Hopyard

This is a tragedy made worse by what seems to me to be very poor judgment on the part of the prosecutor.

The mentality at play seems to be to seek a conviction instead of to seek some sort of justice from an unfortunate episode.

Big perp = drunk driver. He would have killed someone anyway. The other issues are irrelevant to his guilt.

The "boys" jumped a fence at night --and perhaps it was not a 4 foot chain link but a 6 footer of wood; one that clearly means by its very presence, keep out.
If so, they had no business in there and must be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

I once found a "kid" in my back yard (daytime) who took off running when I went out to talk to him. At first I figured he was just a dumb kid. But when he took off running I discovered that he had broken the lock off the gate and carefully left himself an escape route--through which he ran. I don't know what he was doing back there, but it wasn't crossing to the neighbors. He was up to something when I interrupted, and he was doing it even though he knew we were home; both cars in the driveway, garage door open.

The point is, if I found someone in my backyard at night, they sure as heck didn't get there by accident, and they more than likely will not have good intentions. They aren't there to leave a nice present on my patio.

The shooting we are discussing in this thread is sadly understandable, even if not wise, and the prosecutor needs to be showing a great deal more maturity and discretion.

Not one person in this entire scenario, has used good judgment. Not the kids, not the old man, not the drunk driver and not the DA or the members of the GJ.

QKShooter

Mr. & Mrs. Frosch should stop talking so much.

__________________

Support Our Military.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kerbouchard

74 year old man with his wife vs two unidentified males prowling outside his window? I would call that disparity of force. Sure, he could have waited until they came in his home and attacked him prior to trying to defend himself. Yeah, that makes sense...

The 2 kids had NO business being within 3 feet of a mans window at 2 a.m. Period. And his parents had no business allowing them to do it. The kids were up to no good. I wish I could be on the jury for this one.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

ccw9mm

The guy didn't think he had much choice, shooting through a window at the alleged intruder on the other side. Grand Jury chose to indict. Must not have been any actual evidence of forcible entry, or attempt at entry. Must not have agreed that his fears were reasonable or justified.

A.O.J. Being on the other side of a locked door and (assuming) not attempting to breach the barrier doesn't meet the Opportunity element of A.O.J. Makes it risky to claim justifiability, then. Even in Texas, as it turns out in this case.

Who's to say, though. Few of us, here, are going to have all the facts that the Grand Jury has seen.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Reality: Disarming citizens only results in more victims.
Tip: Use the <search> feature.

TravisABQ

I wouldn't have fired... but I wouldn't have voted to indict, either.

--Travis--