill someone, then walking out two minutes later and doing it, is not enough time to consider it "premeditated"?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Well Jack is a lawyer with many years experience. I'll let you two battle it out.
> 
> Just for my curiosity, do you think premeditation requires an extensive time frame? Is talking to someone and saying you are going to kill someone, then walking out two minutes later and doing it, is not enough time to consider it "premeditated"?


Well, no, it doesn't, but I don't think here you can say that his mind was made up until he told them "Move, you're dead." Maybe he's nailed his coffin with "I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot," but after that he just says he's going to stop them, which when combined with the "Move, you're dead" means he's going to stop them and only shoot if necessary. With regards to the second person he shot, IIRC TX let's you get off with imperfect self-defenses, though now that I think about it, it probably just reduces it to manslaughter like in MD...either way, not premeditated murder.

BTW, who is Jack? (EDIT: Nevermind, Jack on page 1) I'm sure Jack is a fine attorney, and I know he knows a lot more than I do, but I think each of us is bringing our own personal opinion into things.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Best argument was when he said "I'm going to kill them." 

-spence


----------



## EAP (Jan 19, 2007)

I have a different take on this.

Our neighborhood was recently plagued with a string of burglaries. I wasn't victim, but instead witnessed two homes loose a generation or two's worth of accumulated jewelry and personal effects, mostly irreplaceable. So the neighbors did the typical Melvin Milquetoast response and formed a neighborhood watch.

At the first meeting with the sponsoring detective/police liaison, questions abounded. Why? His flat response was that they are simply lazy. They'd rather let you work, toil and sweat and accumulate wealth, then take it from you with five minutes of effort. It's not that they can't work, but if you're morally predisposed to steal, a job really doesn't make much sense. Are they punished? Not really, and spoken with a bit of bile. They typically bond out before nightfall, and are usually given probation, seldom sentences. Consequently, they usually repeat until they just get too old to continue, move away, or die from drugs or other criminal related activities.

His solution was that you can only make them steal elsewhere, and proceeded to teach us how. And if we reach critical mass in homeowner participation, we're rewarded with signs featuring a Clouseau-esque figure with the words "Neighborhood Watch" at taxpayer expense.

I'm not for vigilante justice, however if profit is truly proportional to risk and these lazy slimeballs occasionally meet their end from disgruntle homeowners, I'm not going to dwell upon and dissect the circumstances. We had a recent death when one cut into 4,100 Volts while trying to steal copper wire from a factory. Should we all be forced to convert to 12 Volt systems to mitigate their risk? Lunatic or saint, the homeowner was merely risk willfully assumed.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Captain Corbett said that a plainclothes officer had pulled up just in time to see Mr. Horn pointing his shotgun at both men across his front yard, that Mr. Ortiz had at one point started to run in a way that took him closer to Mr. Horn, and that both men "received gunfire from the rear."

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wow. That guy was just reckless. If they were in his house, I could understand. If he shot to injure them, I could understand. But running out to killing 2 burglars in the street... It would be a travesty if police did this, and private citizens should be held to a similar standard.


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

I'm not going to lose much sleep that Mr. Horn lives in my city.


----------

