Jump to content

Murder or Self-Defense?


bullets13

Recommended Posts

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teen-shot-killed-mans-garage-germany-23500791

 

As most of you know, I'm big on gun rights, and our rights to protect ourselves, others, our property, etc. That being said, my first reaction here is this guy is going to be convicted, and probably rightfully so.

 

For those of you who haven't seen this, a man's garage had been broken into a couple of times, and he was pissed.  So for multiple nights in a row he set up a trap for a burglar.  He left his garage door cracked, with a purse visible inside the garage (not sure if you needed a flashlight to see it or not, but it was out in a way meant to draw in a possible thief).  He and his wife set up a baby monitor with a video feed and some sort of motion sensors.  After a couple of nights, a couple of teens took the bait, and after seeing them on the camera, the man ran around the house from the outside, and without any warning shot four times into the pitch-black garage, killing one of the teens.  He's now claiming he was "standing his ground".  I don't see that defense working in this case, but look forward to TVC's take on it.  It's also worth noting that at least one witness claims to have heard the man say he'd stayed up three nights in a row with his shotgun to "shoot a kid."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep probably didnt need to shoot them but he did nothing different than police do setting up a sting on criminals! jmo

 

i agree that it's similar.  that being said: A) this guy is not the police  B) the police don't set up stings and then shoot people without warning when they're caught in them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may be convicted, but the police didn't help him. What do you do. Let them continue go rob you, hope the police catch them. They could also have been armed. Maybe they would have graduated into a higher crime. I may have done the same. Warning to all!!! Do not break into the Rodante's house, he will shoot you multiple times!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would happen if I went and parked my car on a busy street with the keys in the ignition and money on the seat, hid in the bushes, and then jumped out and shot the first person who tried to steal the car. Kinda feels the same here. Yes, they're stealing your property, but you're going out of your way to tempt them to do so. Kind of like sitting over a corn feeder, but for criminals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would happen if I went and parked my car on a busy street with the keys in the ignition and money on the seat, hid in the bushes, and then jumped out and shot the first person who tried to steal the car. Kinda feels the same here. Yes, they're stealing your property, but you're going out of your way to tempt them to do so. Kind of like sitting over a corn feeder, but for criminals.


Don't try to make me feel guilty about shooting all those deer!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clearly murder and not a lot of ambiguity. The man was rightfully convicted and sentenced to life. 

 

Even under TX law there would likely be the same outcome. The only thing that might help him would be if he was out in the sticks and some jury decided on jury nullification because they were glad that two criminals were dead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clearly murder and not a lot of ambiguity. The man was rightfully convicted and sentenced to life. 
 
Even under TX law there would likely be the same outcome. The only thing that might help him would be if he was out in the sticks and some jury decided on jury nullification because they were glad that two criminals were dead.


Glad I live in the sticks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may be convicted, but the police didn't help him. What do you do. Let them continue go rob you, hope the police catch them. They could also have been armed. Maybe they would have graduated into a higher crime. I may have done the same. Warning to all!!! Do not break into the Rodante's house, he will shoot you multiple times!!!

 

What do you do? You hold them for the police. At a bare minimum, after they were shot and down they were no threat and he put admitted kill shots into them. He simply wanted to play executioner and will hopefully pay with the rest of his life. 

 

Killing a person that is a threat is legal (in most scenarios). Killing because you are angry is murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad I live in the sticks.

 

That is a fairly big gamble but whatever floats your boat. He went by the comical old saying of judged by 12 and will now serve the rest of his natural life in prison, probably being somebody's Bubba. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tvc, isn't it against the law to "bait" or booby trap (trip wires to set of firearms)? Does this situation command entrapment even though he is not law enforcement? The murder charge is obvious to me, just wondering how far citizens can go enticing crime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't try to make me feel guilty about shooting all those deer!!


I'm a hunter too, but I don't think Id get away with running a feeder in February, hiding by it, and then claiming I had to shoot a deer because it was coming right at me... ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TVC, this is actually a different case that just popped up. The guy left a garage door open and a purse out in there, with a baby monitor camera on inside. He apparently did it several Nights in a row, waiting for someone to come in for the easy score he'd laid out. When he saw someone go in on the monitor, he ran around the house and shot indiscriminately into the garage without warning, killing the kid inside.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tvc, isn't it against the law to "bait" or booby trap (trip wires to set of firearms)? Does this situation command entrapment even though he is not law enforcement? The murder charge is obvious to me, just wondering how far citizens can go enticing crime.

 

 

I have never seen anything about "baiting" but you cannot set a booby trap that causes a substantial risk of death or serious injury and the person who set the trap had to have a justification for protecting property just as if it was the actual owner on the scene. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TVC, this is actually a different case that just popped up. The guy left a garage door open and a purse out in there, with a baby monitor camera on inside. He apparently did it several Nights in a row, waiting for someone to come in for the easy score he'd laid out. When he saw someone go in on the monitor, he ran around the house and shot indiscriminately into the garage without warning, killing the kid inside.

 

I am not sure where the baiting comes into play but it is still likely murder, according to what the state law says where it happened. 

 

The problem is with the words "reasonable" or "reasonably". Those words appear 52 times in TX Chapter 9 of the Penal Code that deals in self defense. TX is fairly open on the ability to use force or deadly force when needed and reasonable. How reasonable is it for a guy to say that he is in fear of his life, yet entices a person to come into his home? It seems a ludicrous claim of reasonable fear when you are essentially inviting the person in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would happen if I went and parked my car on a busy street with the keys in the ignition and money on the seat, hid in the bushes, and then jumped out and shot the first person who tried to steal the car. Kinda feels the same here. Yes, they're stealing your property, but you're going out of your way to tempt them to do so. Kind of like sitting over a corn feeder, but for criminals.

lol, you made a very logical point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
    • See why I don't trust my Hogs?
    • Come on dude, don’t take anything away from the kids on the field. If you want to talk uncharacteristic, we made what 3 or 4 errors in game one. Y’all had 2 EARNED runs.  Defense is normally our strong suit. Your ace didn’t strike out a single one of our kids. Like I said also, you did not out hit us in game 1. Hell you barley out hit us in game 2. We had all the uncharacteristic walks. Josh pitched a hell of a game is what made that game what it was.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...