Appropriate use of deadly force Texas style

[Buzzcook]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...er-4581027.php

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...#ixzz2VYBinBWn

A Bexar County jury on Wednesday acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of murder in the death of a 23-year-old Craigslist escort.

A man pays a woman $150 for sex. She leaves without providing that service. He follows her outside and shoots the vehicle she is being driven away in.
The girl is paralyzed and then dies seven months later.

So a $150 theft warrants an execution sans judge, jury, or trial?

How many petty crimes gone bad and deadly are now justifiable homicide?

[BarryLee]

I realize Texas has some laws that apparently allow people to shoot fleeing criminals, but this sounds sort of over the top. Was there some legal issue that resulted in the verdict or did the jury just decide to let the guy off?

[arch308]

Wow! Just wow!

Just goes to show you never know how a jury will decide.

[zincwarrior]

It should be appealed by the prosecutor. This is gross injustice and makes a mockery of our laws about self defense and defense of property.

Having said that, if I ever get in a scrape I want his lawyer and jury consultant. Wow.

[Charles S]

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Current Texas law...

However in my humble opinion this case was more than excessive.

[teeroux]

If he paid a woman for a separate crime he is a conspiritor and should not be able to claim self defense. The woman stole money that was payment of another crime that the shooter was commiting. What kind of DA was working the case? I'm not from Texas but most places do not allow for self defense or Justified Homicide in the comission of a crime.

[JohnKSa]

I realize Texas has some laws that apparently allow people to shoot fleeing criminals...

ONLY in very specific circumstances and NEVER simply because they are fleeing. They have to be leaving with stolen property for one thing, and beyond that, a number of other clauses in the law must be satisfied before deadly force is justified.

I do not believe that this shooting was what TX legislatures had in mind when they penned the law, but, I also don't think that the law needs to be changed just because one man found a way to abuse it.

[Buzzcook]

It should be appealed by the prosecutor.

Double jeopardy, so the prosecution can't appeal. The family of the girl might be able to take it to civil trial.

The thing that bugs me most is that the shooting arose out of a crime in which the shooter was complicit. That sets a bad precedent.

It's not as if there a burglary in the dead of night.

[Buzzcook]

I do not believe that this shooting was what TX legislatures had in mind when they penned the law, but, I also don't think that the law needs to be changed just because one man found a way to abuse it.

The Patriot act didn't lead to the intended results either, if you believe its authors.
Intent doesn't count as much as the record after a law is enacted.

This is not the first time a Texan has gotten off for shooting a fleeing criminal. We've discussed at least one other similar case. So more than one man abusing it.

[MLeake]

Only if you think fleeing criminals in general shouldn't be shot.

Following the law doesn't always equal agreeing with the law. I do think that criminals were more circumspect, when they faced a society that was ok with the idea of deadly force in defense of property as well as of life; I also think that the right to property isn't really a right, when one has to yield it to anybody who flees with it.

So, while I wouldn't shoot a fleeing felon except in very limited and severe circumstances, that is in large part because in most places, it would not be legal to do so.

However, in this particular case, considering the original problem was the result of the OP's solicitation of prostitution, I don't agree with the way the court interpreted the law.

[allaroundhunter]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

This is not the first time a Texan has gotten off for shooting a fleeing criminal. We've discussed at least one other similar case. So more than one man abusing it.

I guess I'm shallow, but I just don't have much of a problem with criminals being shot in the back. Now, I'm not condoning it, but if a Texas resident does shoot a fleeing criminal in accordance with Texas law then the criminal had it coming. Would I shoot a fleeing criminal? Perhaps under extreme circumstances, but not under all instances "protected" by the statute being discussed.

I do, however, feel like with the details given that this case was improperly handled by the prosecution.

[JohnKSa]

This is not the first time a Texan has gotten off for shooting a fleeing criminal. We've discussed at least one other similar case. So more than one man abusing it.

Again, the law does NOT simply allow someone to shoot a fleeing criminal. The law has been quoted and it is absolutely clear that it takes more than just a fleeing criminal to justify deadly force.

Second, the fact that someone else was acquitted under the provisions of this law does not automatically mean that it was abused in that case as well. The law clearly WAS intended to justify the use of deadly force under very specific circumstances and if the circumstances of the case in question were clearly in accord with the law and a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the law then it does not follow that an acquittal implies an abuse of the law.

Third, even if another case can be found where the defense was able to use the law "creatively" to gain an acquittal that is inconsistent with a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the law, it does not automatically mean that the law needs to be changed. Justice is miscarried on a daily basis in any number of ways and by both prosecutions and defenses. It's a mistake to automatically assume that each of those miscarriages is justification for changing the law.

The thing that bugs me most is that the shooting arose out of a crime in which the shooter was complicit. That sets a bad precedent.

Well, yes and no. Just because a person breaks a law doesn't mean they give up all their essential rights. In TX, the offense of prostitution is a Class B misdemeanor (level 2 of 3 levels of misdemeanor), only one level up from a traffic ticket. How much do you believe a conviction of a mid-level misdemeanor should impair one's rights?

Should it, for example, be legal to steal from someone who has been convicted of a mid-level misdemeanor? I don't think it should be.

[allaroundhunter]

John, I completely agree. The only reason that I dislike it is because the shooter put himself in the position. If he had not committed the crime that he did, he would not have shot this woman.

Yes, he should still have his rights, but he is walking a very thin line seeing as he shot her just after the commission of his own crime. A crime that put her in the position that she was. Heck I think he is an accessory to his own robbery.

[Crankgrinder]

im not a lawyer but could it be argued, and was it that though he paid her for sex #1 that is a separate issue and another case entirely and #2 the sex was never performed so though he made the proposition the crime was not committed because he never got to go through with it and thus was indeed theft only? I live in Texas and am fully aware of this law but dont believe i would exercise it unless it was a very extreme case with no way around it. Cant get past shooting somebody in the back whose running away.

[Buzzcook]

Should it, for example, be legal to steal from someone who has been convicted of a mid-level misdemeanor? I don't think it should be.

That's a straw man fallacy. I haven't condoned any crime in this case.

The shooter had "dirty hands", that doesn't effect his rights, it does effect how the court should see him.

While we're on the subject of rights what rights were lost by the woman who was shot? Doesn't she have a right to a jury trial?
If the shooter shouldn't lose his rights because of a Class B misdemeanor then shouldn't the same be true of the person he shot?

If we believe that theft should warrant the death penalty then let that be reflected in the law.

I do think that criminals were more circumspect, when they faced a society that was ok with the idea of deadly force in defense of property as well as of life;

If that were the case Norway would be overrun with criminals.

[allaroundhunter]

Originally Posted by Crankgrinder

im not a lawyer but could it be argued, and was it that though he paid her for sex #1 that is a separate issue and another case entirely and #2 the sex was never performed so though he made the proposition the crime was not committed because he never got to go through with it and thus was indeed theft only? I live in Texas and am fully aware of this law but dont believe i would exercise it unless it was a very extreme case with no way around it. Cant get past shooting somebody in the back whose running away.

It is still solicitation as far as I'm aware. And yes, that is a crime.

[allaroundhunter]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

If we believe that theft should warrant the death penalty then let that be reflected in the law..

It doesn't warrant the death penalty anymore than sexual assault, but both do warrant deadly force by the victim. And yes, that is reflected in the law.


And does she have the right to a jury trial? Sure, we all do. But does that mean that I shouldn't shoot a home invader because he also has that right? Those rights are only guaranteed once a person is in custody. Civilians are not lawmen, we are not required to Mirandize a criminal nor are we required to attempt to make an arrest before using deadly force if it is justified. Even police officers don't have to do that.

[JohnKSa]

I haven't condoned any crime in this case.

I didn't state that you had condoned crime.

What I said was that you seem to be saying that the fact that a person had recently committed (or was in the process of committing) a mid-level misdemeanor affects his right to recover stolen property.

The shooter had "dirty hands", that doesn't effect his rights...

So, if he has the right to recover stolen property (under certain well-defined circumstances) then he has the right to do it even if he has committed (or is in the process of committing) a mid-level misdemeanor. That's exactly what I said.

While we're on the subject of rights what rights were lost by the woman who was shot?

In TX, under certain well-defined and specific circumstances, you run the risk of having deadly force legally used against you if you try to flee with someone else's illegally obtained property. That's what the law says and what the jury determined happened in this case. I don't necessarily agree with the jury in this case, but there you have it.

If we believe that theft should warrant the death penalty then let that be reflected in the law.

First of all, there is no justification provided for using deadly force in the case of simple theft as this quote implies. There must be other compounding circumstances before deadly force is justified and there are restrictions on when and how the deadly force can be employed even when justified.

Second, the law DOES reflect that deadly force can be used to stop certain property crimes under very specific circumstances. The reason for the difference in the way the law treats a thief on trial and the way it treats a thief fleeing with stolen property is very clear if one takes the time to actually read the law.

The gist of it (very, VERY simplified) is that if the circumstances of the situation fit the law and the property owner has no reasonable hope of redress any other way, he is entitled to use deadly force to recover his property. The issue isn't that TX law states that thieves should be executed, it's that it acknowledges that if the law can't offer the property owner a reasonable chance of redress, he may take action to recover his property via deadly force, subject to the very specific restrictions in the law.

In other words, the TX law under discussion is not about killing/executing thieves, it's about protecting the right of a property owner to recover property lost under certain circumstances, even if the only reasonable method to recover the property costs the thief/burglar/robber his life.

[Double Naught Spy]

So a $150 theft warrants an execution sans judge, jury, or trial?

The judge, jury, executioner argument (as above) is often thrown out as a bit of hype to make a point, but it is totally misrepresentational of the situation. Regardless of what the standards are that allow for the use of lethal force, people will throw out that argument as a basis for stating that the standards are wrong. It really is a cliché.

How many petty crimes gone bad and deadly are now justifiable homicide?

The petty crime didn't "go bad" until it was committed. The crime may be petty in your view, but it isn't always the level of the crime that is significant, but the ramifications. As just noted, it is reflected in the law.

[Evan Thomas]

There's a curious omission in the Texas laws on use of force/deadly force. The sections on using deadly force to protect oneself or another person both state clearly that use of deadly force is justified only if the person:

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

Unless I'm missing something, this proviso is absent from the sections on use of force for protection of property. This seems odd, to say the least; but it does imply that one may use deadly force to protect property even if one is engaged in criminal activity at the time.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

Double jeopardy, so the prosecution can't appeal.

Double jeopardy is something different, but the circumstances under which a prosecutor can appeal are usually limited.

[csmsss]

After reading the articles, I'm not ready to offer any opinions; however, I'd certainly like to see the judge's instructions to the jury. I'd also be interested in knowing whether the defense and prosecution agreed to any factual stipulations.

[rebs]

sometimes its the jury, they can go either way. we had a case here where a doctor was driving drunk after leaving a martini golf tournament and he hit and killed a young girl on a skate board on the side of the road. He knew he hit the young girl and didn't even stop to see how she was. He went home and his wife and his daughter helped clean the blood off the front of his damaged car. He was aquited of all charges except the drunk driving.
personally I believe he bought his way out.

[allaroundhunter]

Rebs, I have a hard time believing that that is all there is to that story, but your point is well taken. Plenty of trials are expected to go one way very heavily and juries come back with the exact opposite opinion.

[MLeake]

Buzzcook said:

If that were the case Norway would be overrun with criminals.

Perhaps Norway is not; have you spent any time in Naples, Italy? (Note: Look up the Camorra.)