Why You Must Know Your Target... Even In Texas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zoogster said:
In this case that criteria could possibly be met if the individuals felt they needed to stop the criminal mischief, or damage of the levy at night.
It may have been an ongoing problem, where people offroading night after night get away with destroying the only thing that is keeping thier property from flooding and being destroyed.
That does not mean the shooting is moraly acceptable, but it may be legaly acceptable under Texas law:
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
For it to qualify under this section, all numbered items must be met. I cannot see how the couple's actions meet item 3. Despite it being at "night," it is not entirely dark yet at 9pm this time of year. Plus when all else fails, when deterring an aggressor or trespasser (no matter where you live) you should ALWAYS verbally challenge and, if necessary, fire a warning shot into the air before engaging an unidentifiable target.

These people could have just been itching to abuse what they figured was their right to shoot first. Even from a strictly legal standpoint, I don't think a jury could come to the conclusion that they had exhausted all other means of other than deadly force. "Oh, well I didn't think of that," isn't an excuse after you pull the trigger. There are many other non-lethal responses they could have made.

What if it WAS an ongoing problem? Then I bet this couple probably found the frequent loud noise from the vehicles very annoying. Combine that with itchy trigger fingers and a muddled interpretation of this widely-known but poorly-understood law, and you've got a good premise to upgrade the charges to murder.
 
Last edited:
"Sounds they're still looking for the meth lab"

Methinks they smoked/shot/ate the evidence and washed it down with cheap vodka and beer.

John
 
It really doesn't matter if it was a 7 year old. The fact is someone allegedly violated private property and got shot. We shouldn't be jumping to conclusions because we don't know what happened.
 
another person with comprehension issues. if we take the shooters version of the story they screwed up . it only gets worse when we look at what the cops say.
 
The fact is someone allegedly violated private property and got shot.

Per most reports, there was no violation of private property...
The Group, including the 7 year old was said to be shot on public property...
 
The fact is someone allegedly violated private property and got shot.

No. There is no allegation of that. The Muhs alleged they were tearing up the levees. The levees are owned by the subdivision. They shot them after they were off the levees and were leaving on a County Road, but made a fateful decision to let the boys relieve themselves on the side of the road, near the Muhs' hovel.
 
The fact is someone allegedly violated private property and got shot.

No. There is no allegation of that. The Muhs alleged they were tearing up the levees. The levees are owned by the subdivision. They shot them after they were off the levees and were leaving on a County Road, but made a fateful decision to let the boys relieve themselves on the side of the road, near the Muhs' hovel.

Yeah, there is an allegation of that.

"Sheila Muhs started cursing at them 'Get off our property,'" DeFoor said and fired off at least one round, causing the Jeep, which had started to leave, to veer off the road.

Going back to the original quote above, it is important to understand that while it may be a fact that somebody allegedly violated private property and got shot, it is not a fact that private property was violated.

The notions of tearing up the levee and the notion of being on private property are two incongruis aspects to this event. The levee most definitely is not on private property. The Muhs will have a difficult time explaining the shooting of the family on public land as a justification to stop trespassing. Only being recent residents to the area and owning their land, it will be hard for them to claim they didn't realize the levee wasn't on their land since the record of the deal will show it isn't and they would have seen those records fairly recently. I beleive they bought their place 2 years ago from what I have read.
 
The REASON given for shooting them was that they were on the levees - undisputedly public property.

[Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken] DeFoor said Sheila Muhs then called 911 and told the dispatcher: "They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them."

The WARNING given just prior to the shooting was to get off my property.

In a message peppered with expletives, she said, the voice ordered the group to get their vehicles off the property.

“And then I heard a shot and our windows were blown out,” Nelton said.

I probably have to concede that these two mutants are probably so stupid that they could have actually believed they 'owned' the levees because they lived nearby.

Whatever, we can agree that we only know what's been printed in the papers - which are wrong on the details about as often as they are right. I'm sure their court-appointed lawyer will make all the appropriate arguments and hopefully they will rot in jail for a long, long time.
 
It really doesn't matter if it was a 7 year old. The fact is someone allegedly violated private property and got shot. We shouldn't be jumping to conclusions because we don't know what happened.

The fact that someone here is willing to give this shooting the benefit of the doubt is just further evidence that the RKBA movement is its own worst enemy. There just isn't a clean end on this particular turd.
 
They were firing in the dark at unseen "threats". They're toast, even "down in Texas".

Some cheese-ball lawyer may try to lead a jury into thinking that these morons felt that they were in danger, but they fired on to property that wasn't theirs and killed a small child.

They'll burn. In this life and the next :fire:
 
If anybody actually thinks that shooting a 7-year old in this instance should be legal, then there needs to be a serious look at the laws. And from the statute posted, it wasn't legal, even IF they were on private property...which it seems even by the shooters' admission that they were not.

And if anyone thinks that shooting a kid in this case was MORALLY ok, then I pity that person. I really do. I can't imagine how damaged a person would have to be to get to that point.

-Mark
 
Those two who shot the little boy are in a world of trouble.

I live in Texas, and I'm a CHL instructor. They are in deep do-do and I have no doubt they are looking at prison time.

The victims were not on their land, and even if they had of been you can only use lethal force outside the home if your life is in jepordy or you know they have done one of several criminal things (like arson.)

These kids were none of the above. Not only are they looking at prison time, but they will be SUED and SUED and SUED. Their life has become a nightmare.
 
Sure they can sue them. Let's see, the Muhs' have a single wide, a truck, some guns, and a couple of acres of land. Something tells me that they don't exactly have deep pockets. As you say, the Muhs are going to prison, but what little income they may have now will potentially be gone by the time that happens. So that lawsuit isn't going to go very far even if it is won.
 
The boy's organs were donated to help save 3 other children. Cool.

Now the weird part, the victims knew the Muhs and even scarier, the Muhs also had boys.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6424953.html

Donald Coffey views himself as a father above all else and says that ethic dictates his every choice.
Even during the maddening grief he felt after the fatal shooting a week ago of his 7-year-old son, his own namesake whom he affectionately called “Junior,” he would not compromise his principle.
His thoughts turned to the two young sons of the couple charged with shooting his boy, and he decided to make sure they were being cared for. He thought, too, of other families going through the same pain as he and his wife, and they decided to donate their son’s organs.
Gale and Sheila Muhs are in the Liberty County Jail, charged in the shooting that killed Donald Coffey Jr. and wounded his father, his 5-year-old sister, Destiny, and family friend Patrick Cammack, 30.
The Muhses have two boys, ages 8 and 16, attending the same Dayton school district as Coffey’s two surviving children.
While eager for justice for his son, Coffey went to the school district offices to check on the welfare of the Muhses’ boys and learned they were safely at a grandmother’s home outside the district.
“I didn’t want anybody to bother them or pick on them. They’re not at all responsible for this,” Coffey said in his first interview since the shooting.
Dayton Superintendent Greg Hayman was surprised to learn of Coffey’s concern for the Muhses’ boys.
“I think it was an amazing expression of love in the face of insurmountable loss,” Hayman said. “It gives people hope.”
Family knew the Muhses
The group was returning from joy riding near a levee and swimming in the Trinity River when the shooting happened. They had pulled over in their vehicles on a publicly accessible road near the Muhses’ home, where a sign posted in front of their tiny house said trespassers would be shot and survivors would be shot again.
The Muhses, both 45, are charged with aggravated assault, and officials said today those charges could be upgraded next week. The Liberty County Sheriff’s Office said Sheila Muhs called 911 after the shooting and reported, “They’re running over our levee in big-wheel vehicles, and I shot them.”
Despite that matter-of-fact explanation, Coffey doesn’t understand why the tragedy had to happen.
In the past, he said, he has given four-wheeler rides to the Muhses’ 8-year-old boy. He also recalls friendly visits with the Muhs family, including a jovial conversation with Sheila Muhs and her eldest son two hours before the shooting.
In those awful moments after the shooting, Coffey faced many decisions, but he said probably the most difficult was donating his son’s organs so other children might live.
He remembers “feeling weird” and unsure how his wife, Becky, would react. Their son’s organs were kept oxygenated after doctors declared him brain-dead Saturday at Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston.
Coffey knew his wife was struggling as much as he was to accept that their blond, bespectacled boy would never again run through the mud or ride through the Liberty County countryside he loved.
While most of the events at the hospital are a blur, Coffey remembers eventually telling hospital staff that he supported donating his son’s organs. But he ached at the thought of asking his wife’s permission, saying he just couldn’t do it.
That’s when he learned that his wife had given her permission minutes earlier.
“Neither of us could imagine having another family go through this, if we could help it,” he said. “There’s no words that exist in the dictionary that can describe what we’ve been through. It’s indescribable.”
Helping three children
When the Coffeys left the hospital without their son, they were told his organs had been used to save the lives of three children.
“I don’t know if there were any others later. It’s irrelevant to me,” Coffey said. “I won’t ask.”
But one day, the Coffeys would like to meet those who received the organs.
“We hope to know their names and talk to them,” he said. “We can’t force it, but we would like it.”
Catherine Burch Graham, spokeswoman for LifeGift, the organ and tissue recovery agency that handled the Coffey case, said she will help the couple compose a letter to the recipients about meeting.
“We usually wait at least six months because not only the families of the donors, but sometimes recipients, have emotional challenges,” she said, such as feeling guilty for being alive when another died.
Usually, only children have the organs small enough for other children, she said, and many die before one becomes available. Nearly 10,000 children and adults are waiting on transplant lists in Texas, and one in three will die before they have a donor, records show.
Graham said Donald Jr.’s legacy will be his gift to other children with life-threatening health issues.
 
The police say more charges are pending but don't say what yet. My money is on drug/alcohol related.

LCSO Updates Westlake Shooting Case

LIBERTY, May 14, 2009 - On the night of May 7th, a shooting incident occurred in the Westlake subdivision, south of Dayton. Four people were injured in the shooting. One victim, 7-year old Donald Coffey Jr., died as a result of his injuries. The other three that were injured, Donald Coffey Sr. (37), Destiny Coffey (5), and Patrick Cammack (30), have all been released from the hospital.

Two suspects were taken into custody the night of the incident. Gale Muhs (45) and his wife, Sheila Muhs (45), have since been charged with two counts each of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The bonds for Gale and Sheila Muhs total $525,000 each. In probable cause hearings held this week, the Muhses were both appointed attorneys to represent them.

Sergeant Mark Ellington is the lead investigator for the case. Sgt. Ellington commented, “We’ve been working closely with the District Attorney’s Office. There is new information that has been obtained and is currently being investigated. Additional charges will be sought. We expect to present the case to the D.A. some time next week.”

The case has generated a great deal of interest in the community and throughout Southeast Texas. As such, investigators do not want to rush any of the proceedings. With two suspects, four victims, and multiple witnesses, investigators want to assure an optimum case is presented to the District Attorney, and later, to a Grand Jury. While time consuming, the investigators feel the measures they are taking will assure a successful case as it progresses through the criminal justice system.
 
What a ridiculous, reckless, uncalled for mess this thing is.

All I can really say is that Don Coffey sounds like a hell of a guy.
 
the worse part about this is the antis will use this as an example of why even "responsable" gun owners are dangerous paranoids just itching to pull the trigger. I, like Al Gore am for zero-tolerence gun laws. if you hurt someone with a gun on purpose you should get life in prison IMO. According to what i read from that article that is agrivated murder plain and simple. even if they were trespasing, thats not a reason to kill someone, my god! and them not knowing there were kids in the car mean jack $!#@ to me. i hope they never let them out of prison for that.

EDIT: i'd like to amend what i just wrote without thinking of what i was saying. the worst thing about this is that an innocent child died for no good reason and his parents will never get over it. that john coffey sounds like a saint for reacting the way he did.
 
It really doesn't matter if it was a 7 year old. The fact is someone allegedly violated private property and got shot

It DOES really matter if it was a 7 yr old. 7 yr olds do not present a threat to life and limb, or total destruction of property, period. And if they say they didn't KNOW it was a 7 yr old kid: if you can't even tell the difference whether your target is a child or an adult, you can't see the target well enough to shoot - or even know if it should be a target. Yet you fire anyway and ask your partner to knock off a few for old-times sake?!

That it was 7 yr old kid, aside from making the average human being throw-up, is THE initial basis legally for the 2nd Degree Murder charge they both ought to get. They intentionally acted to kill or maim another human being and this act was not justified. Unjustified Homicide: MURDER

This is the equivalent of driving drunk and aiming your car into a crowd and flooring it so you can take out people you don't like.
 
Last edited:
The fact is someone allegedly violated private property and got shot.

... which would be murder unless that person had entered an occupied house forcibly and unlawfully, which has not been alleged, or had stolen something more than thirty minutes after sundown.


We shouldn't be jumping to conclusions because we don't know what happened.

Pretty clear cut, by all indications--shooting death on public property.
 
It really doesn't matter if it was a 7 year old. The fact is someone allegedly violated private property and got shot

It DOES really matter if it was a 7 yr old. 7 yr olds do not present a threat to life and limb, or total destruction of property, period. And if they say they didn't KNOW it was a 7 yr old kid: if you can't even tell the difference whether your target is a child or an adult, you can't see the target well enough to shoot - or even know if it should be a target. Yet you fire anyway and ask your partner to knock off a few for old-times sake?!

Actually, the age issue of the 7 year old isn't all that salient to whether this was murder or not. There hasn't been any claim of personal threat so that aspect of the discussion is moot. The law does not stipulate an age range at which lethal force can be used against another in the protection of property, or in self defense for that matter.

Had the mother or father died instead of the child, we would have the exact same situation here in terms of legal issues.

Having a 7 year old and a 9 year old, I can tell you emphatically that a 7 year old can provide a very real threat when it comes to the destruction of property. It is amazing what a kid with a hammer can do.

All that being said, since the victims did not appear to be on the Muhs' property when they were shot (either time from what I can figure from the reading), then the notion of protection of property and trespass doesn't seem to fit. There doesn't seem to be any real justification on the part of the Muhs for pulling the trigger by either her or him.
 
I don't care if a 7 year old is breaking my windows with a hammer. I'm not going to shoot the kid (especially where I live, where you need a threat of death or GBH to pull the trigger). Even if I lived in a protection of property state, there's no piece of mere property a 7 year old child can destroy that would make me even consider pulling the trigger.

I believe I have to answer to my God someday, and I can't do that if I murder a child.

-Mark
 
Re the Mug Shots...

If they have the right lawyer, by the time they get to court they will look like George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. Can you say extreme makeover?
 
If they have the right lawyer, by the time they get to court they will look like George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. Can you say extreme makeover?

Yep. I was empaneled for a murder trial once. The defendant looked like Paris Hilton at her best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top