Fence feud ends with murder conviction

[bcp]

The Columbian

A Southern Oregon man has been found guilty of murder in the shooting of his neighbor in a long-running feud.

A jury Thursday rejected the self-defense argument of Donald Easley in the Sept. 7, 2013, shooting of Laron Estes at a makeshift fence separating their yards in the rural community of Kerby.

Arguments during the trial focused on what happened between the neighbors during several crucial seconds along the "fence from ****" made of pallet wood, chicken wire, black plastic and barbed wire.

=======

Found a longer article:
Long-running feud that led to death was murder, jury rules | OregonLive.com

 

[smstonypoint]

Estes, 59, and his wife lived on a property formerly occupied by Kenneth Vaughn — whom Easley shot dead in 2009. That shooting was ruled a justified case of self-defense.

Steve

 

[Gary Fowler]

I guess he got away with it once so he thought he could do it again.
Shooting someone in the back will most likely get you convicted of murder even if they are in your house and armed except maybe in Louisiana or Texas where castle laws prevail.

 

[texasjohn]

Yep, if I were on that jury and the fellow was shot in the back at a distance, then I'd likely vote murder too.

In Texas, even with castle law, I believe that it would be hard to argue successfully "fear for life" if a person in the house was retreating, unarmed, and then shot in back (only wound and not attempting to attack someone else). That said, there are circumstances where you are allowed to protect people and property with lethal force...but a jury typically has to agree with the decision made.

 

[turnkey4099]

Yep, if I were on that jury and the fellow was shot in the back at a distance, then I'd likely vote murder too.

In Texas, even with castle law, I believe that it would be hard to argue successfully "fear for life" if a person in the house was retreating, unarmed, and then shot in back (only wound and not attempting to attack someone else). That said, there are circumstances where you are allowed to protect people and property with lethal force...but a jury typically has to agree with the decision made.

"Fear for life" does not enter into it in Texas. The law allows lethal force in defense of property.

Harry K

 

[texasjohn]

Hmm....well, not to be argumentative, but I thought I covered that possibility as follows:

"That said, there are circumstances where you are allowed to protect people and property with lethal force...but a jury typically has to agree with the decision made."

I've been to the concealed carry class in Texas, where I reside. I do not believe your implication that one can use lethal force here with impunity and that a claim of "protection of property" would be accepted without legal investigation or likely a trial.

Please refer to this link and read carefully, then be guided by it next time you visit Texas.

Texas Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground 101

"Fear for life" does not enter into it in Texas. The law allows lethal force in defense of property.

Harry K