THIS IS INSANE...

He actually shot at the car, claiming to have aimed for the tires, and got her in the neck. ...

. Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

Don't let facts spoil a perfectly good moral outrage.

I know nothing of this case so have no opinion one way or the other. However, when a person dies while violating another persons rights, it is the actor who put such a low value on his life - not the victim.

Frankly, I wouldn't give a nickel to save a thief. We are better off without them.

Back to this case. All I know is what is in this thread. I wouldn't shoot under these circumstances. A girl with a pimp waiting in the car has problems and may be exploited. Shooting the pimp would have been more in line with justice.

I believe law is you shoot to eliminate the threat, (most of you know what that means) though she wasn't really a threat except he didn't know if she may also have had a gun on her or in the car, and he was trying to stop a burglary, and I didn't notice if it was (but probably was) at night.

Also, the jury instructions have to be followed..................if it was said the jury would find him not guilty if he had wings, and he did, they have to find him not guilty! At least that's the way I see it.

But if it were me, I would have shot into a tree or hopefully somewhere safe from harming anyone, just to scare the shit out of her and let her go. He's no doubt paid way more than what she tried to steal trying to defend himself?

But then I wasn't there so my opinion doesn't mean shitz!

People, good people, are killed regularly by thieves who are high, delusional or both, for as little as nothing. Fathers and mothers and children have been killed because the drawer won't open, or the cash has already been dropped. "What a life is worth" is a silly argument best left to TORT reform lawyers and theoligists. The argument here is over behavior, just like it was in Florida. A perfect storm of bad potential behavior looking for a place to happen. Guy takes gun to potentially dangerous situation he should have avoided, girl sets him up to rip him off, regardless of either's motivation, he left the house to shoot somebody and she left the house to steal from somebody. A really suck social situation on both sides.Do we eliminate firearms or crooked hookers? Neither is likely. Neither is fixing social injustice, bad behaviors, mental illness or "soft" laws. Kids and hookers and shop owners and national heroes keep getting killed because no one wants to take responsibility for people behaving badly. I know one thing...righteous indignation isn't going to fix it.

People, good people, are killed regularly by thieves who are high, delusional or both, for as little as nothing. Fathers and mothers and children have been killed because the drawer won't open, or the cash has already been dropped. "What a life is worth" is a silly argument best left to TORT reform lawyers and theoligists. The argument here is over behavior, just like it was in Florida. A perfect storm of bad potential behavior looking for a place to happen. Guy takes gun to potentially dangerous situation he should have avoided, girl sets him up to rip him off, regardless of either's motivation, he left the house to shoot somebody and she left the house to steal from somebody. A really suck social situation on both sides.Do we eliminate firearms or crooked hookers? Neither is likely. Neither is fixing social injustice, bad behaviors, mental illness or "soft" laws. Kids and hookers and shop owners and national heroes keep getting killed because no one wants to take responsibility for people behaving badly. I know one thing...righteous indignation isn't going to fix it. Originally Posted by phildo

Well said.

I have heard of ppl killed for less than 3 dollars. Theifs still an rob every day get slapped on wrist an sent back out after we pay thousands of dollars because of what they did. Now ppl are standing there ground an not taking it an we get mad about it. I'm sorry she lost her life. A thief is a thief no matter how much or what they take. I hear all the time where a pimp met a jon with a gun. If she's doing this then ya know that's coming next. I have no mercy on a thief. I've been broke into.

The question is... was it a robbery?

Did he give her the money and then she left? It sounds like it from what the article states, that she refused after he paid her. At that point, the money given was a gift to her... a gift for her "time" or for "services". She didn't just walk up to the guy and take the money from his person by demand or by force.

I would personally consider it deceitful, and I would personally feel like she stole that money by not providing the service, but legally I don't know if it should have been considered theft.

Well clearly the law and the jury felt it was robbery. And don't try to.figure out all the facts from a half ass story.

Well clearly the law and the jury felt it was robbery. And don't try to.figure out all the facts from a half ass story. Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

Yes, clearly the jury did.

We shouldn't assume facts from a half ass story, yet you have based your arguments in this thread off of the same half-assed story.

Actually I did some research. Found other reports of the incident, read some of the TX penal code. Could.not find the actual court record on line though.

Actually I did some research. Found other reports of the incident, read some of the TX penal code. Could.not find the actual court record on line though. And my arguments are far more about tie legal and moral implications of the case not the every specific detail. Oh, and still response to my question of at what value of properity would you feel justified in protecting with deadly force?

If a person is clearly running from you, deadly force should not be allowed. If a person is in your home and you feel threatened, that's a different story. Don't know the case, but the law seems wrong and the man though maybe within his legal rights, is morally wrong and hopefully will be judged by a higher power as such. 2 cents

So I grap a family herloom worth $100K and start running away. Your just going to let me run? Not try to stop me with all resources at your command including deadly force? I am running to a car with another person in it. How do you know I am not going to turn around with a gun and blow your ass away? Or the other person may be armed?

So your saying I should let you go, not try to protect myself, maybe family that might be near by until you show deadly force. Of course by the time I see you now have a gun, I will be dead or dying but, hay, I did the "moral" thing of letting you go.

The law in Texas gives me the right to protect myself and my properity with deadly force if I am robbed at night. Your really think the thief cares about if its "moral" if they are there? If its "moral" if they decide to kill me for no other reason than I objected to them robbing me? I should give a thief the chance to go first before deciding if I need to protect myself, my family, and my property at all costs?

If a person is clearly running from you, deadly force should not be allowed. If a person is in your home and you feel threatened, that's a different story. Don't know the case, but the law seems wrong and the man though maybe within his legal rights, is morally wrong and hopefully will be judged by a higher power as such. 2 cents Originally Posted by Looking41today

to Old but still going, for me this is a pretty clear picture. Im using deadly force when my life is in danger or the life of another human being. Family friend or stranger. If it is a life threatening situation I would shoot and shoot to kill. Not a shot in to the trees or ground to scare anyone either. If it is property at stake and not life, I don't shoot. You can disagree but that's what life is all about. I understand the gun laws in Texas and am thankfull I live here and not in California or New York where they differ. I don't know for sure but I bet the shooter in this case paid a lot more than $150 for his defense and would agree if he had it to do over he would have let the bitch go. But the law is the law and he lives with his decision.

I have no problem at all with anyone who has a clear understanding of what they are willing to do or not do in a case like this. I respect it. You are the ONLY one who has clearly stated no matter what the properity is nor how much its worth, you would let them go. Hopfully you will never have to face that situation. I personaly don't think it can ever be that cut and dried but ...

3 others made an issue of she died for only $150. They show such great moral outrage but the money amount clearly was an issue for them. When I asked them what value would be justified in protecting with deadly force, they declined to answer.I asked this question to make people THINK about what they are saying. Is there a value at wich deadly force is justified? Or not? I take great exception to people like that. If they had said its terrible that a woman died, I would agree. It is terrible. But the value is not important. What she and he did is.

The moral issuse is not how much was the properity worth. It is as you put forth, is it right to defend ones properity with deadly force? You feel it is not. I feel it is. Until one is placed in such a situation I do not feel one can know for sure how they would react. I feel justified in protecting my properity but actualy pulling the trigger to kill someone woud be a very hard thing to do. Hopefully none of us will ever have to face that choice.

This man is not a bad man because of this. He acted as he felt was right. He acted within the law. Legally, he did nothing wrong. Moraly, he has to live with his choices for the rest of his life. I am very glad I am not him.

to Old but still going, for me this is a pretty clear picture. Im using deadly force when my life is in danger or the life of another human being. Family friend or stranger. If it is a life threatening situation I would shoot and shoot to kill. Not a shot in to the trees or ground to scare anyone either. If it is property at stake and not life, I don't shoot. You can disagree but that's what life is all about. I understand the gun laws in Texas and am thankfull I live here and not in California or New York where they differ. I don't know for sure but I bet the shooter in this case paid a lot more than $150 for his defense and would agree if he had it to do over he would have let the bitch go. But the law is the law and he lives with his decision. Originally Posted by smokeater