727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 7220 posts, RR: 20 Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
Well, since we are talking about this subject, I'd like to revisit this case in Texas from 2007
Let me first say, this happened on November 14, 2007.....this happened 4 days after I laid my father to rest. It was a very difficult time for me, so I pretty sure I missed this story. I only first heard about it a few days ago, obviously because of the Treyvon Martin case.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13312 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1089 times:
As I read the facts:
His house was not being broken into and an officer witnessed him shoot at least one suspect in the back. And, the burglers were no threat to him until he showed up outside with a shotgun. How could "Stand Your Ground" even remotely apply when this was not happening to his house or to him until he got involved?
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1971 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
Wow, I remember reading about this case back when it happened, but this is the first time I have heard the 911 call. It seems pretty clear this man was intent shooting someone before he even called the police.
Honestly, I could give him some benefit of the doubt if he had said he was going to try to scare them off or hold them at gun point until police came, but it sounds like he shot within a second or two of exiting his house. Even more troubling is that third shot. I'm not very proficient with firearms, but I'm fairly certain a single shot from a shotgun is going to incapacitate someone no matter where it hits. I think it's at that point where it really crosses the line between self-defense and manslaughter, let alone the claims that one was shot in the back!
Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter): There are some that argue no great loss to society.....but did he get away with murder????
I think it's disgusting that anybody would suggest that it's "no great loss to society". Nobody deserves to be killed over a bag of stolen property. I went to an inner-city highschool where there were plenty of gangs and drug dealers, would I be right in shooting them too?
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3665 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 981 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2): Even more troubling is that third shot. I'm not very proficient with firearms, but I'm fairly certain a single shot from a shotgun is going to incapacitate someone no matter where it hits
With a shotgun it depends on the range but at any close range yes it would incapacitate you at the minimum.
I'm not a lawyer but the first shot could be considered legal but shots after the fact especially when the victim is incapacitated or say unloading a clip on them signals more than self defence and can change the charges.
I read this in one of the earlier replies in the Travyon Martin thread where a store owner in I think Oklahoma shot one of two people holding him up and chased the other. When he couldn't catch the other he returned to his store and shot 5 more rounds into the guy he shot before. One shot was self-defence/stand your ground, the other 5 upped it to Murder one and he was convicted.