The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
It might make them more sympathetic to the man who shot the career criminals.Jusme wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:36 am Lawrence said he did not know or recognize the men, who had allegedly been on a crime spree, information jurors are barred from hearing.
This is the part I don't understand. Why was this information, kept secret from the jury?
Because that information is not relevant to proving the guilt or innocence of the specific act on trial. That information can be used for sentencing after found guilty.AndyC wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:19 amI imagine that, because Lawrence didn't know that at the time either, the fact they were on a crime-spree can't be used to justify his shooting of them.Jusme wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:36 am Lawrence said he did not know or recognize the men, who had allegedly been on a crime spree, information jurors are barred from hearing.
This is the part I don't understand. Why was this information, kept secret from the jury?
Medical Examiner said they both likely died immediately. I’m not shooting anyone running from me unless they are threatening my family or me.BBYC wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:16 pm How far away were they when they were shot? It's easy to imagine somebody shot with a 22 could run 30 to 100 yards before they collapsed and died.
Without knowing his situation, it is hard to say. What is he had no way to replace his vehicle?Oldgringo wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:55 am I'd have to think long and hard before I shot somebody in the back.
Legal in Texas. The "Self-Defense" argument for the closer one is possible... but 100 yards away...?Paladin wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:01 pm While the deceased were criminals apparently trying to do a burglary, calling the shooting self-defense is absurd. I think "vigilante justice" is a far more fitting term. And that sort justice is illegal.
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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.
Yeah, with Matthew McMillen shot in the back 337 feet away, even under Texas Defense of Property, among other things Lawrence would need to show that McMillen had committed burglary or was trying to escape with property. Did McMillen have stolen property on him? Did Lawrence even know at the time about the neighbor's break-in?PriestTheRunner wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:05 pmLegal in Texas. The "Self-Defense" argument for the closer one is possible... but 100 yards away...?Paladin wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:01 pm While the deceased were criminals apparently trying to do a burglary, calling the shooting self-defense is absurd. I think "vigilante justice" is a far more fitting term. And that sort justice is illegal.
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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.
The head shot victim would have probably dropped on the spot where he was shot. The one shot in the back could have easily ran for 10 seconds to a minute after being shot.BBYC wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:16 pm How far away were they when they were shot? It's easy to imagine somebody shot with a 22 could run 30 to 100 yards before they collapsed and died.
There would probably not be much if any splatter from a .22 to the backAndyC wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:39 pmSure, that's possible - but the investigators likely found blood spatter at the places they were initially shot which helped make that determination. Don't know any specifics about it, though.BBYC wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:16 pm How far away were they when they were shot? It's easy to imagine somebody shot with a 22 could run 30 to 100 yards before they collapsed and died.