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

[Gospel]

Did the police catch the perp though?

I'd like to think they did at some point over another robbery or whatever other crap the guy was doing but as far as the detective that was on my case, nope.

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.

I suppose you're right. I didn't see any openings nor did I think what he was stealing was worth it ($100, State ID, and A debit card). I'd get my money back anyway and I canceled my card first before contacting the police (as I knew that was going to be a long call).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Not certain why you felt the need to repeat everything you already said. We get it, you are a tough guy and wouldn't have a problem killing another person.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The girl is dead, not the robber... and the robber didn't kill her. I don't think the girl's family will take any solace in the fact that the guy was trying to kill a bad guy instead.

 

[Elixir]

, including to prevent robbers and nighttime thieves from fleeing with stolen property

FAIL
Fleeing YOUR Property.
This was already explained to you Derec.
Reading comprehension problem or intentional disregard for facts?
Readers’ choice…

 

[Gun Nut]

WTF is wrong with us as a nation? Why do we think we are all entitled to play cops and robbers on public streets or even in our own homes??????

Apparently, with the $74M settlement from Remington to the families of Sandy Point tells us, the way guns are advertised for sale by the manufactures plays a big part in that.
As far as "playing cops and robbers... in our own homes"... I fully support the notion that one is the "King or Queen or otherwise non-descript Royalty" of their own property and can issue death sentences on those committing certain crimes therein, at their own discretion, and in accordance with their local and state laws.

I absolutely do not agree. Unless my life or the life of another person is at risk or unless they are in imminent danger of being harmed, I do NOT have the right to discharge a firearm in an attempt to kill them. And neither do you.

That depends on what you mean by "the right to discharge..."
Is it legal (have the legal right) - yes
Is it moral (are right to do it) - no

I agree with you.

Best said by one of my firearms safety instructors to a student's question: "If you are the kind of person that will kill someone over a TV, then get the fuck out of my class".

 

[Gun Nut]

Is a fleeing mugger a "legal and justifiable target" in Texas?

If certain conditions are met, such as possibly^* nighttime, and no other reasonable way to recover property etc., then the answer is yes.

^* I am not a lawyer, but it seems that the provision of the Texas code applies to robberies and aggravated robberies at anytime, while it only applies to thefts during the nighttime. But I could be mistaken. Relevant Texas statute is quoted upthread.

I believe this provision only applies if you are located on your own property and the perp is still on your property... once they flee from your property (or if it occurs on someone else's property) deadly force is not legal.

 

[Elixir]

Is a fleeing mugger a "legal and justifiable target" in Texas?

If certain conditions are met, such as possibly^* nighttime, and no other reasonable way to recover property etc., then the answer is yes.

^* I am not a lawyer, but it seems that the provision of the Texas code applies to robberies and aggravated robberies at anytime, while it only applies to thefts during the nighttime. But I could be mistaken. Relevant Texas statute is quoted upthread.

I believe this provision only applies if you are located on your own property and the perp is still on your property... once they flee from your property (or if it occurs on someone else's property) deadly force is not legal.

Yes, and that will have been at least the third time it was explained to tough guy Derec. Doesn’t wanna hear it, apparently. The “right” to blast away any time you feel you “been done wrong” is sacrosanct to lawnorder snowflakes.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

No, you shoot to kill. Everytime.
A gun is a deadly weapon. If the target does not *need* to be destroyed, then it shall not be shot at. Period. Suggesting (in a court of law) that you did not intend to kill someone while using a deadly weapon is essentially equivalent to pleading guilty to at least attempted murder.
The moment you pull a trigger is the moment you have committed yourself to ending the existence of the thing you are pointing at.

 

[Gun Nut]

Is a fleeing mugger a "legal and justifiable target" in Texas?

If certain conditions are met, such as possibly^* nighttime, and no other reasonable way to recover property etc., then the answer is yes.

^* I am not a lawyer, but it seems that the provision of the Texas code applies to robberies and aggravated robberies at anytime, while it only applies to thefts during the nighttime. But I could be mistaken. Relevant Texas statute is quoted upthread.

I believe this provision only applies if you are located on your own property and the perp is still on your property... once they flee from your property (or if it occurs on someone else's property) deadly force is not legal.

Yes, and that will have been at least the third time it was explained to tough guy Derec. Doesn’t wanna hear it, apparently. The “right” to blast away any time you feel you “been done wrong” is sacrosanct to lawnorder snowflakes.

You're right. There are three ways to look at "this" (whatever "this" happens to be):

Is it Legal? Would this be breaking the law?
Is it Prudent? Is this the right place, right time, right people for this?
Is it Moral? Does this live up to the spirit of practicing good ethical behavior?

I observe the members of one political party asking only the first question, and only in terms of their ability to "get away with it".

 

[Derec]

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?

The second. The shooter is at fault. But so is the robber. Manslaughter for the shooter, felony murder for the robber.

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.

Armed robbery is still a violent felony and the reason why the shooting happened.
As far as this being foreseeable by the robber, no this particular set of events wasn't foreseeable. However, when you go around robbing people with a gun it is certainly foreseeable that people might get hurt or killed, including innocent bystanders.

 

[Derec]

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?

Innocent bystanders getting hurt or killed is an entirely foreseeable consequence of deciding to go around robbing people at gunpoint.

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

Whether to charge the robber with felony murder is a legal point. And even morally there is no comparison between the moral culpability of the robber and your attempts to morally blame the parents.
If you are trying to make some silly causal chain point, that is trivially true in that we can go all the way back to the big bang, but that is irrelevant both legally and morally.

 

[Elixir]

felony murder for the robber.

Sick.
Do we plant his fingerprints on the murder weapon?

As GN points out “ No, you shoot to kill. Everytime.
A gun is a deadly weapon. If the target does not *need* to be destroyed, then it shall not be shot at. ”

Life isn’t a trick shooting demonstration Derec. Intent to kill is implicit when you pull the trigger. Not when you’re running away with someone else’s hundred bucks.

 

[Derec]

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 don't disagree with that point.
My point was about what the law is, not what it ought to be. Some on here (like Elixir) are still vehemently insisting that the Texas law does not say what it does.

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

Ultimately it's up to prosecutors, judges and juries. And they may disagree with each other as well.
In the case of a guy who shot an scam artist pretending to be an escort, the prosecutor charged him but the jury ultimately acquitted him.
Texas prostitute's jilted killer acquitted, was trying to 'retrieve stolen property' says jury

 

[Derec]

Sick.
Do we plant his fingerprints on the murder weapon?

Why do you think it is sick? Also, why do you think "we" need to plant his fingerprints?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

Innocent bystanders getting hurt or killed is an entirely foreseeable consequence of deciding to go around robbing people at gunpoint.

I would guess modt people fo not forsee Clint Eastwood wannabees

Whether to charge the robber with felony murder is a legal point. And even morally there is no comparison between the moral culpability of the robber and your attempts to morally blame the parents.
If you are trying to make some silly causal chain point, that is trivially true in that we can go all the way back to the big bang, but that is irrelevant both legally and morally.

As is your point.

 

[Derec]

I suppose you're right. I didn't see any openings nor did I think what he was stealing was worth it ($100, State ID, and A debit card). I'd get my money back anyway and I canceled my card first before contacting the police (as I knew that was going to be a long call).

The $100 is not worth risking your life over by trying to pull your own gun. If you knew for sure they'd not do anything if you give them what you have, not doing anything is probably the wisest course of action.
However, robbers are unpredictable. Sometimes they shoot you anyway, for example if they are mad you did not have "enough" cash on you, or to eliminate a witness. They are especially unpredictable if they are methed up or have a mental illness.
So I can't really find fault with people who try to turn the tables on the robber.

 

[Derec]

Not certain why you felt the need to repeat everything you already said. We get it, you are a tough guy and wouldn't have a problem killing another person.

If they broke into my house and I had the means and opportunity to defend myself? Yes, I would not have a problem with it.
I would not shoot at a fleeing robber/thief though.

 

[Derec]

The girl is dead, not the robber... and the robber didn't kill her. I don't think the girl's family will take any solace in the fact that the guy was trying to kill a bad guy instead.

The shooter was reckless and should be held responsible criminally. But so should the robber. His actions directly set the tragic chain of events into motion.

 

[Toni]

Not certain why you felt the need to repeat everything you already said. We get it, you are a tough guy and wouldn't have a problem killing another person.

If they broke into my house and I had the means and opportunity to defend myself? Yes, I would not have a problem with it.
I would not shoot at a fleeing robber/thief though.

If someone broke into your home abs was hurting or attempting to hurt you or another person: of course you have the right to fend yourself or another person. But for that $50 lying in your dresser? I can’t imagine valuing anyone’s life less that a few dollars.

 

[Toni]

The girl is dead, not the robber... and the robber didn't kill her. I don't think the girl's family will take any solace in the fact that the guy was trying to kill a bad guy instead.

The shooter was reckless and should be held responsible criminally. But so should the robber. His actions directly set the tragic chain of events into motion.

Why stop with the robber? What about whoever sold him the gun? The gun manufacturer? The boss who fired him? The drug dealer that made him so needy and unreliable? The father that beat him? The school system that failed him? His grandfather who beat his grandmother and abandoned the family?

There is no end of people to blame.

Let’s all stand in a circle and shoot our guns at each other.