Strange "Defense of Others" Shooting in TX....

[Geister]

I say he should have at least been tried.

While I can completely empathize with the shooter, but the guy wasn't an immediate threat anymore. Heck, the only reason he had to think the man ever was a threat was 2nd hand testimony.

Oh come on, if he was a rapist, what makes you think he wouldn't go out and rape again?

I think the lawyers are screwing everything up. If the guy just committed a violent act against someone else, such as rape, he should be shot. You shouldn't be charged with murder for shooting a rapist. Now, if you went out and tried to find the rapist again to kill him, that's another story.

 

[Elza]

pacodelahoya: Not to mention that this is in Texas, where, if the people who have posted before are to be believed, that it is legal under certain circumstances to shoot to protect property... Got to love Texas

Absolutely true! If you catch someone in the act of stealing your property you have the right to use deadly force. It happened a while back down south. The libs went nuts because the owner was not charged. The prosecutor said there were no grounds upon which the owner could be charged under Texas law. Personally I wouldn’t take the chance shooting someone for a $30 VCR but that is just me.

 

[mobeewan]

Was watching FOX NEWS channel Sunday on satellite receiver and they had a discussion panel talking about the shooting. They mentioned the wife knew the husband carried a gun. As soon as that was mentioned the thought came to me that if she was outside having sex with the guy and did not expect the husband to show up and all of a sudden he came home. I figure that she started yelling rape so the husband did not shoot her too.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Police are allowed to use deadly force on an escaping suspect, who was fleeing upon interuption of the violent crime, if they feel it will prevent futher victims. However, "you, me and the other guy" are not LEO, are you?

Damien, I was waiting for that reply!



If the government we elect is there to represent the people, and the police officers they hire are there to "protect" the people, then how can the police have any power greater than the rights of the people they are there to protect?

I honestly think that any citizen should be able to exercise the same powers in any circumstance that a cop would if the cop is not present. And be liable for any harm caused if the actions were not justified.

Look at it this way, police are public employees hired to provide a service that we as citizens do not have time to do. Just as my employer hires me to serve him because he can't do everything himself. During the course af any day, my employer can do any of my tasks himself and be within his rights.

I know this is quite simplified, but I think the basic concept is valid. I think this goes hand in hand with the police always saying things like don't take the law into your own hands and that you should just give the mugger what they want.

 

[Damien45]

Damien, I was waiting for that reply!



If the government we elect is there to represent the people, and the police officers they hire are there to "protect" the people, then how can the police have any power greater than the rights of the people they are there to protect?

I honestly think that any citizen should be able to exercise the same powers in any circumstance that a cop would if the cop is not present. And be liable for any harm caused if the actions were not justified.

Look at it this way, police are public employees hired to provide a service that we as citizens do not have time to do. Just as my employer hires me to serve him because he can't do everything himself. During the course af any day, my employer can do any of my tasks himself and be within his rights.

I know this is quite simplified, but I think the basic concept is valid. I think this goes hand in hand with the police always saying things like don't take the law into your own hands and that you should just give the mugger what they want.

I figured you might be! lol You asked the same question twice....I could tell something was itching.

Truth is, and it is public record, the courts do not see the Police as recquired to protect an individual. It is the LEO's job to protect the public. Well, how does that work exactly? Would I, you or anyone else, not be the "public" in the greatest need during a violent situation? I don't agree with the "once they flee, you can not continue/pursue" but a LEO can. My attitude is, the person did it once and will MOST likely do it again. Oh heck no! Once was twice to many to me. Yes, I say twice, because a lot of them put thought into first, not so much as to the premeditated stage, but enough to be willing to try the act.

 

[October]

Many of the comments are framing this event as "shooting a suspect that has already committed rape." But that characterization ignores an important aspect. According to this article, the wife was still in the truck when the suspect began to drive away. In my book, given the circumstances, that makes him a suspected kidnapper. I think it is reasonable for the shooter to assume worse things could happen to his wife if the suspect is allowed to escape with her as a hostage.