Once Again, Killing Thieves has Consequences

[RCL-09]

How this would work is a defendant would be placed on trial for some degree of murder. He/she would raise the 'affirmative defense' of self-defense or other recognized defense. As the trial goes to the jury, the trial court judge must instruct the jury on the law as well as the defense - that's why jury instructions matter...they are how the jury is to apply the law.

Every state is different - you couldn't shoot someone over property in NM.

The “pure” defense of property, i.e., not including a defense against force and violence, is always limited to reasonable force under the circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Waggoner, 1946-NMSC-001, 49 N.M. 399, 165 P.2d 122; Brown v. Martinez, 1961-NMSC-040, 68 N.M. 271, 361 P.2d 152. In Brown, the Court held that resort to the use of a firearm to prevent a mere trespass or an unlawful act not amounting to a felony was unreasonable as a matter of law.

The person may not be placed on trial. A DA may decide to not press charges. A grand jury may no indict. Thus, at that point jury instructions would not take place.

Now a DA may decide to prosecute for a variety of reasons, not all of them legitimate. how many times have we seen over zealous prosecutors go after someone who has legally/legitimately used force? Remember the prosecution of the person who used a too powerful 10mm?

I absolutely agree that all states are different and I do not know of any other state that has such provisions in their use of force statutes. Thus while the cases you cite have applicability in NM they do not in Texas.

If you do have examples of Texas cases I'd truly like to read them.

 

[Gman686]

Curious about something, Im not looking to start my own thread but when is shooting someone from behind justified? I know, probably a stupid question, but it seems like a total grey area

 

[biku324]

The person may not be placed on trial. A DA may decide to not press charges. A grand jury may no indict. Thus, at that point jury instructions would not take place.

Now a DA may decide to prosecute for a variety of reasons, not all of them legitimate. how many times have we seen over zealous prosecutors go after someone who has legally/legitimately used force? Remember the prosecution of the person who used a too powerful 10mm?

I absolutely agree that all states are different and I do not know of any other state that has such provisions in their use of force statutes. Thus while the cases you cite have applicability in NM they do not in Texas.

If you do have examples of Texas cases I'd truly like to read them.

All of that is true, but depending on the goodwill of an ADA and the forbearance of a grand jury is a pretty shaky strategy.

I suspect if you'll cruise through Texas' uniform jury instructions you'll find more similarities than differences, but truly don't know Texas criminal procedure from binary algebraic problem-solving.

 

[biku324]

Curious about something, Im not looking to start my own thread but when is shooting someone from behind justified? I know, probably a stupid question, but it seems like a total grey area

It depends. I watched a guy get shot in the back of the head - he never knew what hit him BUT he was shouldering a loaded 12 gauge which he pointed at a police officer 30 feet away at the end of a substantial crime spree. Generally, though, if someone is looking elsewhere, it seems reasonable to believe they aren't a deadly threat.

 

[Oldsalt66]

It’s imperative that folks know and understand the self defense laws of their own state as well as those of any states they intend to travel through while armed.

Understand that nothing you tell to the police who respond constitutes evidence that can be used in a court defense, your remarks can, however, be used against you.

If you intend to remain silent, indicate to the police that you are invoking your right to do so and then remain silent until you’ve gotten legal counsel, because simply refusing to speak without invoking your rights will be used against you in court.

You’re exceedingly unlikely to “beat the ride” by speaking to police without an attorney present and police are trained to get you to run your mouth to your great disadvantage.

Don’t turn a legitimate self defense shooting into a criminal offense.

Excellent advice here, and well worth the time to watch:

Don't Talk to the Police - YouTube

 

[glenwolde]

I have read of similar situations here in Texas where the shooter was never even arrested. Maybe there's some details we are unaware of.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Pure speculation, nothing more:

How much longer will the American people continue to accept rampant crime and violence without significant government response?

Rioters burning down blocks of buildings with TV cameras recording and broadcasting the events in real time, while police officers stand aside under orders not to interfere with "protestors".

Court houses and other public buildings besieged by organized gangs of violent thugs, all broadcast to the viewing public, with no consequences.

Mom and Pop businesses repeatedly victimized by criminals having no fear of any response.

Prosecutors dismissing violent felony cases with no explanation other than racial justifications.

How much longer can it be until people start understanding the concept of "Yeah, that one needed to be shot"?

How much longer will it be until calls aren't made to 9-1-1 for crimes in progress, just reports of dead bodies needing removal from neighborhoods?

Speculating, not advocating. Just wondering about tolerance levels among the general public.

By the way, stay off my lawn.

 

[Gman686]

It depends. I watched a guy get shot in the back of the head - he never knew what hit him BUT he was shouldering a loaded 12 gauge which he pointed at a police officer 30 feet away at the end of a substantial crime spree. Generally, though, if someone is looking elsewhere, it seems reasonable to believe they aren't a deadly threat.

Depends. Robbing a store and point a gun in someones face isn't a deadly threat?

 

[vt_shooter]

Massad Ayoob's books "Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense" and "The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide to the Armed Citizen" should be compulsory reading for everyone that carries. When it comes to concealed carrying, knowledge of the law is arguably more important than knowing how to shoot.

 

[Rolex28]

In any court of law is the penalty , if convicted, for stealing anything The Death Penalty??

 

[Jon651]

Unfortunately our laws are way too much in favor of the criminals.

Really?

Just what part of this story favored the criminals? Was it the part where one of them dies over beer? Perhaps it was the part where the store clerk felt justified to shoot into their car while outside of the store as they were driving away?

Here's a critical point: It's pretty obvious the police or DA believes the clerk committed a crime, hence the murder charges. He made the most basic error in judgement - simply having a gun does not mean you can (or should) use it at that moment and under those circumstances. Perhaps it's likely that the surviving thief will also get tagged with murder in the coming days as well for being an accomplice to a crime where someone dies. From what I see, they are all guilty of making bad decisions.

And before anyone gets too frothy, my comment is about the even application of the law and not about what happened. If the second thief also gets tagged for murder then I personally will consider the law to be evenly applied.

 

[Rob613]

Bad decision for sure but...play stupid games, win stupid prizes. That’s one criminal who won’t be stealing anymore beer, good riddance.

 

[Llance]

jon651: "If the second thief also gets tagged for murder then I personally will consider the law to be evenly applied."

No stealing a six pack of beer is not worth the death penalty, however if that beer was some worthless swill like Bud or Miller lite then the thief deserves to die from the swill.

I don't know about the law in that state but I do know in some states if a person dies during the commission of a felony then all persons involved in the situation get charged with the murder be they an accomplice or the killer.

Good thing I'm not on the jury cause as I see it, the killer was wrong for chasing the thief out the door and then shooting him in the car. Standard ruling as as I know it, if the thief gets out the door, wether your home or any other location, they are on free ground and you are no longer defending your life.

 

[S&W629]

As others have mentioned.....
why does the criminal element make criminals out of law abiding citizens?
It does seem the criminals have control of our lives....with little recourse for the law abiding. The legal system does little to protect us from the criminals. How many times do we read of the extensive criminal record ...that keep being left out to prey on the law abiding.
How many looters do we see on "peaceful protests".....how much looting would be prevented if .."looters will be shot on sight!"
how many burglary...would end if tresspassers were shot....when will law abiding citizens have more rights than criminals???

 

[RCL-09]

All of that is true, but depending on the goodwill of an ADA and the forbearance of a grand jury is a pretty shaky strategy.

I suspect if you'll cruise through Texas' uniform jury instructions you'll find more similarities than differences, but truly don't know Texas criminal procedure from binary algebraic problem-solving.

Absolutely, relying on the system doing the right thing is one heck of a gamble.

 

[RCL-09]

It depends. I watched a guy get shot in the back of the head - he never knew what hit him BUT he was shouldering a loaded 12 gauge which he pointed at a police officer 30 feet away at the end of a substantial crime spree. Generally, though, if someone is looking elsewhere, it seems reasonable to believe they aren't a deadly threat.

In the case you cite there was a clear and present threat. As you note, in many such cases that is not so. In most cases such an action would only be justified "in defense of others" but as self defense, very shaky.

There can be justification if one believes (can prove) that the person constitutes a clear threat if they are not stopped, but again, can be very questionable.

 

[moosedog]

Politicians have made it illegal to shoot thieves. Probably protecting their own.

 

[RCL-09]

I have read of similar situations here in Texas where the shooter was never even arrested. Maybe there's some details we are unaware of.

There have been many, many such cases.

In this one we have only very basic information so hard to make any call on it.

 

[RCL-09]

jon651: "If the second thief also gets tagged for murder then I personally will consider the law to be evenly applied."

No stealing a six pack of beer is not worth the death penalty, however if that beer was some worthless swill like Bud or Miller lite then the thief deserves to die from the swill.

I don't know about the law in that state but I do know in some states if a person dies during the commission of a felony then all persons involved in the situation get charged with the murder be they an accomplice or the killer.

Good thing I'm not on the jury cause as I see it, the killer was wrong for chasing the thief out the door and then shooting him in the car. Standard ruling as as I know it, if the thief gets out the door, wether your home or any other location, they are on free ground and you are no longer defending your life.

Good, bad or indifferent the Texas statutes do allow the use of deadly force to protect property.

After all, steeling some 12-packs is not the same as stealing (and thus depriving a person of the ability to make a living) a truck full of tools and equipment.

 

[tripledipper]

Any large store chain, banks, retail establishments in general advise their employees to not offer any resistance. Even the various versions of the Castle Doctrine suggest that if the intruder is not threatening your life you should not shoot them. The old saying was if you are going to use your gun make sure you kill the person because of the consequences if they survive. In the current environment even law enforcement is hesitant about using a firearm.