TexasCHLforum.com

Wow.

He seems to have no problem with having shot someone in the back who was no longer in his home but in an alley and not presenting a threat. You may not have a duty to retreat in your home but you have no right or reason to advance the fight outside of it if the other party breaks contact. Not only were they fleeing but he admits that they were unarmed so once they were out of the house and in the alley what threat do they pose to a man with a firearm? His statements honestly make me sick to my stomach.

Lock up the boyfriend or give him the needle.

If we want to point fingers at anyone other than this low budget Bonnie and Clyde who brought this on themselves, let's start with the California officials who helped these criminals prey on the elderly.

Autopsy says she was not pregnant

unicorn rancher in response to your post I live in Texas... Read the texas law on defense of property

also pay particular attention to 3B in Texas PC 9:42

Lots of folks think shooting a fleeimg perp is fine , if they do then they need some Ignorant or sympathetic

jurors or quite possibly A DA who can look away.

Opinon: Deadly force should only be used to STOP Deadly force

read PC 9:32 and and it lists the actions or circumstances

Goodnight

o b juan wrote:unicorn rancher in response to your post I live in Texas... Read the texas law on defense of property

also pay particular attention to 3B in Texas PC 9:42

Lots of folks think shooting a fleeimg perp is fine , if they do then they need some Ignorant or sympathetic

jurors or quite possibly A DA who can look away.

Opinon: Deadly force should only be used to STOP Deadly force

read PC 9:32 and and it lists the actions or circumstances

Goodnight

Not an expert but 9.42 2B. If I interpret this correctly since this was a night time theft, the use of deadly force would be legal with followup to 9.42.3A. Not suggesting that this was a smart thing to do but legal ( in Texas?). Again, I am not a legal expert but I believe that in Texas he would be legal using deadly force.

CoffeeNut wrote:Autopsy says she was not pregnant

Maybe since she's not pregnant the media will back off this story. It's no longer juicy enough for them. Just another piece of trash killed doing a crime. The victim may still have problems, but killing an unborn baby won't be one of them.

DubiousDan wrote:

rotor wrote:

o b juan wrote:unicorn rancher in response to your post I live in Texas... Read the texas law on defense of property

also pay particular attention to 3B in Texas PC 9:42

Lots of folks think shooting a fleeimg perp is fine , if they do then they need some Ignorant or sympathetic

jurors or quite possibly A DA who can look away.

Opinon: Deadly force should only be used to STOP Deadly force

read PC 9:32 and and it lists the actions or circumstances

Goodnight

Not an expert but 9.42 2B. If I interpret this correctly since this was a night time theft, the use of deadly force would be legal with followup to 9.42.3A. Not suggesting that this was a smart thing to do but legal ( in Texas?). Again, I am not a legal expert but I believe that in Texas he would be legal using deadly force.

If I understand correctly what the man said in the interview the male BG took money from his safe and if they were fleeing with it that would change things if the incident took place in Texas.

You could shoot someone like this and not face charges but you still need to keep your mouth shut. Several different laws could justify the shooting of the women but he wasn't making claims to have shot to try to reclaim his property, he is saying he shot because they robbed him. That isn't legal in Texas either. Mind you I don't think many Grand Juries would indite but still.....

CoffeeNut wrote:Autopsy says she was not pregnant

That is a common ploy of females when they are cornered to try and get sympathy from the person. I had a drunk one try to pull that card after fighting with both myself and a female officer. When I took her out of the station to transport her to the county jail she fell on the ground refusing to go. When I pulled out my CS canister to spray her she said 'Don't mace me, I'm pregnant'. Needless to say it didn't work and she ended up with a face full of CS and jail time.

EEllis wrote: You could shoot someone like this and not face charges but you still need to keep your mouth shut. Several different laws could justify the shooting of the women but he wasn't making claims to have shot to try to reclaim his property, he is saying he shot because they robbed him. That isn't legal in Texas either. Mind you I don't think many Grand Juries would indite but still.....

A very wise man I know states in his Use of Deadly Force seminars 'Don't let your mouth ruin a good shoot.' Sometimes just the way you say something can be detrimental to your case by being perceived as premeditated vs. defensive by the police, DA or Grand Jury.

MechAg94 wrote:I don't think most of us would shoot a fleeing robber, but that is more a result of having the legal consequences repeated over and over. If there were no laws or lawsuits, where would you draw the line?

I would hope the reason to not shoot is based on knowing the difference between what's "right" and what's "wrong". The provisions of law are not always what determines "right" from "wrong". There is a moral element that you appear to discount as a reasonable path when making such a hard choice.

There is no line to be drawn. Absolutes are frequently counterproductive because they fail to account for variable change.
The ability to choose is most definitely a positive aspect to any encounter. It what allows us to de-escalate an encounter rather than taking the path of least resistance with the result being a deadly shooting.

Just my $0.02.

LabRat

This guy would not be charged. The intruders were violent and attacked the homeowner. They even stole a pistol from his house.

Based on what the papers have printed, which is always questionable, my sympathy is with the shooter. When they break into your home, steal your stuff, attack you and try to kill you, they deserve whatever happens to them. The law out in Californiastan may say different, but if I was on the jury it would be an easy not guilty vote for me.