TexasCHLforum.com

I have a few thoughts on this I really don't want to share in a public forum. But...the law is the law I suppose.

SQLGeek wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:58 am I have a few thoughts on this I really don't want to share in a public forum. But...the law is the law I suppose.

Keep in mind that was in Michigan and Michigan has a very specific definition on self defense, including the 21 foot rule. What is legal in Texas will get you life behind bars in Michigan.

Definitely a lot of interesting info here. The laws may be different in Michigan regarding the proper use of deadly force, so hard to comment on the actual verdict. But I will comment in response to this quote from the failed mother of one of the BG's:

"They didn't deserve (Lawrence) to be judge, jury and executioner either," Newman said in the hallway.

I actually agree that they didn't "deserve" to die for their actions. I would think that any human life would be worth more than the value of whatever they were trying to steal. But here's the thing. The fact is that these kids didn't value their lives as highly as I would value the life of my dog. Those kids decided that a used pickup truck was worth more than their lives. Presumably they knew the value of their lives better than I ever could, so who am I to argue with them?

Also interesting to note that both died from a single .22 caliber round. Kind of adds some info to the perennial caliber debates.

montgomery wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:03 pm Keep in mind that was in Michigan and Michigan has a very specific definition on self defense, including the 21 foot rule. What is legal in Texas will get you life behind bars in Michigan.

For better or worse, Texas doesn't have the fleeing felon rule.

montgomery wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:03 pm

SQLGeek wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:58 am I have a few thoughts on this I really don't want to share in a public forum. But...the law is the law I suppose.

Keep in mind that was in Michigan and Michigan has a very specific definition on self defense, including the 21 foot rule. What is legal in Texas will get you life behind bars in Michigan.

My thoughts have nothing to do with the laws in particular between Texas and Michigan and more to do with the moral obligation to follow the law versus the theoretical net overall improvement to society that was achieved.

SQLGeek wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:14 pm

montgomery wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:03 pm

SQLGeek wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:58 am I have a few thoughts on this I really don't want to share in a public forum. But...the law is the law I suppose.

Keep in mind that was in Michigan and Michigan has a very specific definition on self defense, including the 21 foot rule. What is legal in Texas will get you life behind bars in Michigan.

My thoughts have nothing to do with the laws in particular between Texas and Michigan and more to do with the moral obligation to follow the law versus the theoretical net overall improvement to society that was achieved.

No issues with what you stated or implied. I am just saying once these two adults - the 18 year olds - turned their back and were more than 7 yards away from the landowner, the shooter had a tough road to hoe on the self defense claim there.

BBYC wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:08 pm

montgomery wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:03 pm Keep in mind that was in Michigan and Michigan has a very specific definition on self defense, including the 21 foot rule. What is legal in Texas will get you life behind bars in Michigan.

For better or worse, Texas doesn't have the fleeing felon rule.

Texas does not allow the shooting of all fleeing felons, but read TPC §9.42 below.

Chas.

TPC §9.42 wrote: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.

Did they have any of his property in their possession?

What is Michigan's 21 foot rule? I would hate to mount a laser range finder on my gun.

I'd have to think long and hard before I shot somebody in the back.

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?

I don't know if I agree or disagree, with the verdict, or the homeowner's actions, but, I do feel all information, should be provided. Too many times, the person(s) who are on the receiving end, of gunshots, are portrayed as choirboys. I don't know whether or not, the information, that they were on a crime spree, would have swayed the jury either way. At least let them hear it and decide for themselves. JMHO


Edit to add: I misread the story, I thought a verdict had been returned. The trial is still ongoing.

From my point of view, it didn't look justified. There was no record of the perps having anything of value on them. They were running way. What kind of threat were they? If I was in that situation, the absolute worst I would do is fire a warning shot at the ground nowhere near those kids. Even then, I would still regret it. I basically just advertised to them that I have guns at my house. Come take them, right?

Now, I can see a way to justify shooting someone in the back at over 100 yards. If the bg was clearly holding a weapon, threatening a loved one, and his back happened to be facing me (I guess to face that loved one), and the loved one is nowhere near my shot, then yes. I would do that. What are the odds of that happening, though? Even then, I'd still hesitate. If the first shot doesn't take down the bg, that may very well cost the life of the loved one.

OneGun wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:10 am What is Michigan's 21 foot rule? I would hate to mount a laser range finder on my gun.

I don't think there is actually a 21 ft. rule. When that is said I believe most people are referring to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

Some may consider it a rule of thumb.

Know the Law in your State.