U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 02-14-2012, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
6,813 posts, read 10,367,245 times
Reputation: 2901
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
All suppositions.
Of course, that's what we are all doing here. That's what the media does too, and is horribly inept at it.

Quote:
Someone who hears a shot and calls 911, isn't a witness to anything except hearing a shot.
These are witnesses. If there is a trial, they will be called to the stand as such. Your supposition that "they only heard a shot" seems rather flawed, IMO. First off, reports (as useless as they are) indicate very detailed descriptions of the conversation. Someone must have heard that, I doubt the shooter provided the police with those words. The homes are close together, and people were awake after the accident. They could have heard plenty, and (supposition on my part) might have looked out their windows.

Anyway, it's not in the best interest for police to release any detailed reports from these witnesses, if they plan to prosecute for murder. The info will be shared with the grand jury (which will be a private deliberation), and with the defense during discovery (if it gets that far; I believe he will plea).


Quote:
The guy admitted shooting the man, who later died. The police had to charge him, its up to a jury to determine if it was justified. At this point he is just accused of a crime, but is innocent until proven guilty.
The man is charged with murder, that's all I've said. That much is a fact. And the police didn't have to charge him, and they certainly didn't have to so quickly. The fact that they did tells us something.

 
Old 02-14-2012, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Volcano
11,586 posts, read 9,268,297 times
Reputation: 9108
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
The guy admitted shooting the man, who later died. The police had to charge him, its up to a jury to determine if it was justified. [/b]
The shooter's statement to the police was that he told the kid to stay where he was, but when the kid RAN AWAY he shot him.
 
Old 02-15-2012, 07:38 AM
 
956 posts, read 1,121,429 times
Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
The shooter's statement to the police was that he told the kid to stay where he was, but when the kid RAN AWAY he shot him.
Doesn't invalidate the original statement in that it's up to a jury to decide if the shooting was justified.
 
Old 02-15-2012, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Volcano
11,586 posts, read 9,268,297 times
Reputation: 9108
Quote:
Originally Posted by austinnerd View Post
Doesn't invalidate the original statement in that it's up to a jury to decide if the shooting was justified.
Of course, but since this whole conversation is speculative, I choose to speculate my own way.

And I speculate that the jury will hang him high. There's no way to justify shooting an unarmed kid who was running away.

Furthermore, I predict the the kid's family will file a wrongful death civil suit against the shooter, and he will lose everything.
 
Old 02-15-2012, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Southwest Austin
4,889 posts, read 9,429,049 times
Reputation: 3336
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
It is not as "simple as that". There is a lot of assumption and pre-judgement in your statements as well as some misinformation*. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I agree with innocent until proven guilty. But we are all speculating to some degree, guessing and making judgments.

Quote:
I don't think blowhards spouting off on a Jeff Ward show amount to anything credible.
The callers I heard were not "blow hards" but sounded like people knowledgeable of the subject matter (guns and their proper use). Person after another, speaking in reasoned tones, matter of fact-like, with sound rationale to back their comments, stated that, based on what is known to the public, this is a bad shooting that will be hard to defend.

Quote:
True, its unlikely that most adults could fit completely under a car, but being partially concealed under a car with an arm and a leg while trying to tamper with it could still be described by many as "lying under the car".

*Take a look at the location, it has an unusual configuration. What curb and gutter? The houses along that section of Staked Plains Drive do not front on a normal street. The street is to the left in this photo below, then a fence and a second private drive/street in front of the houses, with NO curb and gutter or sidewalk running along in front of the houses.
Points well taken. I was unaware of the strange configuration of the streets in that section.

But again, even the speculation has to pass the reality test. I'm not an expert at stealing cars or tampering with them, but I think those who are would say that you don't accomplish anything underneath the car. You break into the interior and perhaps pop the hood. If you want to cling to the possibility that he was "under the car" with nefarious intentions, what exactly would he have been doing under there, and to what possible end? You don't climb under a car to steal it.


Again, innocent until proven guilty, I agree, but if we were taking bets today, I'm fairly comfortable putting a large amount down on "guilty".

Steve
 
Old 02-15-2012, 10:18 AM
 
369 posts, read 512,414 times
Reputation: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by austin-steve View Post
I'm not an expert at stealing cars or tampering with them, but I think those who are would say that you don't accomplish anything underneath the car. You break into the interior and perhaps pop the hood. If you want to cling to the possibility that he was "under the car" with nefarious intentions, what exactly would he have been doing under there, and to what possible end? You don't climb under a car to steal it.



Steve
There was a rash of thefts in this area recently, where someone
was crawling under cars (suvs I'd presume)and removing catalytic converts.
Was in the papers, and on the Avery Ranch Forum.
Think I posted a heads up a few months back myself, when they grabbed
like 6 in night, informed my neighbors as well.

Not sure how the get under the car myself, or just target SUVS

Here's one article

Thefts of catalytic converters in Travis County is on the rise | kvue.com Austin

You can also hot wire some cars from underneath as well.
Specially older ones.
 
Old 02-15-2012, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
14,266 posts, read 19,625,818 times
Reputation: 6286
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickc007 View Post
There was a rash of thefts in this area recently, where someone
was crawling under cars (suvs I'd presume)and removing catalytic converts.
Was in the papers, and on the Avery Ranch Forum.
Think I posted a heads up a few months back myself, when they grabbed
like 6 in night, informed my neighbors as well.

Not sure how the get under the car myself, or just target SUVS

Here's one article

Thefts of catalytic converters in Travis County is on the rise | kvue.com Austin

You can also hot wire some cars from underneath as well.
Specially older ones.
There are also some vehicles that have the spare tire mounted in a carrier that has to be accessed from underneath the car. Someone said there was a news report that the victim's car had blown out a tire when it wrecked, perhaps he needed a replacement.
 
Old 02-15-2012, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
14,266 posts, read 19,625,818 times
Reputation: 6286
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
The shooter's statement to the police was that he told the kid to stay where he was, but when the kid RAN AWAY he shot him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
There's no way to justify shooting an unarmed kid who was running away.
The justification is written into the law. He was entitled to use deadly force against someone who was fleeing after committing a theft or criminal mischief at night.

It may not have been a righteous shooting, but it could have been a legal one.

Quote:
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
 
Old 02-15-2012, 11:00 AM
 
956 posts, read 1,121,429 times
Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
The justification is written into the law. He was entitled to use deadly force against someone who was fleeing after committing a theft or criminal mischief at night.

It may not have been a righteous shooting, but it could have been a legal one.
Right, it seems that one question is how does the law apply when the shooter did not know with certainty that a theft was even committed. I.E. does the shooter have the responsibility to ensure that a theft was actually committed or is the assumption of theft good enough. And how do the other extenuating circumstances factor in.
 
Old 02-15-2012, 11:10 AM
 
369 posts, read 512,414 times
Reputation: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
The justification is written into the law. He was entitled to use deadly force against someone who was fleeing after committing a theft or criminal mischief at night.

It may not have been a righteous shooting, but it could have been a legal one.
I'm not on board with what happened ...

But unfortunately the above may be correct.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top