9-year-old girl struck by bullet in truck dies, suspect says he was chasing robber

[Elixir]

I can’t believe Derec wants the Wild West show he’s arguing for.
There’s dumb ideas, and then there’s Just Plain dumb ideas. Whatever category comes after that, legalizing the summary execution of a fleeing mugger would fall into it.

 

[Derec]

I can’t believe Derec wants the Wild West show he’s arguing for.
There’s dumb ideas, and then there’s Just Plain dumb ideas. Whatever category comes after that, legalizing the summary execution of a fleeing mugger would fall into it.

I did not say I want that, I merely explained what the Texas law is.
In fact, I explicitly said the Texas law goes too far.

Wait, you do not think that people should have a right to even protect their own homes from invaders? What is wrong with you? I think the Texas law goes a bit too far in the one direction, but you are definitely going too far in the other.

Must be that trademark Elixirian reading comprehension striking again.

 

[Derec]

So what would have happened if he had killed the guy who robbed him?
Would he have gotten his money back right away?
Nope. The money would have been evidence and would have been tied up in court proceedings for months, maybe forever.

I do not know how long exactly it would take to get your money back in Texas. Do you?
The odds of recovery are much better than when the robber gets away though.
Again (for Elixir) I am not advocating for the Texas law, just saying that it is not irrational to want to stop a robber.

I get being really pissed at someone who just robbed you or for whatever awful thing they just did. I honestly do. But unless someone is assaulting you or another person or torturing an animal, or burning a building with people in it—what is gained by killing then?

You recover your property and the robber can't rob ever again if dead and if apprehended he or she can't rob for a while.

Only an idiot shoots to wound. Even skilled marksmen miss sometimes, especially in stressful situations. Do you know what it does to normal people to kill someone? It’s not something you get over, even if 100% justified.

You shoot to stop. Sometimes it's lethal, sometimes not. I do not shed one tear for dead armed robbers, although I understand it is psychologically difficult for most people to have that on their conscience, even if it is a legal shooting and the robber was a bad guy.

If someone breaks into your home, you call the police as soon as you are able. You let them take whatever it is that they want.

If somebody breaks into your home, you defend yourself and then call the police. Sometimes "whatever it is that they want" is to hurt you or your family.

Stuff can be replaced. People cannot be. There is no taking back killing someone.

Goes for the homeowner and his or her family too. Their lives take precedence over that of a home invader.
While I think the Texas law goes too far, the Castle Doctrine laws definitely do not.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Now how many times have you asked to borrow a pen and absentmindedly walked away with it. Well, Texas has got a solution.

But seriously folks, deadly force should be authorized when there is a threat to life, not to recover stolen property. With a home invasion or carjacking with occupants, that threat to life can be assumed. And no, your fucking cat doesn’t count.

When the law empowers untrained civilians to use deadly force pretty much at will, this is the result. We are all less safe.

This is an irresponsible law. It was written to keep the hee-haws coming back to the polls.

Texas legislators killed this little girl. They are the threat.

 

[Elixir]

I merely explained what the Texas law is.

You did?
I think you pulled "Texas law" out of your ass. You "explained" the Derecist misapprehension of what is actually written in Texas law.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.41 explains that a person is allowed to use force, but not deadly force, to terminate a mere trespass or interference with property.

It doesn't say that you can take lethal punitive action against a fleeing person who is no longer a threat to you or your property, if they did a bad thing to you or your property just prior to your retaliation.
Now that you know that it's so much kinder than you thought, are you still opposed to "Texas law" Derec?
Not that it matters ... just curious.

 

[Toni]

So what would have happened if he had killed the guy who robbed him?
Would he have gotten his money back right away?
Nope. The money would have been evidence and would have been tied up in court proceedings for months, maybe forever.

I do not know how long exactly it would take to get your money back in Texas. Do you?
The odds of recovery are much better than when the robber gets away though.
Again (for Elixir) I am not advocating for the Texas law, just saying that it is not irrational to want to stop a robber.

I get being really pissed at someone who just robbed you or for whatever awful thing they just did. I honestly do. But unless someone is assaulting you or another person or torturing an animal, or burning a building with people in it—what is gained by killing then?

You recover your property and the robber can't rob ever again if dead and if apprehended he or she can't rob for a while.

Only an idiot shoots to wound. Even skilled marksmen miss sometimes, especially in stressful situations. Do you know what it does to normal people to kill someone? It’s not something you get over, even if 100% justified.

You shoot to stop. Sometimes it's lethal, sometimes not. I do not shed one tear for dead armed robbers, although I understand it is psychologically difficult for most people to have that on their conscience, even if it is a legal shooting and the robber was a bad guy.

If someone breaks into your home, you call the police as soon as you are able. You let them take whatever it is that they want.

If somebody breaks into your home, you defend yourself and then call the police. Sometimes "whatever it is that they want" is to hurt you or your family.

Stuff can be replaced. People cannot be. There is no taking back killing someone.

Goes for the homeowner and his or her family too. Their lives take precedence over that of a home invader.
While I think the Texas law goes too far, the Castle Doctrine laws definitely do not.

Please note that I have not suggested that one not defend themselves or their family (or even a stranger) if there is significant threat to their life.

Only an idiot or someone making a movie thinks that firing a gun at someone is a legitimate way to make them stop running away --without killing them. Sure, most people are not good enough shots to hit a fleeing target, even in TX. Even fewer people are good enough to intentionally differentiate between killing and wounding. It's a LOT more likely that an unintended target might be hit and injured or killed. Say, a 9 year old girl.

 

[Elixir]

Only an idiot or someone making a movie thinks that firing a gun at someone is a legitimate way to make them stop running away...

Texas can provide all the idiots you want. And if Derec is right, they can pretend to be in a movie and basically fire away at will - not only at any perceived or real threat to life or property, but also to get even with anyone you can get in your sights that you figger done ya wrong..

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You shoot to stop. Sometimes it's lethal, sometimes not. I do not shed one tear for dead armed robbers, although I understand it is psychologically difficult for most people to have that on their conscience, even if it is a legal shooting and the robber was a bad guy.

One actually shoots to kill. The funny part is that this situation is the exact proof as to why wild vigilante style justice is very dangerous for the community. A kid died because another person thought they had the right to kill a robber. And let's not minimize what it is like to have a 9 year old child die.

If someone breaks into your home, you call the police as soon as you are able. You let them take whatever it is that they want.

If somebody breaks into your home, you defend yourself and then call the police. Sometimes "whatever it is that they want" is to hurt you or your family.

In most cases they just want to steal stuff. Back in college, during the summer, right before the semester started, so I was back in my first floor dorm room, I caught a person in my room. Having figured out quickly he was trying to steal stuff (like my broken VCR), my one and only concern was getting him out... and then me informing security. Does he have a gun, a knife, is he unstable? I sure the fuck wasn't going to escalate a situation that I could more easily walk away from.

Stuff can be replaced. People cannot be. There is no taking back killing someone.

Goes for the homeowner and his or her family too. Their lives take precedence over that of a home invader.

Except one minor thing, when you escalate, you darn well be capable of finishing it quickly. Because if the robber thinks their health is in danger, that family of yours which wasn't ever in danger now could be getting introduced to random bullets flying in the house or you could be getting into a knife fight.

While I think the Texas law goes too far, the Castle Doctrine laws definitely do not.

Prioritizing the safety of one's family is quite natural. Assuming that escalating to deadly violence quickly is helping to ensure the safety of one's family is haphazard.

 

[atrib]

Had Mr. Earls shot the right guy, he'd most likely have been fine, legally speaking.

Not if the person had been running away, and posed no immediate threat to the victim of the robbery. Shooting a person who is running away from you is a crime in pretty much every state, irrespective of the events that might have transpired immediately prior, or where it had occurred (in the victim's home or in a public place). Except if you are the police - then it is apparently OK.

 

[atrib]

That's beside the point. Judicial punishment is about suspects who have been caught and arrested. This is about shooting somebody during, or right after, commission of a violent felony. By the way, Texas gives robbery and nighttime theft victims the right to use deadly force even as the robbers/thieves are fleeing with stolen property.
Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ;  and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Had Mr. Earls shot the right guy, he'd most likely have been fine, legally speaking.

And what does Section 9.41 say? The statute is basically a statement of the Castle Doctrine, and applies when the robbery occurs on the property of the (robbery) victim. Which was not the case here, because they were NOT on Mr Earl's property when this robbery took place.

 

[Elixir]

The statute is basically a statement of the Castle Doctrine, and applies when the robbery occurs on the property of the (robbery) victim. Which was not the case here, because they were NOT on Mr Earl's property when this robbery took place.

Meh. Minor details.
Nobody in their right mind expects any freedum-luvin Texan to know about - let alone obey - the find print nuances of legalese.
Certainly not Derec.

Here's a comment from an ACTUAL Texan, Judith Glover, reflecting the general understanding of "the law" that prevails among the Texas citizenry:

"There are two sacred rules that all Texas children are taught. 1). If you shoot a stranger who is clearly up to no good in your yard, drag the body at least halfway inside your house. 2). If you are somehow caught with a gun in your purse, be sure to say you are traveling across a couple of counties for personal reasons. Now that the open carry rules are in effect, rule #2 may not apply. But it doesn’t hurt to mention it either."

Good kids know these things.

 

[Gospel]

I was robbed at gunpoint at an ATM nearing 20 years ago & I tell you what, there is absolutely nothing you can do when they got the jump on you. Self-defense efforts are basically out the door and he took off with both my wallet and cash. Everything in the wallet was replaceable and after providing my bank with a police report and receipt they actually credited the withdrawal back to my account. I don't see why shooting at a fleeing suspect was a good idea as the threat was over at that time. Earls being stupid enough to fire at innocent bystanders just puts the icing on the cake in my opinion. He should be in jail.

 

[Tigers!]

There are two issues at stake
1. Stupid people with guns who should not have them.
2. Let's not forget this started with a robbery. If the wicked fool who started this tragic and preventable domino of events had not pushed that first domino we would not be discussing this.

Will the robber be also charged with some sort of offense about the girl's death too? If not why not? He started it all.

 

[Toni]

I’m pretty sure he did not foresee his victim being armed and giving chase, firing a weapon.

 

[Tigers!]

I’m pretty sure he did not foresee his victim being armed and giving chase, firing a weapon.

He is still a stupid fool.
Yet he bears some responsibility for the child's death. He started the dominoes.

 

[Derec]

Now how many times have you asked to borrow a pen and absentmindedly walked away with it. Well, Texas has got a solution.
But seriously folks, deadly force should be authorized when there is a threat to life, not to recover stolen property.

I agree that the Texas law goes too far, but it certainly would not apply in the "borrowed pen" case.

With a home invasion or carjacking with occupants, that threat to life can be assumed. And no, your fucking cat doesn’t count.

A cat? Probably not. But a dog would certainly count.

Texas legislators killed this little girl. They are the threat.

The shooter killed that little girl. He should be charged with manslaughter. The robber is also responsible. He should be charged with armed robbery and felony murder.
The legislature should amend the law.

 

[Derec]

You did?

I did. I also posted the actual text of the law.

I think you pulled "Texas law" out of your ass.

If "ass" is Elixirist for Findlaw website ...

Texas Penal Code Section 9.41 explains that a person is allowed to use force, but not deadly force, to terminate a mere trespass or interference with property.

And there is also §9.42 which explains when a person is allowed to use deadly force, including to prevent robbers and nighttime thieves from fleeing with stolen property.

It doesn't say that you can take lethal punitive action against a fleeing person who is no longer a threat to you or your property, if they did a bad thing to you or your property just prior to your retaliation.

Not punitive action, just action to recover stolen property. If they drop your stuff while fleeing, you are not allowed to shoot them.

Now that you know that it's so much kinder than you thought, are you still opposed to "Texas law" Derec?

I know no such thing, since I do not suffer from Elixirian lack of reading comprehension.

 

[Derec]

Please note that I have not suggested that one not defend themselves or their family (or even a stranger) if there is significant threat to their life.

With a home invasion, a threat to life should be assumed.

Only an idiot or someone making a movie thinks that firing a gun at someone is a legitimate way to make them stop running away --without killing them.

Surely, killing them is something that is accepted as a real possibility when you shoot at somebody. It's not shoot to wound, it's shoot to stop, even if you kill them.

 

[TomC]

I’m pretty sure he did not foresee his victim being armed and giving chase, firing a weapon.

He is still a stupid fool.
Yet he bears some responsibility for the child's death. He started the dominoes.

This^^^

There's plenty of blame to spread around here. And it's not a zero sum game.
The dufous with a gun shot the child. But that wouldn't have happened had the robber not chosen what s/he did.
The robber is most culpable IMHO.

Dufous with a poor grasp of his abilities while shooting is also hugely responsible.
It's not a zero sum game.
Tom

 

[Derec]

One actually shoots to kill.

Wrong. You shoot to stop the threat or (in TX) to stop a robber/nighttime thief from fleeing with your stuff. If they die, they die, but you are not allowed to just execute them either.
Stuff like this is not allowed for example.
 Murders of Haile Kifer and Nicholas Brady

The funny part is that this situation is the exact proof as to why wild vigilante style justice is very dangerous for the community. A kid died because another person thought they had the right to kill a robber.

During the robbery you have the right to kill the robber pretty much everywhere in the US. Fleeing robbers are a Texas specialty though.

And let's not minimize what it is like to have a 9 year old child die.

It's horrible for the parents. Nobody is minimizing that.

In most cases they just want to steal stuff.

Doesn't matter. If they break into an occupied dwelling, they are a threat per se.

Except one minor thing, when you escalate, you darn well be capable of finishing it quickly. Because if the robber thinks their health is in danger, that family of yours which wasn't ever in danger now could be getting introduced to random bullets flying in the house or you could be getting into a knife fight.

True. Upthread I posted an article about a victim shooting a carjacker in Philadelphia. Well, that was one of three carjackings in Philadelphia that day, and during one of them the victim produced a firearm, but did not shoot the perps and got shot himself.

Prioritizing the safety of one's family is quite natural. Assuming that escalating to deadly violence quickly is helping to ensure the safety of one's family is haphazard.

If people invade your home, you should assume they are a threat and treat them accordingly.