Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
samzhere
BannedPosts: 10,923 Senior Member
Tx man charged w. homicide in "self defense" shooting
samzhere
BannedPosts: 10,923 Senior Member
I put "self defense" in quotes because of the questionable nature of the shooting.
Details are sketchy but you may see some points in the account that make the shooting difficult to properly define as genuine self defense.
http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Murder-charge-filed-after-suspected-car-thief-shot-5686368.php
Details are sketchy but you may see some points in the account that make the shooting difficult to properly define as genuine self defense.
http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Murder-charge-filed-after-suspected-car-thief-shot-5686368.php
Replies
How about some details...
(Again, I do not say I agree with it, just that TX law says that deadly force can be used in defense of property)
Morally, that's a different argument
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
I will fear no evil: For I carry a .308 and not a .270
Ain't never too late for a hunting accident.
Paddle faster!!! I hear banjos.
Reason for editing: correcting my auto correct
Man I've seen a lot of dumb stuff on here, but that takes the cake. This no doubt was derived from an old Aggie Joke.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
The guy that stole the car will not be a repeat offender, and will not cost the state money in legal fees, and prison upkeep.
I have nothing good to say about thieves.
― Douglas Adams
What antivirus software are you using? Just curious.
Truetone posted the text.
My thoughts on this are the same. He may have "technically" been okay but pursuing someone and then firing into the vehicle as it was being driven may have crossed the line, at least as far as the county attorney saw it.
He may actually win the case, but it will cost him plenty.
Being morally right isn't always enough.
REMINDER TO ALL KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!, Once again for those who attended public school KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
What you predict may indeed be what happens. It all depends on whether there is more negative evidence that would slant the case against him. Theory of preventing grand theft is one thing, the actual event may be another.
Point being, regardless of whether it appears that he acted correctly, within the law, and is being railroaded, or he may have overstepped the law (which is my tentative opinion), the major lesson we might take from this is to never let ourselves be "hung out to dry" and be at the mercy of an overzealous prosecutor. It might have been better to let the car go.
Realize that I'm not saying the guy is flat guilty. What I am saying is that he really walked a narrow line and it may come back to bite him. All considerations of self defense aside, in some states you practically have to be at death's door to legitimately act in self defense. Other states are more forgiving. And Texas is one of the few states (I don't actually know of other states this way) in which you're actually justified (technically) in using lethal force to protect property in which personal safety isn't an issue.
Some of us here would be very reluctant to fire on someone who was fleeing with property and who didn't represent a physical threat. I personally would find it hard to do so. But technically it's defensible, so the guy may get off, if the jury is of your opinion.
What I'd not want to do, in any case, is to have my livelihood and freedom in the hands of 12 of my peers. No way.
Why Sam, that goes against the old idiom, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Since I'm a douche about terminology, all I saw was "negative evidence".
Evidence is either incriminating or exculpatory. Not positive and negative. :tooth:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
Idioms are just clever sayings and not always too valid in the real world. But I'm not aware of any point in the account of where this guy was in danger of dying, either.
When I said "negative" I of course meant having a negative effect on this guy's defense, i.e., incriminating.
Sent from my trusty HP Pavilion laptop using Xfinity WiFi
If the DA falls for that line he is as big of an idiot as the shooter!
If.... the girl was in the car......why didn't Keck tell the 911 dispatcher that?...............And more important..............what kind of dipstick would fire rounds into a car that his daughter was in?
I think Keck realized he messed up and felt he had to justify himself.
Do I mind that another criminal is ART?........Not in the least little bit........Do I think actions like this give the liberals more ammo to use against the 2nd amendment?...........You bet I do.
-96 lbs
All true, based on what is known at this point. The police charged him, so they didn't believe him, but the DA will weigh the possibility that part of the story might get excluded from an actual trial (or spun) by defense counsel, and there is always the politics of the situation (public opinion of the people who elect DAs) for DA's who want to move up the ladder.
The indictment usually depends upon whether the DA wants to prosecute, because the prospective 'indictee' doesn't really offer a defense at the hearing. If, for any reason, the DA doesn't want to go to trial, he can usually influence the grand jury to no-bill. Getting them to indict on scant evidence, on the other hand, is harder but it does happen fairly frequently.
Liberals mostly think we still hang horse thieves and rustlers in Texas, anyway. If they can't spin the truth to make their points, they will just make up a story, publish it in their talking points, and tell everyone to speak louder and repeat it more often. In the end, nobody changes their mind and it makes little difference anyway, because Democrats, as a rule, are usually passing legislation that goes against the will of the majority anyway, or they get their stuff rammed through by executive fiat, obscure rules from some faceless bureaucracy, or by Federal court rulings.
In the great scheme of things, the message sent by allowing citizens some leeway as to how they defend their property may do more good than harm. The shooter in this case was an idiot, but the shootee was a thief, caught in the act, and Texans have always been pretty hard on thieves, but fairly lenient on idiots. :tooth:
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Exactly, which is why I posted it in the first place. Not necessarily to debate the guilt or innocence of the shooter, but to illustrate how we really need to be careful if we ever do shoot at someone, to be very certain of the law and that we don't put ourselves in legal jeopardy by an incautious act.
Were I to speculate, I'd guess that the guy has never taken a self defense course, read a single on self defense (Ayoob, etc) or spent any real, thoughtful time chatting with other gun owners about what you should or should not do.
Which is why, as Big implies, we all really need to be cognizant of the law and its implications. We may not agree with certain aspects of the law, but we also don't want to become expensive "test cases" on various aspects of armed self defense, either.
Well, you're likely correct on that. But I posted this because it falls generally under "self defense" within the arc of Texas laws, as the specifics related to using lethal force are part of the Tx "lethal force" statutes. And in the account, the guy did say that he thought the dead guy shot at him, so he returned fire.
So whether it's legitimately "self defense" in fact, the shooter claims it is, at least proffered that as a partial reason why he fired.
And yes, I am very cognizant of the Texas law regarding protection of property and potential use of lethal force to protect it. But the law doesn't precisely allow this carte blanche, either. It merely states that stopping theft is a means of defense against prosecution.
And you're right, it may be a political ploy by the sheriff to gain attention. But my original point is that you don't want to put yourself in possible trouble because someone wants to win an election. Someone attacking me, attacking a loved one, breaking into my house? Sure, I think those are reasons for armed self defense. But somebody stealing something and running away, zero physical threat to me? Even if Tx law technically allows it, I'm skeptical whether I'd use lethal force to stop it.
I had a similar experience some years ago but I'm not allowed to post the story.
― Douglas Adams
You are willing to compromise your integrity too easily.