TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Keith B wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:21 pm

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.

More here: http://www.fox4news.com/news/irving-man ... y-suspects#/

ScottDLS wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:02 pm

Keith B wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:21 pm

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.

More here: http://www.fox4news.com/news/irving-man ... y-suspects#/

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.

Jusme wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:36 pm

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

ScottDLS wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:02 pm

Keith B wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:21 pm

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.

More here: http://www.fox4news.com/news/irving-man ... y-suspects#/

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.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:39 pm

Jusme wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:36 pm

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?

Mike S wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:39 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:39 pm

Jusme wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:36 pm

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).

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:45 pm

Mike S wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:39 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:39 pm

Jusme wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:36 pm

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...

Oldgringo wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:35 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:45 pm

Mike S wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:39 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:39 pm

Jusme wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:36 pm

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?

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