TexasCHLforum.com

AV8R wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:It's an interesting story, tragic, yet another example of why you should be very reserved in your commentary to anyone outside of the investigation...

But thats just my opinion...

....and especially reserved to anyone inside the investigation.

The only three things you should say to a policeman:
1) Yes, sir.
2) No, sir.
3) My name is ____.

You missed one... I was in fear for my life...

txinvestigator wrote: "he needed killin" is not a justification. The criminal justice system is in place for a reason, and our laws are to allow us to defend ourselves. It does not allow us to murder people who are evil, done evil things or might come back and do evil things again.

Were I a DA I would ask for an indictment. I imagine most DA's would follow the law and do the same.

I think you are right. But I can't imagine, knowing what we know, that a jury would convict. I know I wouldn't, but then again I doubt they would let me serve on such a jury

AV8R wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:It's an interesting story, tragic, yet another example of why you should be very reserved in your commentary to anyone outside of the investigation...

But thats just my opinion...

....and especially reserved to anyone inside the investigation.

The only three things you should say to a policeman:
1) Yes, sir.
2) No, sir.
3) My name is ____.

Bingo...And of course in the presense of an attorney representing you...

txinvestigator wrote:"he needed killin" is not a justification.

I thought sure that was in the Penal Code.

txinvestigator is, of course, correct. That was the wrong thing to say.

I've read a lot of this kind of quotes in news stories, where people who used lethal force to defend themselves said things that were better left unsaid. I don't know if they didn't know to keep their mouth shut, or some other reason. Sometimes, I think they're just "thinking out loud", trying to make sense of the fact that they just shot somebody.

Of course, in this case, the forensic evidence will tell the story better than the reporter.

The thing that still makes me wonder, however, is what these people are thinking about when they choose to arm themselves. Do they have a clear set of criteria in their mind about what may lead them to need to use lethal force? I have already acknowledged psychological factors related to the traumatic event, but I still wonder. Maybe it's because I know several people who have guns, but don't really know the laws related to the use of lethal force.

I don't mean to sound judgemental. I think this person defended themselves against a credible threat. I just can't help looking at this kind of story and wondering what I might have done differently.

KRM45 wrote:You missed one... I was in fear for my life...

exactly.

"...A loaded gun fell from his hand.

"You killed me," the couple recall Richter saying.

Cegon squeezed the trigger again.

"I shot him again to make sure he didn't get up," Cegon said... "

This is where Cegon should have used his 5th amendment rights and not said anything. If he hadn't said that I would guess he would have been fine.

Under the circumstances, I personally wouldn't want to convict Cegon of anything, but I could easily see it going to court.

Eric Cegon, 30,

Erik A. Richter, 35,

Samantha Simons, 21

1) What's her deal with guys named Eric(k)???
2) She's 21, he's 35? can someone say, "Daddy issues?" AND she's got a 2yrold

anyway, man, dude broke through a barricaded bedroom door, crap!!!

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERDS!!!

Nope, he dropped the gun.

A loaded gun fell from his hand.

Deadly force is NOT justified base don what someone "might" do in some future encounter.

Do the words 'immediately necessery" ring a bell?

The guy was shot, laying on the floor, with no weapon. He even had time to speak. Cegon executed him with a coup de grace.

"he needed killin" is not a justification. The criminal justice system is in place for a reason, and our laws are to allow us to defend ourselves. It does not allow us to murder people who are evil, done evil things or might come back and do evil things again.

Were I a DA I would ask for an indictment. I imagine most DA's would follow the law and do the same.

Immediately necessery could be interpreted differently. If he is holding the gun how do you know he dosn't just like to carry it around? If he points it at you how do you know he isn't just trying to scare you, you probably startled him and was his involuntary reaction, it all depends on your opinion...he was alert and speaking, he had a loaded firearm next to him and was intending to kill them with it moments earlier, I don't know who wouldn't see him as a threat, this man broke into someones home and then attempted to kill them...he was going to be in for a long time, he has been shot, he is at gun point, the way I see it he is thinking he has nothing left to lose and could do anything.

If I were on a jury, I would have a hard time convicting this guy (based on what I know... I couldn't open the article).
Richter broke into and entered the residence with a weapon, and had made prior threats. If I were in his shoes, I would be afraid for my life regardless of whether or not he dropped the gun. My fears would have been that he would pick it up again and fire it, were I to quit shooting.

Remember, if someone breaks into your house, you're in survival mode.

What happened to "he aint there for tea." I really liked that one.

casselthief wrote:

Eric Cegon, 30,

Erik A. Richter, 35,

Samantha Simons, 21

1) What's her deal with guys named Eric(k)???
2) She's 21, he's 35? can someone say, "Daddy issues?" AND she's got a 2yrold

anyway, man, dude broke through a barricaded bedroom door, crap!!!

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERDS!!!

Now that you mention it the white trash down the streets name is Eric...they are always drunk...one time he took a leak in my backyard. They sound like the type of people you would see topless, yelling from a trailer park window with a cigarette hangin outta thier mouth and a beer in their hand on COPS.

PS Sometimes they have a beer in each hand.

You're right, LT! He certainly wasn't there for tea & biscuits!

FWIW, I agree with txinvestigator. Based on the guy was on the ground, did not have a firearm in his hand, and by his own admission was seriously wounded, the threat that justified the use of deadly force no longer existed. He had no legal right to fire the additional shot.

The comment by the boyfriend tends to indicate he too knew the immediate threat was over. He stated he didn’t want him to get back up, not that he saw him reaching for his weapon, nothing that indicated a continuing threat to anyone in the room. He basically pulled the trigger without justification in the eyes of the law.

What a jury would do with this is probably open to debate. I know I wouldn’t make a call until I heard a lot more information during the trial. Am I glad the BG is no longer around? If it turns out to be as presented, then yes I’m glad he’s gone.

But that’s not the point. The question is “Did he have a right to shoot the final shot?�. I believe citizens have the right to be their own defenders and to protect others, and that includes deadly force, but not to be executioners. In our systems, that’s reserved for the legal system and what this guy did was execute the BG. I feel it should go to trial…

Venus:

Now lets not jump to conclusions…maybe the new boyfriends nickname was “Tea� and hers was “Biscuit�

I still see a very active threat, if he sits there and states "You killed me." he obviously was completely alert and could ahve very well have been waiting for his chance to grab and shoot. I see a difference between someone who is laying on the ground coughing blood and is barely able to move and someone who is kneeling there talking to you...he was still a threat if that's the way it was and in my eyes the second shot was a necessary precaution...now it depends where he shot him, if he walked up behind him and fired a round straight into the back of his skull I would say it was an execution, if this guy is here talking and is physically able to harm them then another shot in a place that is not a "guaranteed" kill seems to be justified. It all depends on the autopsy.

That there's this much debate is more proof that the less one says to the police (before consulting an attorney) after a defensive gun use, the better.