Houston shooting... self defense or murder?

[Roosterrusek]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

I think he is going to a federal pound me in the ass prison where he will later sit in the gas chamber.

Esp since if the comments below are true, there is no stand your ground law in Texas. Castle Doctrine yes, stand your ground no.

Besides, in THIS case he was obviously the one escalating unlike the Trayvon/Zimmerman pickle we are in where there is ZERO evidence on who started the PHYSICAL confrontation that let to Trayvon throwing "MMA style punches".

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Head416

Read the rest; clearly you can only kill in defense. Saying you were scared isn't enough. You have to be scared, and the danger has to be imminent, and deadly force has to be necessary to prevent the attack, and this all has to be deemed "reasonable" by a jury after the fact.

That's not how it was interpreted in the Horn case. The guy came out of his house, ran after, and shot two burglars in the back who were leaving his neighbor's house. No self defense, no defending his home. He claimed they frightened him and the grand jury let him go.

[Head416]

I'm not familiar with the Horn case, but I just did a quick Google search and it seems that was based not on personal defense, but defense of property:

PENAL CODEÂ Â CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 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.

Emphasis mine.

Did it meet 9.42 3A and 3B? Well, apparently the grand jury thought so. I would probably lean the other way, but I don't have all the information.


EDIT: Sorry, I overlooked that it was somebody else's property. Section 9.43 is the part about a third party's property. Available at the same link.

[red-beard]

He is totally in the wrong and needs to go to jail.

[Ram930]

He went over to pick a fight.
If you go over and pick a fight carrying a gun, or in attempt to hurt, threaten or intimidate someone...and you get your a$$ whooped or whatever else happens to you, it should be just that. You get your a$$ whipped.
You should not be able to start a fight waving a gun and then when you are loosing the fight shoot the other person and claim self defense. You introduced the gun into the altercation. It is MURDER. I don't care how bad you are getting your a$$ beat. Don't bring the gun...let the police do their job!!! The first gun is the aggressor. You can't be the aggressor and then claim self-defense. BS

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by Ram930

You should not be able to start a fight waving a gun and then when you are loosing the fight shoot the other person and claim self defense.

Correct. At least here in Washington State. the law is written to prevent a claim of self-defense when one starts the altercation.

I would guess that most states have similar provisions.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Dantilla

Correct. At least here in Washington State. the law is written to prevent a claim of self-defense when one starts the altercation.

I would guess that most states have similar provisions.

Ditto in AZ.

[LeeH]

I'm wondering if the guy who was killed was the one who tackled him on the tape.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

That's not how it was interpreted in the Horn case. The guy came out of his house, ran after, and shot two burglars in the back who were leaving his neighbor's house. No self defense, no defending his home. He claimed they frightened him and the grand jury let him go.

Good riddance to trash, at least those two purbs won't be robbing anyone else or maybe rape & murder someones Grandmother..
I'll will never understand why some people insist on protecting criminals & punishing someone protecting his neighbors property..

If You don't want get shot, don't break into peoples homes or cars...

Happened last year. Why is it being dragged up by the media now?

Because dems & Blacks are against Law Abiding citizens defending themselves and too still up emotions for the Zimmerman case..

[Ram930]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Because dems & Blacks are against Law Abiding citizens defending themselves and too still up emotions for the Zimmerman case..

wow!!! that is a big blanket statement.
Didn't know only republicans and Whites want people to defend themselves!!

[slakjaw]

Yep. A federal one where he will get pounded in the ass

He is totally in the wrong and needs to go to jail.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

Yep. A federal one where he will get pounded in the ass

He is in Texas. That boy is gonna end up dead...

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by Ram930

wow!!! that is a big blanket statement.
Didn't know only republicans and Whites want people to defend themselves!!

Well, it is the racist naacp & Black dem politicians in FL who are trying to strike down the Stand Your Ground Law, not Republicans.

[porsche4life]

Doesn't Tejas have that express lane now too? He'll be fried soon too....

[McLovin]

Hmm. Looks like a white person shot a white person?

In that case, there's way for the Internets to determine who is guilty.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by porsche4life

Doesn't Tejas have that express lane now too? He'll be fried soon too....

Yup. If'n you kills someone, we kill you right back!

[LeeH]

Verdict in - guilty of murder.

http://www.khou.com/home/Family-emotional-after-retired-firefighter-found-guilty-in-teachers-killing-158997745.html

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by LeeH

Verdict in - guilty of murder.

Justice has been served.

Thanks for the update.

[svandamme]

The video



Fear for my life, fear for my life.
then why did he not back the F off , after all, he went looking for them..
He deserves everything he has coming to him.

[red-beard]

He was a power hungry firefighter, who thought he was untouchable. You don't see this in firefighters as much, but you do see this in cops. One of my friends back in NY was dating a cop who liked to get into bar fights off duty. And of course, he was always armed. Finally, he was put in jail by someone who would not be intimidated into silence.