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

[Derec]

Not if the person had been running away, and posed no immediate threat to the victim of the robbery.

In most states, not in Texas.

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 Texas.

Except if you are the police - then it is apparently OK.

Tennessee vs. Garner. Police can't shoot every felony suspect. There has to be a level of threat to police or to the public. Like a perp fleeing with a gun. It is reasonable to assume the perp will either use it against police or bystanders to effect his escape.

 

[Toni]

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.

No. Only an idiot does not shoot to kill. Only a coward pretends to themselves it’s only ‘to stop.’

Three different times, close family members in different households, at different times, were victims of armed home robberies. Two were at their farm houses—very modest homes. No one was injured, although my uncle was shot at with his own gun. One family member was rescued by a SWAT team. In that robbery, nothing was taken (rescue by SWAT team plus they were old people who didn’t keep much cash or easily owned goods in the house). Otherwise, it was cash in the house—not much. And…my uncle’s hunting guns, which was why he was being robbed.

 

[Toni]

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

The girl also would not be dead if the guy who thought he was a hot shot sharpshooter had left his gun at home. Bonus: he would only be out the cash stolen.

If we are all going to walk around with guns, why bother with police, prisons, courts?

Let’s just all pretend it’s the wild wild west that never really existed. We can also get rid of antibiotics, and indoor plumbing.

 

[Derec]

And what does Section 9.41 say?

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor;  or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Nothing there about the robbery/theft and the shooting having to occur on the victim's property.

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.

It is not simply the Castle Doctrine. Texas law is more permissive than most. See also this.
When You Can Kill in Texas

It explains that the laws in Texas are more permissive than mere Castle Doctrine as well as laws in most if not all other states.

 

[Derec]

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.

Atrib is wrong about Texas law being simply Castle Doctrine.

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

Who is she? Whitepages lists 7 Judith Glovers in Texas. Which one are you talking about and why should we listen to her?

 

[Derec]

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.

Depends on your skills and theirs. It is risky, but there have been cases of perps holding somebody at gunpoint and the victim still being able to shoot them.

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.

Did the police catch the perp though?

Earls being stupid enough to fire at innocent bystanders just puts the icing on the cake in my opinion. He should be in jail.

Yes he was and yes he should be.

 

[Derec]

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

Poor robber not foreseeing the consequences of his actions.

 

[Derec]

No. Only an idiot does not shoot to kill. Only a coward pretends to themselves it’s only ‘to stop.’

Wrong. Shooting to stop carries a decent chance of killing the target, but that does not mean the aim is to kill. It's to stop.

Three different times, close family members in different households, at different times, were victims of armed home robberies.

Do you think your family members would have been justified using deadly force against the home invaders?

 

[Toni]

No. Only an idiot does not shoot to kill. Only a coward pretends to themselves it’s only ‘to stop.’

Wrong. Shooting to stop carries a decent chance of killing the target, but that does not mean the aim is to kill. It's to stop.

Three different times, close family members in different households, at different times, were victims of armed home robberies.

Do you think your family members would have been justified using deadly force against the home invaders?

Only a delusional coward doesn’t admit what ‘stop’ means. If you have the guts to shoot at someone, you need to have the guts to admit that. You’re responsible for whatever your bullet strikes.

I know I would feel differently if any of my family were physically harmed as a result of these armed home invasions but: the only time a weapon was fired is when my uncle tried to grab his gun. My uncle was not yet 50, was an extremely accurate shot, had handled guns all his life, was very physically fit and strong. He almost lost his life and my aunt likely would have been killed as well but the thieves were not good shots—or not truly intent on harming anyone.

Now, if anyone had actually harmed any of those family members, or had made the first move to do so, not merely threaten if they didn’t comply—I’m sure that I would feel differently.

I’m actually really impressed by the courage and the intelligence and resourcefulness each of these family members showed. No one was hurt. The only one who almost was hurt was the one who tried to grab his gun. To me, that’s an extremely powerful lesson.

I have no idea if anyone here has been in the circumstance where they know that they killed someone, however justifiably. People here are typing words about how of course it’s justified! As though this were some stupid video game or gangster movie.

As it happens, two of my cousins were snipers in Viet Nam. I will never, ever forget the look in my cousin’s eyes when they asked him how many he killed. Never. The other cousin? He spent the next 40 years or so trying to drunk himself to death, found Jesus and died early. They were in a war, doing the job they were told was their duty to do. It did not change them for the better.

I don’t want to give the impression that I am all zen and would never dream of harming anyone. That’s definitely not the case. I’ve fought off unarmed attackers and I am definitely capable of doing very serious damage if the circumstance called for it.

But not over money or anything—or everything I own. Hurt someone I care about and I will stop that. Hurt a stranger? Yeah, I’ll stop that as well. I’d much prefer to call the police but if necessary, I’ll stop things myself.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Poor robber not foreseeing the consequences of his actions.

Whether or not the robber foresaw his victim acting like a vigiliante and shooting a child by mistake is irrelevant.

No one forced this man to fire at the wrong target. No one. He had no business shooting anyone. It was wrong. And if Texas law allow people to shoot someone who stole their money, that law is fucked up.

 

[Toni]

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

Poor robber not foreseeing the consequences of his actions.

You think I was expressing any sympathy for the robber?

Nope. I just refuse to let the shooter off the hook even a tiny bit.

 

[laughing dog]

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^^^

Why stop there? Clearly his parents bear some responsibility for bringing him into the world and bringing up to think it is okay to shoot at people over money.

 

[Derec]

No one forced this man to fire at the wrong target.

No one forced the robber to rob the guy either. Why should he get a pass for the death caused by his choice to rob?

 

[Derec]

Why stop there? Clearly his parents bear some responsibility for bringing him into the world and bringing up to think it is okay to shoot at people over money.

It's called felony murder because it requires an underlying felony. What felony are the parents guilty of?

 

[Derec]

You think I was expressing any sympathy for the robber?

That's what it looked like.

Nope. I just refuse to let the shooter off the hook even a tiny bit.

Plenty of room on that hook for both of them.

 

[Toni]

What is the worst thing that could have happened if the guy had not fired at the man who robbed him?

The guy gets away? Well that happened.

A 9 year old lives? Too bad that didn’t.

 

[Toni]

You think I was expressing any sympathy for the robber?

That's what it looked like.

Nope. I just refuse to let the shooter off the hook even a tiny bit.

Plenty of room on that hook for both of them.

Because I don’t think that people should be shot for robbing someone? Or because someone shoots at you while you are running away that it’s your fault if they miss?

It really would be different if the robber were firing a weapon or beating an old lady or stealing a toddler or doing something that would predictably put someone in danger. But that’s not what happened.

 

[laughing dog]

No one forced this man to fire at the wrong target.

No one forced the robber to rob the guy either. Why should he get a pass for the death caused by his choice to rob?

The death was not caused by his choice to rob. It was caused by the choice of the shooter.

Why stop there? Clearly his parents bear some responsibility for bringing him into the world and bringing up to think it is okay to shoot at people over money.

It's called felony murder because it requires an underlying felony. What felony are the parents guilty of?

Try reading my response in context before you respond.

My point was that one can always extend the link of "responsibility" (which is not a legal point).

 

[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.

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.

Point being 9.41 & 9.42 have no business being on the books as written. The “movable property” part is especially reckless. This authorizes armed untrained civilians to use deadly force in public. Legislators know/knew/should have known this.

I cringe to think how Texas might define “reasonable”.

 

[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.

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

The girl also would not be dead if the guy who thought he was a hot shot sharpshooter had left his gun at home. Bonus: he would only be out the cash stolen.

If we are all going to walk around with guns, why bother with police, prisons, courts?

Let’s just all pretend it’s the wild wild west that never really existed. We can also get rid of antibiotics, and indoor plumbing.

I'd like a world where fools did not carry guns.
I'd also like a world where I could go to an ATM and not wonder if I would be robbed.