TexasCHLforum.com

I got $20 bucks on the dead robbers being illegal aliens!

stevie_d_64 wrote:I could say something about the dispatcher/communications specialist, but I choose not to...

What can you say? She is doing and saying what she is certified and trained to do in her position, once she is on the clock. In her position, she can't say her personal feelings, otherwise you will be paying her bills.

hkmp5s wrote:I got $20 bucks on the dead robbers being illegal aliens!

The names of the two burglary suspects were not released Wednesday evening. The two men had documentation on them from Puerto Rico, Colombia and the Dominican Republic, police said.

Documentation from three different countries???

Lucky45 wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:I could say something about the dispatcher/communications specialist, but I choose not to...

What can you say? She is doing and saying what she is certified and trained to do in her position, once she is on the clock. In her position, she can't say her personal feelings, otherwise you will be paying her bills.

Exactly...

You could cut the irony with a machete...

"Be careful sir! Police units are on the way."

I guess that would be wishful thinking, right?

stevie_d_64 wrote:Exactly...
You could cut the irony with a machete...

It is not so much about irony, but that MIGHT turn out to be a critical part of the case. Because it could be considered to be reckless if he was aware and "warned" about a potential risk, and then he consciously disregarded that advice.

Couple of thoughts...

The narrative of the 911 tape says the dispatcher told him to stay put, then we hear the shotgun racking, then two shots. No mention is made of any warning or challenge or anything else being said by the man. Later down, the police captain says the man told the burglars to stop. I wonder if that 's supported by the tape.

Second, whether or not the burglars were illegal aliens, and whether or not they have long criminal histories, is irrelevant. The man had no way of knowing those things, and even if he had known doesn't bear on the shooting being justifiable or not.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:Like many here, I will be interested to learn the outcome of this.

I think the fact that he's 70-years-old works in his favor.

Not to be critical at all...But what if he was 43???

Just for the sake of stirring the pot...

I just want to know if it had been me, would I be cast in a different light perhaps...Honestly I want to know...

You bring up an interesting point, and perhaps a caution to some of the younger folks. When something like this goes to a Grand Jury, or a trial Jury demeanor, age, even race come into play. Its not supposed to, but we all know it can. If this guy happens to get no-billed it, doesn't mean that a 20 year old would get away with it.

The real question is:

If you were sitting on his grand jury...Would YOU indict him?

Gotta have all 12 agree or he is free

NO I would not. I would write him an apology for him even being brought to court having to take time and money out of his life.


BTW, from what I saw on FOX news yesterday, it seems as though this happened during the "daytime" and not the "nighttime" which is when, as the law is written, is a requirement for being legally able to shoot some thief

Molon_labe wrote:Gotta have all 12 agree or he is free

If the grand jury does not return a true bill, the DA can take the case to the next grand jury that is seated.

- Jim

Doug.38PR wrote:NO I would not. I would write him an apology for him even being brought to court having to take time and money out of his life.


BTW, from what I saw on FOX news yesterday, it seems as though this happened during the "daytime" and not the "nighttime" which is when, as the law is written, is a requirement for being legally able to shoot some thief

No, deadly force in response to a theft is retricted to the nighttime. DF to stop a BURGLARY is not so restricted.

As far as age goes, I think that may not apply, here.
There is, however, a disparity of force, due to there being TWO burglars and ONE civillian. that's a two/one disparity, and I think that should be considered moreso than if he was 79, 43, or 21.
Even a 21yo up against two burglars is facing an uphill battle, especially knowing that (from things I have read, at least) burglars tend to be drugged/druggies.
IMO, the man should have taken the phone with him (cell phones are useful in this manner) and maybe that would have backed him up. I have not heard the tape, so I don't know what was said specifically.
He may have racked the shotgun before leaving the house and/or phone, but the report would definitely be heard from inside the house.

just my opinion.

No, deadly force in response to a theft is retricted to the nighttime. DF to stop a BURGLARY is not so restricted.

Exactly. So Doesn't that alone give the DA legal grounds to go after him?

I think this man is safe from a jury in TX. Most of us would want a neighbor to do the same for us. He would walk if I were on the jury.

Doug.38PR wrote:

No, deadly force in response to a theft is retricted to the nighttime. DF to stop a BURGLARY is not so restricted.

Exactly. So Doesn't that alone give the DA legal grounds to go after him?

Uhh, I am pretty sure he was stopping a burglary, no?