Difficult shooting case in Texas on trial right now

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by stija

...How is it illegal to make sure the intruder is expired and cannot testify before giving your testimony illegal?

If he has ceased to be threat and is still breathing, finishing him off is murder. Any justification you may have for the use of lethal force ends when the threat ends, even if the assailant is still alive.

[MLeake]

... the Oklahoma pharmacist.

He made sure his BG won't testify. Doesn't seem to have helped him; quite the opposite.

[hogdogs]

How is it illegal to make sure the intruder is expired and cannot testify before giving your testimony illegal?

Hmmm.... Lemme guess... Yer new here? You have little to no education or training in the use of firearms for defense or the legal possibilities including ramifications?
No where is it claimed that intentionally KILLING a person is acceptable.
It is, however, legal to use lethal force to "STOP" in many situations. To make the statement that you intend to make sure you are the only one able to testify screams that you intend to make sure the guy is dead for that reason which makes it FIRST DEGREE MURDER since you publically professed prior intent to kill!
Brent

[Al Norris]

OK folks. Just this once, I'm going to be Diplomatic and see if I can turn on some lights in stija's brain.

Stija, in post # 18 you replied to Tennessee Gentleman by saying:

First you have to make sure that the bad guy cannot testify against you.

Then you say: "I was afraid for my life and I shot back, I have nothing more to say".*

It is that simple. No need for a lawyer unless they decide to indict you, but with a statement like that they really have nothing on you. And best of all, no witnesses.

This was not a hypothetical situation. It was a direct response to something that was said by another member.

First. The purpose of using lethal force in a self defense situation is to STOP the aggression that caused you to fear for your life. It is unlawful in all jurisdictions to keep shooting if the aggression has ceased to exist. That is rightfully called murder. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Second. What you write on the Internet can be discovered and used against you in a court of law or equity (civil suits). Don't ever presume anything to the contrary.

Third. In a self defense shooting, nothing is ever simple or black and white. Never presume otherwise. To do so, is to spike your own defense. There are several recent examples of this kind of thinking, scattered throughout TFL.

Fourth. Normally, when I see someone espouse an illegal action, they are summarily banned. The only saving grace you have, is that JohnKSa intervened before I could hit the ban button. Count yourself lucky that you have been allowed to stay as long as you have.

Finally, I believe John has a few parting words to say...

[JohnKSa]

How is it illegal to make sure the intruder is expired and cannot testify before giving your testimony illegal?

First of all, you were to explain CLEARLY and CONCISELY exactly how your comment was not advocating illegal activity. You provided no explanation and instead asked a question.

Your question can be answered two ways and both, at best, imply illegal activity.

1. Your testimony must legally be the truth and will be borne out by the evidence so it doesn't matter whether the intruder is alive or dead nor does it matter what he says. UNLESS, of course, your intent is to lie to the police and perjure yourself and you want to make sure you won't be contradicted. That is clearly illegal.

2. To "make sure the intruder is expired" taken literally means that you take whatever steps are required to kill the intruder so he doesn't testify against you. That is clearly illegal.

The ONLY cogent reasons for "making sure the intruder is expired" are illegal. fiddletown's post clearly spells out one of the possible reasons, the only other possible one is to conceal the truth which means you are trying to (at best) deceive the legal system, a crime in and of itself and (at worst) conceal a crime that would be revealed if your story was not the only one given to the police.

I'm very disappointed at the recent rash of folks advocating actions that are not consistent with either the spirit or intent of the laws governing deadly force and self-defence. That is diametrically opposed to the basic philosophy upon which TFL is based. It's completely unacceptable.

Normally, when I see someone espouse an illegal action, they are summarily banned. The only saving grace you have, is that JohnKSa intervened before I could hit the ban button.

There will be no saving grace.