The Sorry State of Today's Journalism

[Citydude]

After watching the surveillance video, I have to ask myself if I were setting in the jury, was he protecting his property while running after the car or handing out justice? That's a tough one for me....

Sent from my iPad using TractorByNet

 

[smstonypoint]

Bet that bullet was well deformed and enlarged by the time it got to the head. Hard to tell, but it might be argued the shooter was afraid the car was going to run him over...dunno....

After watching the surveillance video, I have to ask myself if I were setting in the jury, was he protecting his property while running after the car or handing out justice? That's a tough one for me....

It's going to be interesting to see how the shooter's lawyer approaches the defense. I can't tell from the video when the shooting takes place. At the end of the video, the shooter appears to be within eight feet or so of the car. The thief was apparently shot in the back of the head, so the actual shooting might have occurred after the end of the video clip.

Steve

 

[texasjohn]

I don't know about the law in that state...but in Texas the action would have the APPEARANCE of legal justification. I say appearance because until a jury decides, IMHO, taking a life is always going to be questionable.

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.

I think that 1, 2a, 3b would be the defense.

Now, I think that this thread is well and completely hijacked!!

 

[Sodo]

I don't know who would want to be an honest law enforcement officer today.

Yep someone can accost a policeman and try to take his gun - and thousands across the country will defend his rights as an "unarmed man". I say to correct folks; he was a "yet unarmed man".

But that store owner was not thinking correctly. His life was not in danger and he was a fool to fire that gun in public. If he left his gun in the safe that day, being out only a $1,000 chainsaw would have been much preferable to what he's going thru now. If something foolish MUST happen, at the very LEAST a thief got his just desserts, immediately.

Edit: actually thats a bit much, just desserts would be one in the buttocks,,,,,

 

[bumperm]

When I was a cop in Oakland, CA in the 70's, then as now crime was rampant. There was one liquor store in N. Oakland that almost never got hit, at least it didn't during the 10 years I was there. Word was out, in the department and on the street, the employees there were armed and a couple of would be robbers had died there. Arguably, and by case law in most states I'm aware of, when a robbery suspect has a deadly weapon there is a presumption he may use deadly force during the commission of the crime. Using deadly force to defend oneself is thus justified. Most states do not extend the justification for use of deadly force only to protect property.

Still, how much looting and rioting do you suppose there would be if the first one or two torching a building or carrying out loot took a round?

 

[texasjohn]

Still, how much looting and rioting do you suppose there would be if the first one or two torching a building or carrying out loot took a round?

I understand your point and it certainly makes sense. And, you clearly have much better understanding of these things than I, given your service...and thanks for that.

Yet it seems to me that SO MANY crimes simply make no sense to me that I have stopped trying to make sense of them...perhaps that is why they are called senseless crimes.

Take the shootings in Waco this week. The biker gangs clearly knew that massive police forces...over 10 uniformed officers....were immediately outside the restaurant and would intervene in less than a minute. And yet, it all went down anyway with 9 dead and 18 wounded.

And, in other news, death and mayhem abound in Iraq, although all parties know that aggression will, sooner or later, lead to no good for them personally.

Sometimes, it seems, that the desire for self preservation reaches a low ebb when other sentiments of greed, anger, whatever take over the mind and body.

I guess that thoughtlessness leads to senseless acts/crimes in any language or locale. Sadly, part of the nature of MAN.

 

[Garandman]

Here's a news story about the shooting of a chainsaw shoplifter by the business owner's son.

Police: Business owner

Please note that the story makes no mention of the make and model of the chainsaw.

Steve

He was trying to steal a Stihl.

Beasley Power Equipment is a Stihl dealer. No mention of the brand of gun: I'm guessing it was a S&W revolver.

Still, how much looting and rioting do you suppose there would be if the first one or two torching a building or carrying out loot took a round?

Back before we invaded Iraq, Army Chief of staff General Eric Shinseki testified we were deploying enough troops for a military victory, but not enough to pacify the civilian populace. But Rumsfeld knew better.

 

[Bird]

When I was a cop in Oakland, CA in the 70's, then as now crime was rampant. There was one liquor store in N. Oakland that almost never got hit, at least it didn't during the 10 years I was there. Word was out, in the department and on the street, the employees there were armed and a couple of would be robbers had died there. Arguably, and by case law in most states I'm aware of, when a robbery suspect has a deadly weapon there is a presumption he may use deadly force during the commission of the crime. Using deadly force to defend oneself is thus justified. Most states do not extend the justification for use of deadly force only to protect property.

Still, how much looting and rioting do you suppose there would be if the first one or two torching a building or carrying out loot took a round?

In the late '60s, Dallas had what I think the news media called the "shotgun squads". An officer, with a shotgun, would spend the evening in the back room of a convenience store, watching through a one way mirror, prepared to shoot anyone who tried to rob the store. And a number of hijackers were killed. I spent a number of evenings on that duty myself, including a couple of nights in a store in which 2 hijackers had been killed by officers. Fortunately, no store that I was sitting in was robbed while I was there. But the best I can remember, NO ONE in the news media, or elsewhere, objected to the killing of robbers.

 

[houstonscott]

Laws in Texas provide for deadly force to protect property and it doesn't have to be on your property. You take my chainsaw and I catch up with you at the corner I can kill you to get it back. HS

 

[Bird]

Laws in Texas provide for deadly force to protect property and it doesn't have to be on your property. You take my chainsaw and I catch up with you at the corner I can kill you to get it back. HS

I do believe you are misinterpreting or misunderstanding something. Which statute or what case law are you using to reach that conclusion?