Grand Jury Clears Texan in the Killing of 2 Burglars

The OJ Simpson case is totally different and cannot be compared to this case. OJ Simpson was found not guilty of committing murder, which is and illegal offense. The man from Texas did NOT commit a crime, it may have been morally wrong what he did, but it was not illegal. Those are not the same thing and cannot be compared....

That's what the problem is here in this thread. Everyone is letting their emotions and morals overtake what the law clearly states. Yes, everyone here seems to agree what the man did was morally wrong and nobody else would do it. But morally wrong and illegal are two totally different things.

"The law is reason free from passion." - Aristotle

Hasn't anyone heard this quote?

 

I was answering to the other guys claim that a jury is right. You are missing the point.

 

I would have found OJ innocent also. The policed department lied, made up evidence,the glove was the whole case and it was a size medium. You can not convict with the heart. That's a whole new thread (OJ). Lets keep it on this topic.
Justice has prevailed.

That is a fair statement LogicFlux.

 

This was a burglary not a robbery! No one was in danger of their lives at any moment! The law clearly states that for use of deadly force certain conditions be met. In this case they were clearly not met!!! No one was in danger of their lives. They did not present a deadly threat with their backs to the old man, they were unarmed, and it was a burglary.

 

Now, if you read closely it states that:
A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

You can't be serious? The Grand Jury was correct. Justice has prevailed

 

Wow, you have to let this go. You weren't there. The jury found him innocent. They were presented with the facts of the case and the an explanation of the law. The shooter was found innocent.

Who are you to decide that the jurors are wrong in their decision?

 

Are you reading it correctly or what? It says it right there in from of you...here I'll make them big for you.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Did these two commit an aggravated criminal act or robbery???

 

well, however you put it, shooting anyone(even dogs) in the back is wrong...
and burglarizing is bad, even if you dont mean to kill or harm anyone...

being in that position, we cant really tell how that man feels at that moment in time, he must be worried about the safety of his community, and he is in the position to eliminate the threat right there and then so its really hard to tell what we will do ourselves when were in that position.

 

wrong....
the jury didn't find him innocent, they decided there wasn't enough to go to trial.

the next grand jury may see it another way.

 

That's not his job. It's the cop's job. Vigilante justice is illegal. And they were not an imminent danger to anyone.

 

Do you really know it was burglary and not robbery? Each state has their own definition of these. But, the dictionary definition basically states the only difference between the two is robbery requires force to enter the property. How do you think these guys got into the house??? One of them had a crowbar, thus force was used. Clear case of robbery to me, but I haven't actually looked at the Texas definition either....

EDIT: I just saw your post in red above guru and yes, this was aggravated robbery. The definition of aggravated robbery is: robbery committed with aggravating factors (as use of a weapon, infliction of bodily injury, or use of an accomplice).

I remember there being two of them there and one of them had a crowbar. Nuff said....

 

yep, its actually not anyone's job except the police or authorities, but just like i said, being put in the position that he is in is quite nerve racking... or to some exciting.

 

best neighbour ever

 

But it's not like he found the robbers and then shot them as a reaction. He told the police before going in that he was going to kill them. That makes it premedidated. He was going to kill them, no matter what.

 

Not quite accurate, Firegirl.

First of all, my emotions and morals are not overtaking my read of the case, and the law.

Secondly, it isn't clear to me that even Texas law was fulfilled in this case.

Thirdly, even if Texas law was fulfilled, there are questions of constitutionality that may trump this law, at least in my initial thoughts on this, without knowing more.

 

It does not matter what anybody thinks. THE STATE OF TEXAS made the right choice. Justice has prevailed. You can not make up the law as a juror you have to go with the facts. There was not enough evidence to go to a trial. The Grand Jury made the right decision. We can't even argue that. The shooter did nothing wrong. Texas law was fulfilled. This was aggravated robbery.


I am reading it correctly.

 

I honestly do not see how it was 'aggravated robbery'

Most definitions are not the same as what was posted above, I would have to see the definition under Texas law, anyone have a link?

Under any case the guy surely appears to have wanted to kill the people more than protect anything in my honest opinion.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000029.00.htm

On that basis it surely does not appear to be so.

 

Grim this is a quote that you listed. He shot them while fleeing after committing a burglary. What time of day did this occur? In the State of SC a home invasion to commit a theft is 'aggravated robbery’ if it occurs while someone is inside or committed between the hours of 6pm to 6am. Each state is different.

The crime happened at 2pm.

 

I was not disputing if it was legal in Texas in my post, I was disputing the definition of 'aggravated robbery'

Legal or not, shooting unarmed men in the back surely stinks to me.

 

What does it matter?

I linked to you the definition of aggravated robbery from a Texas state page.


BTW

It sure is nice seeing the entire legal code and not just a fraction from a news article.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

Considering the bold above

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

and the fact that the 9/11 operator told him not to, plus the police were almost there I find it hard to believe he felt there was no chance the robbery suspects would get away with the stolen items

I do however bet the following did help him out..