IRVING, Texas - A man who shot and killed two robbery suspects in Irving is now charged for their murders.
Irving police said the murders happened Tuesday afternoon outside an apartment complex on Clubhouse Place. Three teenagers allegedly went to 31-year-old Jarrell Ivory Chaney’s apartment with the intention of robbing him.
Police said during the robbery Chaney disarmed one of the teens and all three started running away. He fired shots at them and hit two – 18-year-old Ishmeal Smithson and 19-year-old Theophilos Greer.
I am guessing the teens went there under the pretense of buying drugs, but were there to rob him. If the man was involved in illegal activities during the robbery, then he does not get to use self defense as a justification.
Also the fact that they were running away when shot might have something to do with it too. I'm sure illegal activity also had something to do with it like Keith B said.
IRVING, Texas - A man who shot and killed two robbery suspects in Irving is now charged for their murders.
Irving police said the murders happened Tuesday afternoon outside an apartment complex on Clubhouse Place. Three teenagers allegedly went to 31-year-old Jarrell Ivory Chaney’s apartment with the intention of robbing him.
Police said during the robbery Chaney disarmed one of the teens and all three started running away. He fired shots at them and hit two – 18-year-old Ishmeal Smithson and 19-year-old Theophilos Greer.
I am guessing the teens went there under the pretense of buying drugs, but were there to rob him. If the man was involved in illegal activities during the robbery, then he does not get to use self defense as a justification.
Loses the legal presumption that deadly force is justified under 9.31/9.32, not loses the defense justification completely. Facts to be determined at trial if any.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
IRVING, Texas - A man who shot and killed two robbery suspects in Irving is now charged for their murders.
Irving police said the murders happened Tuesday afternoon outside an apartment complex on Clubhouse Place. Three teenagers allegedly went to 31-year-old Jarrell Ivory Chaney’s apartment with the intention of robbing him.
Police said during the robbery Chaney disarmed one of the teens and all three started running away. He fired shots at them and hit two – 18-year-old Ishmeal Smithson and 19-year-old Theophilos Greer.
I am guessing the teens went there under the pretense of buying drugs, but were there to rob him. If the man was involved in illegal activities during the robbery, then he does not get to use self defense as a justification.
Loses the legal presumption that deadly force is justified under 9.31/9.32, not loses the defense justification completely. Facts to be determined at trial if any.
Allons wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:39 pm
Also the fact that they were running away when shot might have something to do with it too. I'm sure illegal activity also had something to do with it like Keith B said.
Once the threat, is over, shooting fleeing criminals, takes away, your defense of, ending a threat. Unless you can show that others were in imminent danger, which, in this case. would be very difficult to demonstrate. JMHO
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second
Allons wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:39 pm
Also the fact that they were running away when shot might have something to do with it too. I'm sure illegal activity also had something to do with it like Keith B said.
Once the threat, is over, shooting fleeing criminals, takes away, your defense of, ending a threat. Unless you can show that others were in imminent danger, which, in this case. would be very difficult to demonstrate. JMHO
It also was not at night, so don't you lose the bit about recovering stolen property? Or am I mistaken on that?
IRVING, Texas - A man who shot and killed two robbery suspects in Irving is now charged for their murders.
Irving police said the murders happened Tuesday afternoon outside an apartment complex on Clubhouse Place. Three teenagers allegedly went to 31-year-old Jarrell Ivory Chaney’s apartment with the intention of robbing him.
Police said during the robbery Chaney disarmed one of the teens and all three started running away. He fired shots at them and hit two – 18-year-old Ishmeal Smithson and 19-year-old Theophilos Greer.
I am guessing the teens went there under the pretense of buying drugs, but were there to rob him. If the man was involved in illegal activities during the robbery, then he does not get to use self defense as a justification.
Loses the legal presumption that deadly force is justified under 9.31/9.32, not loses the defense justification completely. Facts to be determined at trial if any.
True but we had that case in Chicago where a fleeing gunman turned and shot a cop while still running away. The point of course is that the danger may not be over even when the BG are running away especially if they are armed. This story needs more info though.
Maybe I am wrong but I didn't think the issue was presence of danger in this case as much as it was that the shooter was engaging in illegal conduct that resulted in the need for self defense?
I should have said, alleged to be engaging in illegal conduct.
Allons wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:39 pm
Also the fact that they were running away when shot might have something to do with it too. I'm sure illegal activity also had something to do with it like Keith B said.
Once the threat, is over, shooting fleeing criminals, takes away, your defense of, ending a threat. Unless you can show that others were in imminent danger, which, in this case. would be very difficult to demonstrate. JMHO
It also was not at night, so don't you lose the bit about recovering stolen property? Or am I mistaken on that?
For recovery of stolen property, deadly force may be justified if immediatly following a burglary or robbery (day or night), or theft (at night). There's also the caveat that using less-than- deadly force would present a significant risk of you incurring serious bodily injury (ie, if you can reasonably use less force WITHOUT putting yourself at risk of death/serious bodily injury, then you must use that lesser degree of force).
Allons wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:39 pm
Also the fact that they were running away when shot might have something to do with it too. I'm sure illegal activity also had something to do with it like Keith B said.
Once the threat, is over, shooting fleeing criminals, takes away, your defense of, ending a threat. Unless you can show that others were in imminent danger, which, in this case. would be very difficult to demonstrate. JMHO
It also was not at night, so don't you lose the bit about recovering stolen property? Or am I mistaken on that?
For recovery of stolen property, deadly force may be justified if immediatly following a burglary or robbery (day or night), or theft (at night). There's also the caveat that using less-than- deadly force would present a significant risk of you incurring serious bodily injury (ie, if you can reasonably use less force WITHOUT putting yourself at risk of death/serious bodily injury, then you must use that lesser degree of force).
Thanks.
Of course, in this case, it's not even clear whether these yutes were fleeing with any of the guys property in the first place...
Allons wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:39 pm
Also the fact that they were running away when shot might have something to do with it too. I'm sure illegal activity also had something to do with it like Keith B said.
Once the threat, is over, shooting fleeing criminals, takes away, your defense of, ending a threat. Unless you can show that others were in imminent danger, which, in this case. would be very difficult to demonstrate. JMHO
It also was not at night, so don't you lose the bit about recovering stolen property? Or am I mistaken on that?
For recovery of stolen property, deadly force may be justified if immediatly following a burglary or robbery (day or night), or theft (at night). There's also the caveat that using less-than- deadly force would present a significant risk of you incurring serious bodily injury (ie, if you can reasonably use less force WITHOUT putting yourself at risk of death/serious bodily injury, then you must use that lesser degree of force).
Thanks.
Of course, in this case, it's not even clear whether these yutes were fleeing with any of the guys property in the first place...
What is clear is that Jarrell must be a pretty good shot?
Allons wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:39 pm
Also the fact that they were running away when shot might have something to do with it too. I'm sure illegal activity also had something to do with it like Keith B said.
Once the threat, is over, shooting fleeing criminals, takes away, your defense of, ending a threat. Unless you can show that others were in imminent danger, which, in this case. would be very difficult to demonstrate. JMHO
It also was not at night, so don't you lose the bit about recovering stolen property? Or am I mistaken on that?
For recovery of stolen property, deadly force may be justified if immediatly following a burglary or robbery (day or night), or theft (at night). There's also the caveat that using less-than- deadly force would present a significant risk of you incurring serious bodily injury (ie, if you can reasonably use less force WITHOUT putting yourself at risk of death/serious bodily injury, then you must use that lesser degree of force).
Thanks.
Of course, in this case, it's not even clear whether these yutes were fleeing with any of the guys property in the first place...
What is clear is that Jarrell must be a pretty good shot?
This case seems to have a lot of complicating factors. But, whether or not it's the issue in this case, a good rule of thumb is not to shoot people who are running away from you.
If a legit pharmacist can be convicted of first degree murder for shooting a robber who was still in the store, I don't know why this 'street pharmacist' shouldn't be convicted of the same for shooting robbers running away. http://www.koco.com/article/sentence-re ... d/19845092
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
ninjabread wrote: Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:09 pm
If a legit pharmacist can be convicted of first degree murder for shooting a robber who was still in the store, I don't know why this 'street pharmacist' shouldn't be convicted of the same for shooting robbers running away. http://www.koco.com/article/sentence-re ... d/19845092
In this case involving the pharmacist, I recall seeing the security video. He reloaded his gun and pumped two more rounds into the robber as he laid on the floor bleeding out. The jury found that reloading his gun and putting two more rounds into the robber as he laid bleeding out was murder because the robber was no longer a threat. Before that point, the pharmacist was just defending himself.
