Man indicted for shooting fleeing intruder

[seamusTX]

Finally, they just voted to acquit, figuring that if they couldn't figure out what the law said after the fact, there was no way they were going to punish someone for violating it.

If an entire jury agrees to this kind of decision, the verdict stands.

However, if one juror does it, the situation can end in a mistrial and contempt charges, as in the case that is the root of this thread.

- Jim

[03Lightningrocks]

This guy might have been on "legal" grounds but is a coward in my humble opinion. Chasing a human down and killing them in cold blood??? When did that become acceptable behavior? Even in the wild west they would not look highly on shooting an unarmed person. Disgusting to say the least... IMHO. I could understand it if the intruder had shot or harmed one of his loved ones. But revenge for breaking in and then running away??? Wow!!!

[baldeagle]

I was on a jury once when 10 of us voted guilty and two voted not guilty. Some of the jurors got upset and started berating the two because they wanted to get the thing over with and go home. One of the two started wavering, at which point I said that I wanted to change my vote to not guilty. One of the more aggressive jurors asked me if I had gone crazy. I said, no, but you aren't going to dog these jurors into changing their votes. Either you convince them with logic and not anger, or you've lost my vote and you have a hung jury. And the madder you get, the more I'll dig my heels in. You might get the two of them to change their votes through fear, but you won't get me to budge one inch.

Fortunately, the judge called us back in to the courtroom because the accused had agreed to a plea bargain, because it was about to get real nasty in that jury room.

[Katygunnut]

I was on a jury once when 10 of us voted guilty and two voted not guilty. Some of the jurors got upset and started berating the two because they wanted to get the thing over with and go home. One of the two started wavering, at which point I said that I wanted to change my vote to not guilty. One of the more aggressive jurors asked me if I had gone crazy. I said, no, but you aren't going to dog these jurors into changing their votes. Either you convince them with logic and not anger, or you've lost my vote and you have a hung jury. And the madder you get, the more I'll dig my heels in. You might get the two of them to change their votes through fear, but you won't get me to budge one inch.

Fortunately, the judge called us back in to the courtroom because the accused had agreed to a plea bargain, because it was about to get real nasty in that jury room.

[ELB]

So apparently I posted the denouement to this thread over here: viewtopic.php?f=108&t=47271" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know how I missed this one earlier, but I did. Probably because it had so many replies on it fairly quickly. I tend to stay away from threads that already have 20 or 30 replies, because I figure everything that can be said has been. Several times.

However, I did soldier through this thread this time, and have one loose end to comment on. Early in the thread, some commented on the {fact, assumption, ?} that the door to the homeowner's house was unlocked, and therefore it could not be burglary, and/or no Castle Doctrine, and/or therefore it could not be legal/justified to use deadly force (disregarding for a moment that the confrontation ended up out in the street).

AFAIK, whether the door is locked or not is irrelevent as far as self-defense in your home, and the issue here is not "burglary," it is justifications for self-defense (Penal Code Chapter 9). Among the reasons you are legally justified in using deadly force in your home is

"...the person against whom the force was used:(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;"

It does not take much to meet the "with force" element. Mr. Charles Cotton commented on this in another thread that I do not have at my fingertips, but I believe he was giving background to the Legislature's discussions of this specific part of the law when the Castle Doctrine was being implemented. IIRC he and others were concerned about the "with force" issue, but the criminal lawyers present explained to him that actions as small as turning a door knob or opening an unlocked window could qualify. I did my own internet lawyering, and found this to be the case in many states. So presuming the college student did infact open an unlocked door in the wee hours, he certainly qualified to be shot at that point.

As to what happened when he boogied out into the street, that was up to the jury...


Also note that under Texas law,"Voluntary intoxication does not constitute a defense to the commission of crime." Penal Code Section 8.04.

[seamusTX]

My understanding of the use of force to enter a building is the same as yours.

There is one little catch here: The current form of the castle doctrine, which presumes reasonableness when a person enters a habitation with force, did not go into effect until several weeks after the incident.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00378F.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My issue in this case has always been with chasing the intruder outdoors and shooting him there.

Probably we will never know either the real facts or what the jury heard.

- Jim

[03Lightningrocks]

My issue in this case has always been with chasing the intruder outdoors and shooting him there.

Probably we will never know either the real facts or what the jury heard.

- Jim

Same here!!! We are humans and humans who act like animals, legally or otherwise, deserve our disdain! Anything short of that makes a person a coward who was picked on way to many times in high school and never fought back. Getting even by killing a person, they don't have to kill, makes a person the same coward they were in high school. CHL holder or otherwise!

Jim said it more civilized than I, but I wanted to make sure my position was known.


P.S. I do allow for revenge if someone physically harms anothers loved one. All the rules of manhood go out the door and I get me some payback... and won't be afraid to call it payback! prison be darned...who cares at this point?

[snatchel]

Im a Student at ASU, and this kids family actually went to mass at my church. Turns out I had met him years ago, but I didnt know anything about this case until a discussion at our RCIA meeting this past week. The Deacon and I got into a lengthy discussion about political matters, and gun rights came up. Of course I voiced that Im EXTREMELY 2A, and he said he was ANTI Gun. I asked him why, and he told me about this ASU kid he was fairly close to got shot while he was drunk in San Antonio. He said that the kid was wrong for breaking into that house, but because he was fleeing, he shouldnt have been shot. I asked him if he thought that was reason enough to take guns away from homes for self defense. He said it wasn't.

Basically just trying to say that it was nice hearing an ANTI agree that bad things happen sometimes, but you cant lay that on everyone. He said he respects my right to bear arms, but that didnt mean he would vote for them.

A bit off topic, but wanted to share that with yall.

[speedsix]

...you made him think...at least he realizes the gun din't do nuttin' wrong...sad to have someone you know backshot like that...life should be long and tiresome...