Oh oh; "questionable" shooting in Pasadena, TX....

[mekender]

A 70 year old man confronting two burglars WITHOUT the threat of deadly force would obviously place him at risk.

For him to be at actual risk, the burglars would have to have intent, opportunity, and ability to do him harm. There is no indication that this was the case.

they were in the process of committing a felony... that is all the indication of their intent that anyone would need... the fact that the was witness to said felony automatically puts him in grave danger

 

[MDHunter]

Not "His" Attorney

DoubleNaught -

A minor point, but I don't think LaFon is "his" attorney. I interpret the article to read that they got the opinion of A defense attorney, Tommy LaFon.

Of course, I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.

 

[Thumper]

So what are you missing? For starters, the guy's own attorney stated

Not his attorney. Just an attorney, who happened to be a former Harris County (read, notoriously liberal) prosecutor. You really believe an attorney would say that about his own client?

As BR noted, did the guy reasonably believe there was no other way to prevent the loss of property, especially given that he had contacted the police and been told the police were on the way?

You'd have to prove to a jury (beyond a reasonable doubt, mind you-burden of proof is on the...who, class?) that the police would have arrived within the minute or so it would take the suspects to vanish. I doubt if they even arrived within five minutes of the shooting.

As you might be aware, Grand Juries rarely indict in this state over property protection, because the legislatures specifically wrote the laws to protect the property owners. These laws are explained in detail before the GJ sees any evidence.

I think this is telling:

"He was well composed and knew what he was doing," (Pasadena Police Spokesman) Mitchell said. "He was protecting the neighbor's property."

 

[Wes Janson]

I'm sorry, but while I'm usually fairly cavalier about such things, in this case the man committed murder. The two criminals were in the act of stealing inanimate goods, and there is no indication that they were actively presenting a physical threat to anyone during the commission of the crime. The shooter distinctly stated twice that he was going to kill them, and expressed a significant degree of anger and agitation.

As an aside, it sounds like he fired three shots on the audio. He racks the action, walks out, shouts "You're dead!", fires two shots in quick succession, and then fires a third approximately three or four seconds later.

IMO, the line is crossed when one's motives change from "protect my neighbor's property" to "kill the criminals because they piss me off". If he had walked out, ordered them to stop and drop, and they had attacked him, then fair enough. But based on the 911 call, he clearly went out with the intent to kill both-and did just that. He did not tell them to stop, did not tell them to put their hands up, did not say anything other than "You're dead!"-he just opened fire. Had they been directly threatening someone else's life at that point, then such action would be justifiable, but as it stands the man deliberately chose to execute both men for the act of robbery. That is not a moral decision that he had the right to make, and there is zero question in my mind that this was a "bad shoot". If justice is to be served, he deserves prison time at the least.

 

[hamourkiller]

Dont seem like murder under Texas law and for sure the Coppers dont think so or they would have arrested him. The old man is at home Just waiting on the Grand jury results now.

For the people who question the 12 ga for home defense:

In Dallas, one old man, 3 loads of buckshot, 1 gutshot and 2 dead burglars.

In Houston, one old man, 3 loads of buckshot, 2 dead burglars.

Very effective weapon.

 

[jeepmor]

100 years ago, none of us would even be having this conversation whether or not this was justified, legal, or otherwise. Let's face it, the liberals have pampered criminals, not deterred them.

100 years or so ago, it was a hanging offense to steal a horse. Now, it's questionable whether or not you can even protect yourself.

Best of luck to the man, he needs it more than we do right now.

 

[Blackfork]

Up to the prosecutor

The grand jury will do what the prosecutor wants them to do. He can make the case or argue it weakly enough to make it obvious what the state wants.

I hope he lets them go. Burglary ought to be risky, but there are a lot more Nifongs out there than we think.

 

[patentmike]

What reason did the old guy have for believing the burglars were going to harm anyone while he was on the phone with 911? It sounds sort of like premeditation. He stated what he was going to do and then went and did it. The question is, can he justify he feared for his life?

The 911 dispatcher warned him that he went out there he would get shot. Seems like a reasonable apprehension that they were armed was created right there.

 

[Thumper]

Wes Janson,

Perhaps you're seeing something in the law that I don't. I can't find where the shooter had to be in fear of anything other than his neighbor's property getting away.

This might not be what you're used to, but unless someone can show me different, this is how it's written in the code.

 

[mekender]

Wes Janson,

Perhaps you're seeing something in the law that I don't. I can't find where the shooter had to be in fear of anything other than his neighbor's property getting away.

This might not be what you're used to, but unless someone can show me different, this is how it's written in the code.

seems that no one can wrap their mind around how truly different TX law is in this matter

 

[Thumper]

Agreed, but the language is pretty clear. If anyone has an alternate view, I'd love to hear it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm looking at the language with a lawyer now, and he agrees.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You'd have to prove to a jury (beyond a reasonable doubt, mind you-burden of proof is on the...who, class?) that the police would have arrived within the minute or so it would take the suspects to vanish.

Those are defenses to prosecution, so the burden is on the defendant to show that he did act reasonably. Reasonably is basically whatever the jury thinks was the appropriate way to act given the circumstances. Depending on his jury, they might think it was a shame he didn't stick their heads on pikes afterwards or they might think he is a murderer.

Anytime you see "reasonableness" as a standard, keep in mind that the reasonableness will usually be judged by first the grand jury and then the jury. Given the definition of necessity, I think he will be in trouble if it gets to a jury; but I don't expect it to get that far.

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

In this case, the conduct is use of deadly force. Did he reasonably believe that it was immediately necessary to avoid the imminent harm of the burglary being successful?

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

Did the desirability and urgency of avoiding the burglarly being successful clearly outweigh (according to ordinary standards of reasonableness), the general prohibition on shooting people with a shotgun?

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Has the legislature purposely excluded the justification you claimed (no, and in this case they have supported it which is good for this guy).

Basically, I think #2 is where he has a problem. If he can't show that it was immediately necessary then he fails the test of 9.42(2) and he has to meet both 9.41 and 9.42 before he is protected by 9.43. Depending on how aggressive the prosecutor wants to play it, this may mean something as simple as "Police might have recovered it if he had just been a good witness." They don't have to prove police would have recovered it. His whole defense revolves around whether his actions were "immediately necessary" and you can make an argument they weren't based on the facts.

His best bet is that the grand jury doesn't indict, then nobody will be getting paid to make that argument.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

I guess it must be at least in part a regional/cultural thing. I will never understand the attitude of those that claim "Its just property or an inanimate object, not worth killing/dying for." From my point of view whats mine is mine. I worked for it, sweat for it and sometimes bled for it. I'll be damned if some scumbag thief is going to take it away from me with out a fight. The whole attitude of "just be nice to the nice bad man and let him have your money and he wont hurt anyone." Is exact same attitude that brought us 4 hijacked planes on 9/11/01 and had the one plane that did fight back not known through cell calls what was going on they also would have been used as a missile, probably into the US capitol.
Stand up and refuse to be a victim!!!

 

[Thumper]

Did the desirability and urgency of avoiding the burglarly being successful clearly outweigh (according to ordinary standards of reasonableness), the general prohibition on shooting people with a shotgun?

I agree that that would be how the prosecutor would paint the idea, but as you mention, "reasonableness" is fairly arbitrary.

When charging the jury, I believe the applicable criminal code will be read.

The fact that the protection exists under the Deadly Force statutes indicates that someone, somewhere considers it reasonable to use deadly force to protect property, especially when there's a clause specifically mentioning deadly force to protect a third person's property.

Either way, pretty interesting. They woulda put our boy under the jail in Chicago.

 

[Wes Janson]

I guess it must be at least in part a regional/cultural thing. I will never understand the attitude of those that claim "Its just property or an inanimate object, not worth killing/dying for." From my point of view whats mine is mine. I worked for it, sweat for it and sometimes bled for it. I'll be damned if some scumbag thief is going to take it away from me with out a fight. The whole attitude of "just be nice to the nice bad man and let him have your money and he wont hurt anyone." Is exact same attitude that brought us 4 hijacked planes on 9/11/01 and had the one plane that did fight back not known through cell calls what was going on they also would have been used as a missile, probably into the US capitol.
Stand up and refuse to be a victim!!!

Here's the thing: I'd prefer not to shoot someone unless it's an actual necessity. Oh noes, I'm a liberal wussy, but I prefer to reserve the killin' for those who really need it right that moment. I've never been placed in the situation of needing immediate lethal force, but I do feel there are certain standards of action that one should adhere to. If someone tries to take from me, then you can be damn sure I'm going to fight back, but that does not necessitate lethal force by default irregardless of circumstances. As screwed up as it is, we do have a legal system for a reason, and it IS that legal system that seperates and lifts us up from savagery and the metaphorical jungle.

In that audio clip, the old man isn't interested in protecting property, he's interested in killing those two men. I might be going out on a bit of a limb here, but as a white male I'm willing to entertain the notion that there might have been racial issues at play, considering the shooter was a 70-year-old white male in Texas, and the criminals were both young Hispanic males. Then again, maybe not.

All I know is, given a choice between killing two men or not killing two men, every single other factor held the same, the choice to kill, made in anger, is not what I would consider moral. Give him leniency because he's old, or senile, or on medications, or don't-but he absolutely must be tried for his actions. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?

 

[RoadkingLarry]

Wes,

I'll admit I'm not the most eloquent of posters but the point I'm trying to make is that while I have no desire what so ever to actually take a life I firmly refuse to stand by and allow scum to take what is mine for fear that life may be placed at risk.
Should I encounter a thug or pair of thugs walking out of my shop building attempting to cart off my tools I will confront them and attempt to stop them by threat of violent force. Should he/they refuse to comply what would you have me do? “OK well never mind, go ahead and by the way there, are a few good power tools in the grey cabinet over there”??
That’s what I hear from those unwilling to defend property. Not the way it’s going to happen at my house. Same as if I walked out of a restaurant and found someone rummaging around in the glove box of my car. I will confront and I will meet violence with violence.

 

[Thumper]

Here's the thing: I'd prefer not to shoot someone unless it's an actual necessity. Oh noes, I'm a liberal wussy, but I prefer to reserve the killin' for those who really need it right that moment. I've never been placed in the situation of needing immediate lethal force, but I do feel there are certain standards of action that one should adhere to. If someone tries to take from me, then you can be damn sure I'm going to fight back, but that does not necessitate lethal force by default irregardless of circumstances. As screwed up as it is, we do have a legal system for a reason, and it IS that legal system that seperates and lifts us up from savagery and the metaphorical jungle.

Right. The legal system you mention protects this man. We have laws permitting deadly force to protect property in Texas.

If you don't believe we should, you have a right to work to change that law. Good luck.

 

[mekender]

listen to the last 30-60 seconds of the tape... specifically the parts after the 3 shots... the man is in a panic, obviously shaken up and displaying emotion that is not easily faked... he states "they came toward me, they came into my yard with me, i had no choice"... his reaction right there if genuine is what will probably make this a justified shoot in the eyes of the law...

 

[Wes Janson]

Should I encounter a thug or pair of thugs walking out of my shop building attempting to cart off my tools I will confront them and attempt to stop them by threat of violent force. Should he/they refuse to comply what would you have me do? “OK well never mind, go ahead and by the way there, are a few good power tools in the grey cabinet over there”??

In which case use of deadly force would possibly be a reasonable response. The difference is, the shooter did not threaten use of force, he simply used force outright without giving them any chance to surrender. This is the critical factor, and the reason why I would contend he committed double homicide. When you skip over any and all non-lethal alternatives and opt to begin interaction with deadly force, you're acting as judge, jury, and executioner. When you do so out of hatred, you act to undermine society and debase the value of human life.

Right. The legal system you mention protects this man. We have laws permitting deadly force to protect property in Texas.

If you don't believe we should, you have a right to work to change that law. Good luck.

It remains to be seen whether or not he is indeed protected by Texas state law; this would seem to be a grey area in the law. If it goes to trial it seems likely that the outcome will be decided by the politics and the composition of the jury rather than the semantics of the law. Just because an action is legal does not make it moral.

 

[Thumper]

this would seem to be a grey area in the law.

Nope. Not really.

Just because an action is legal does not make it moral.

Agreed in some circumstances. This guy will walk, though....and he should. If you want to blame someone, blame the burglars, not the old man.

I like what he said. "It's not right."

Yep.

 

[AndyC]

It'll be whatever a jury believes it was, law or no law.

 

[mekender]

it will be very hard to prosecute someone that most of the community (including the police) considers a hero

 

[mljdeckard]

Not going to read all 4 pages, but the long and short of it is, the bad guys were fleeing.

A very wise man once told me, "Always make sure the bullet holes are in FRONT." I am under no illusions about this being literal in real life, but this guy pretty much documented to the 911 operator that he was no longer in danger, and killed them anyway.

I hope it will help that he's old, and the jury might not want to put him away.

 

[Thumper]

Not going to read all 4 pages, but the long and short of it is, the bad guys were fleeing.

You should have read all 4 pages. They were fleeing with property. That's what matters here.

 

[orionengnr]

Texas laws are not Utah's, nor Florida's, nor California's. Thank God.
Texas law will prove to be the crux of this matter.
It will be interesting.