Kingsland man shoots burglars of neighbor's house

[seamusTX]

Um, I'm under the impression that he did nothing wrong after reading the articles...

The defendant committed the elements of the offense of criminal homicide. He probably even admitted to it on tape.

At that point the state can prosecute him. He can defend himself by proving that the has one of the justifications of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code.

In this case, that means proving that the man that he shot was escaping with stolen goods, and there was no other way to recover the property. He has to prove that his case meets all the elements of 9.42 and 9.43.

He may well be found not guilty, but he will be a poorer man.

- Jim

[Liberty]

They weren't his stolen goods. He might need to get testimony that he was asked to watch his neighbors property.

[seamusTX]

Whatever verdict the court arrives at, I'll bet it will cost the defendant far more than anything that was stolen.

If something in a house is worth the price of a human life, it ought to be in a safe, and the house ought to have a monitored alarm system. These things are not costly for someone who owns such precious treasures, and they beat having a gunfight in the dark, which you always have a 50% chance of losing, IMHO.

- Jim

[boomerang]

If something in a house is worth the price of a human life, it ought to be in a safe, and the house ought to have a monitored alarm system.

If a thief values his life he ought to go straight.

[seamusTX]

This kind of thing is fine to say, but you can see the real consequences right here in this thread.

The justice system is not going to do what you or I think it should do. It is going to do what the people who run it think it should do.

Many innocent people have gone to prison and even been put to death, and many have been bankrupted and emotionally broken by prosecution.

- Jim

[boomerang]

That's a valid concern. I don't think there's anything wrong with making a no-shoot decision based on a personal cost-benefit analysis.