Man shoots and kills intruder. Police determine she was not pregnant.
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
Well, he has a gun so I'm thinking instead of killing the woman and an unborn baby, you just tell them not to move until the police arrive. It could be like a citizens arrest. You could even get your neighbors to help watch her ( if their were any around) so you don't have to keep your gun out.
He explained a scenario in which he did not lose control. You can't tell me, after listening to that interview, that you think he acted only because the emotional stress threw him into a rage where he acted without thought. It's very clear he meant to do it and felt he was justified after having done it.
We're not arguing if the potential for someone to feel emotional stress was there.
"A serious battery" is just as valid as the discovery of an adulterer. That's straight from my bar review book.
TheRedSnifit
Member
It's not clear, at all. It's a fucking TV interview, not a psychiatric evaluation.
My understanding is that he'd initially pulled the gun earlier, and they assaulted him a second time. I'm not sure why you'd think they'd stop running this time around.
Again, we're not arguing if the potential was there. That he could have been emotionally disturbed is not all the defense needs to show.
I think it's pretty clear and I think it was a terrible idea to do the interview. He states he intended to shoot her and demonstrated that he knew what he was doing. That isn't really compatible with voluntary manslaughter in the heat of the moment.
Boom.
Lambda Pie
Banned
they didn't give a fuck about the gun and kept moving, that's why she got shot.
neighbors would most likely avoid getting involved for their own safety.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Talk about horrible analogies and the people who cosign on them.
Errr....what are you talking about?
"Serious battery" = sufficient provocation
"Walking in on your wife with her lover" = sufficient provocation
The "emotionally disturbed" component you are referring to is not a necessary element. Sufficient provocation is the necessary element
EDIT: Are you referring to the Model Penal Code?
Angelus Errare
Banned
Actually they probably gave many fucks about the gun so they ran away and she pleaded don't kill her because she has a baby...just a hunch.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Im not saying the shooter is right but its hard to have sympathy for the intruder. In this country people have guns and they aren't scared to use them.
Had no right to be there, had no right to shoot.
TheRedSnifit
Member
. . . ?
If I shoot a guy while he's in bed with my wife, I clearly knew what I was doing and intended to kill him. And by your own admission, that's be voluntary manslaughter, right? Your argument makes little sense.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the post he was responding to.
youngplaya21
Member
Idk how you guys could have such a calm mind in this situation... If someone broke into my house 3 times, beat me the fuck down, and ran away with my shit, I'd likely shoot their assess. And I hope no one who says otherwise has a family
Dark Ninja
Member
There's always risks when committing a crime, she just gambled and lost everything
I'm not saying the old guy was in the right but I don't think he should be charged and all fault should be placed on the intruders for creating this situation.
The old guy might have been in shock from one of the previous intrusions, as well. Just because he doesn't show any remorse in the interview doesn't necessarily mean his mental state wasn't altered in some way by the events. They apparently used physical force against him at one point? That's significant.
The old guy might have been in shock from one of the previous intrusions, as well. Just because he doesn't show any remorse in the interview doesn't necessarily mean his mental state wasn't altered in some way by the events. They apparently used physical force against him at one point? That's significant.
You acted on emotion and weren't "thinking straight." It wasn't the result of rational thought and that is the requirement.
WonkyPanda
Member
First off, law enforcement agrees with you? He's being investigated by the DA. Even assuming that you're right, you do realize that he is still culpable for voluntary manslaughter, right?
Secondly, you need to recognize that there isn't enough evidence to constitute that the man's conduct was not cool and deliberate. Most assuredly, his TV interview will be used against him to show that, in the moment, he was cool, calculated. The standard for "heat of passion killings" is that the man was acting impulsively at the moment he pulled the trigger.
Lastly, I am not even sure why you're arguing voluntary manslaughter here when imperfect self-defense is a far more viable avenue.
Ol No Bones
Banned
If you start robbing peoples houses you are asking to be shot. They knew the risk. Sad. I wish the police would have been able to take them in but considering it happened multiple times I can't blame the guy.
Lambda Pie
Banned
i was responding to the implication that seeing a gun is enough to make criminals stop and calmly obey you. it was obviously not.
keep your hunch.
apparently not even the police knows for sure if she was pregnant, how could the old man know if it was true or bullshit?
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
You can in Texas though.
Vincent Alexander
Member
He had nothing to lose if he took her word for it. Though in the end, he is murderer whether she was pregnant or not.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Yes! In fact, I've been arguing that he's culpable for voluntary manslaughter this entire time!
It works, the other way, though: Once they can show adequate provocation - there's undoubtedly adequate provocation - it's up to the prosecution to prove he was in full self-control. Innocent until proven guilty.
I'm pretty sure that this is the exact opposite of imperfect self-defense.
WonkyPanda
Member
How is this the "exact opposite" of imperfect self-defense?
TheRedSnifit
Member
Nevermind, I'm confusing my definitions. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that it's result in a voluntary manslaughter charge anyways.
ProfessorMoran
Member
Stay off other people's property (unless you're the mailman).
Seriously what kind of fucked-up scum would rob an 80 year-old man?
WonkyPanda
Member
It very well could be. I, personally, don't think it's such an "open and shut" case for voluntary manslaughter. Obviously, all of us are working from limited facts. It's impossible to make an informed decision on the matter without knowing more. However, I can't fault someone for believing the man was in full control when he pulled the trigger.
Interestingly, you're going to see a nice pull at the heart strings from two directions: old man protecting his home vs. pregnant woman pleading for her life (if true).
I think it is safe to assume, though, that charges will likely be pressed.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Didn't see what you were responding to, apologies
Yea but I mean...it's Texas, that state thrives on the suffering of people.
OriginalNameGuy
Member
No, I really don't care because thieves are scum. There are plenty of folks who have a hard life in this world and they never invade someone's home.
Angelus Errare
Banned
That's a reeeeeally shitty line. If I'm injured in a car wreck and seeking help; that gives you the right to execute me because I entered your property? I think you should redraw that line.
User 100115
Banned
Again....he doesn't have to "describe" his emotion state. The intense emotion is presumed (which is why a "serious battery" amounts to sufficient provocation)
Vincent Alexander
Member
Murder is murder---especially when you're shooting someone who is defenseless in the back.
This is quite fucked, I think this man is definitely a murderer. However, any would be home intruder must understand they are risking death here in the USA. I can't see myself ever breaking into someone's house, not only because it's wrong, but also because it's an easy way to get yourself killed.
lazorexplosion
Member
Scumbag who shoots the fleeing hopefully dies in jail, scumbag who robs eighty-year-old gets shot.
I'd call that a happy ending.
Good enough.
I'd call that a happy ending.
Good enough.
ramuh
Member
This is true. You are no longer in immediate danger as they are fleeing your castle. Even with stolen possessions courts rule that human life trumps stolen goods.
That reasoning doesn't make sense given the law as it is written. You can have sufficient provocation without acting "rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured your reasoning or judgment". If evidence surfaces that the person did not have their reasoning obscured that would argue against such a defense regardless of whether there was sufficient provocation.
Vincent Alexander
Member
Agreed. Hell, I just talked with a co-worker today about how she lives alone, but sleeps with a loaded revolver right by. Shit makes me afraid to break into my own's parents home if I ever lost my keys there. Too many crazy stories out there.
No one shoots without reason. Because he had "a reason" does not make it right. That argument makes no sense.
ramuh
Member
While I agree that seeking help is something to be looked at, if you break into ones home to do it and the occupants feel that you are a threat to there life, they can kill you and not be charged in a lot of states. They would probably make a bullshit excuse like you ran in and said you were going to kill everyone in there after they found out you were just looking for help. Thats extra shitty.
kiunchbb
www.dictionary.com
I agree with the man's decision, just because someone pledging for their life and turn their back on you doesn't make that person harmless. All you know they could be buying time to pull their gun out.
I wouldn't gamble my life for a stranger that just performed a crime.
I wouldn't gamble my life for a stranger that just performed a crime.
Ol No Bones
Banned
This is pretty contradictory. Was it justice when he shot her or not. You seem to pleased that the robber got killed but upset that he killed her. Doesn't make sense.
Lessons to be learned all around.
Don't break into houses and steal things. You violate the law, other people's privacy and security, and your goal is to steal their property; that's shitty. You also put yourself in a position where an angry person might do drastic shit. It's not like this would be new.
For fucks sake, you don't have to murder someone who is running away. They're gone, it's over, you did your thing. If they're still in your house and attacking you, well, you gotta do what you gotta do and that's another can of worms. But damn dude, a fleeing woman? Shit ain't right.
Don't break into houses and steal things. You violate the law, other people's privacy and security, and your goal is to steal their property; that's shitty. You also put yourself in a position where an angry person might do drastic shit. It's not like this would be new.
For fucks sake, you don't have to murder someone who is running away. They're gone, it's over, you did your thing. If they're still in your house and attacking you, well, you gotta do what you gotta do and that's another can of worms. But damn dude, a fleeing woman? Shit ain't right.
This is not a subjective standard; it's an objective standard (i.e. the "reasonable person standard").
If it would inflame the passions of a reasonable person (like walking in on your wife with another man, being threatened with deadly force, or suffering a serious battery), it would amount to sufficient provocation. The fact that he killed her after the injury in and of itself demonstrates that his reasoning was obscured. I mean, what else would have led him to kill her?
alfredofroylan
Member
Check the update, is her partner who's being charged with murder, not the old man.
Lol, what? Was his reasoning still obscured during the interview in which he still felt he did the right thing?
- Status