Father fatally shoots intruder - 16 year old daughter

[cycleguy2300]

In the interest of discussion:

Manslaughter?
Or
Criminally negligent homicide?
Or
That sucks let's move on?

and how do yall think this case compared to the Midland Officer who was shot and killed by the homeowner in like circumstances. I see a few small but IMO significant differences, namely the officer announced was in uniform etc, but not expected to be there while the daughter lived there but didnt announce (or I haven't heard she did)...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Sam7sf]

In the interest of discussion:

Manslaughter?
Or
Criminally negligent homicide?
Or
That sucks let's move on?

and how do yall think this case compared to the Midland Officer who was shot and killed by the homeowner in like circumstances. I see a few small but IMO significant differences, namely the officer announced was in uniform etc, but not expected to be there while the daughter lived there but didnt announce (or I haven't heard she did)...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

What happened with the midland case?

I say negligence for homicide.

involuntary manslaughter doesn’t fit imo because he responded with intent to kill so full blown manslaughter sure but I say negligence because he acted so. His real punishment of knowing what he did is way worse.

 

[cycleguy2300]

What happened with the midland case?

I say negligence for homicide.

involuntary manslaughter doesn’t fit imo because he responded with intent to kill so full blown manslaughter sure but I say negligence because he acted so. His real punishment of knowing what he did is way worse.

In Midland, a uniformed officer responded to alarm call, found house front door unlocked, opened door, announced, entered and was shot and killed by the homeowner who said he didn't hear the officer announce as the officer stood in a doorway. Home owner charged with murder (probably wrong charge) and found not-guilty.

There is a long thread about it here somewhere.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Sam7sf]

In Midland, a uniformed officer responded to alarm call, found house front door unlocked, opened door, announced, entered and was shot and killed by the homeowner who said he didn't hear the officer announce as the officer stood in a doorway. Home owner charged with murder (probably wrong charge) and found not-guilty.

There is a long thread about it here somewhere.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

That’s a shitty deal. I assume the officer was on his own cam to show he was audible and clear? I mean that’s no different than this case.

 

[Sam7sf]

That’s a raw deal for that cop. If all I have to go on is that paragraph then his heart was in the right place by checking in on that house. That cop and that guys kid ain’t no different. Was the guy deaf?

 

[toddnjoyce]

That’s a raw deal for that cop. If all I have to go on is that paragraph then his heart was in the right place by checking in on that house. That cop and that guys kid ain’t no different. Was the guy deaf?

The whole thing was a shîtshow. Nobody deserved to die, but a whioe lot of stupid on everybody’s part, to include the prosecutor’s occurred.

 

[toddnjoyce]

In the interest of discussion:

Manslaughter?
Or
Criminally negligent homicide?
Or
That sucks let's move on?

and how do yall think this case compared to the Midland Officer who was shot and killed by the homeowner in like circumstances. I see a few small but IMO significant differences, namely the officer announced was in uniform etc, but not expected to be there while the daughter lived there but didnt announce (or I haven't heard she did)...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

Using Texas law, was it reasonable at the time for the father to believe someone was attempting to unlawfully enter his place of habitation?

If yes, then that suck’s and let’s move on. If no, then criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter is appropriate.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Using Texas law, was it reasonable at the time for the father to believe someone was attempting to unlawfully enter his place of habitation?

If yes, then that suck’s and let’s move on. If no, then criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter is appropriate.

Isn't the garage part of the house?
She was in the garage.
So, I say yes.

 

[moorejames]

Canal Winchester used to be a quiet little bedroom community. Not so sure that's the case anymore as Columbus has expanded The southeast side of Columbus isn't exactly the best neighborhood in town either. Not commenting on this case, but I can imagine people feel much less safe in that small town than they did 30 years ago.

 

[Axxe55]

In the interest of discussion:

Manslaughter?
Or
Criminally negligent homicide?
Or
That sucks let's move on?

and how do yall think this case compared to the Midland Officer who was shot and killed by the homeowner in like circumstances. I see a few small but IMO significant differences, namely the officer announced was in uniform etc, but not expected to be there while the daughter lived there but didnt announce (or I haven't heard she did)...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

What is the legal differences between manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide? Kind of fine line between the two charges IMO.

Criminally Negligent Homicide vs. Manslaughter: What’s the Difference?

First degree murder is the most serious criminal charge that a defendant can face. But, the law recognizes that not every homicide is premeditated. For this reason, there are several other homicide laws that are applied in cases where the defendant did not intend on killing the victim. For...

reischlawfirm.com

I think it comes down to "intent". The father had no intentions of shooting, much less killing his daughter. So no intent can be applied IMO.

So it comes down to either his actions being reckless, or criminally negligent. Not properly identifying the target before shooting IMO could be either.

I could see a prosecutor using this incident to prove, or make a point, but IMO, it's pointless. The father is going to suffer way much more that what any court of law could even imagine trying to penalize him with as far as criminal charges.

I also see it quite possible it just being listed called a very tragic "accidental" shooting as well.

I would not in the least be surprised to hear at some point in the future, he decided to eat his pistol.

 

[Sasquatch]

In Midland, a uniformed officer responded to alarm call, found house front door unlocked, opened door, announced, entered and was shot and killed by the homeowner who said he didn't hear the officer announce as the officer stood in a doorway. Home owner charged with murder (probably wrong charge) and found not-guilty.

There is a long thread about it here somewhere.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

My first instinct is involuntary manslaughter / negligent homicide or whatever the statute is called there to cover the incident would be appropriate, from a legal standpoint.

My second instinct says nothing the legal system does to this man will equal what he's no doubt already gone thru and will continue to go through. He may even end his own life over the grief at some point. I don't think the system needs to hammer him when he's probably already tearing himself apart unless they can prove that he was cold and callous and then hit him with murder.

Let the investigators do their jobs and then decide appropriately.

 

[toddnjoyce]

So everyone is on the same page re @cycleguy2300’s question, using Texas law, here are the relevant code sections.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
…
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.


Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

 

[Sasquatch]

With Texas penal code @toddnjoyce posted, Manslaughter would be the most appropriate charge. I don't think, just based on what we know at this moment, there was intent by the father to kill the daughter. He was in fear for his life and thought he was protecting his family. The recklessness displayed by not ID'ing the target before shooting - verbally or visually - would be the legal clincher for me.

Leaning toward no charges still, because it wouldn't really serve the public any good.

 

[toddnjoyce]

With Texas penal code @toddnjoyce posted, Manslaughter would be the most appropriate charge. I don't think, just based on what we know at this moment, there was intent by the father to kill the daughter. He was in fear for his life and thought he was protecting his family. The recklessness displayed by not ID'ing the target before shooting - verbally or visually - would be the legal clincher for me.

Leaning toward no charges still, because it wouldn't really serve the public any good.

Q: If it were a stranger and not a family member, does it become justified under TPC 9? If so why is that?

 

[Sasquatch]

Q: If it were a stranger and not a family member, does it become justified under TPC 9? If so why is that?

I think from a legal standpoint, either case could go to trial. Were it a stranger that had broken into the house - I don't think a grand jury would indict.

The man's daughter had a right to be in the house / garage - she lived there. A stranger has no right to enter a dwelling they don't live in unless invited in. The stranger in that scenario would've been committing a felony - burglary of a habitation.

Legally the shooting of a stranger would probably be ruled as justified.

The moral justification of shooting an unidentified target isn't considered heavily by the law - which is probably a good thing because then the law becomes subjective by nature, instead of just being subjectively applied. Its a fine distinction, but important one I think because an objective, black & white law applied subjectively based on circumstances is better than a vague, subjective law. The ability for the law to be abused in the later scenario is just way too much.

 

[FireInTheWire]

Interestingly I just watched Travis Haley talking about a related item. During one of his classes he asks

"If someone (bad guy) was in your house would you shoot them?"

Naturally a lot of hands went up then he asked "why?". "Because I can" was the typical answer.

Because you can it THE WORST reason to do something.

As Haley pointed out the first thing you should do in a gun-fight is think.

Sadly, this father had gaps in his security plan that caused the life of daughter. More night lights, a split second longer for target ID, a weapon light, confirmation bias...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

I always found this story intriguing and it plays into what your saying.

 

[Axxe55]

Q: If it were a stranger and not a family member, does it become justified under TPC 9? If so why is that?

I think from a legal standpoint, either case could go to trial. Were it a stranger that had broken into the house - I don't think a grand jury would indict.

The man's daughter had a right to be in the house / garage - she lived there. A stranger has no right to enter a dwelling they don't live in unless invited in. The stranger in that scenario would've been committing a felony - burglary of a habitation.

Legally the shooting of a stranger would probably be ruled as justified.

The moral justification of shooting an unidentified target isn't considered heavily by the law - which is probably a good thing because then the law becomes subjective by nature, instead of just being subjectively applied. Its a fine distinction, but important one I think because an objective, black & white law applied subjectively based on circumstances is better than a vague, subjective law. The ability for the law to be abused in the later scenario is just way too much.

I have to agree with @Sasquatch line of reasoning as well.

I happen to believe had it been a stranger, instead of his daughter, much of the discussion so far would not be taking place, regardless if he shot an intruder simply based on luck instead of properly identifying the target.

But, let me add this, even shooting an intruder based upon a lucky shot, and not by properly identifying that intruder, is not good planning.

I don't think a practical or responsible person would rely upon using luck in such a situation. Still reverts back to the very basic fundamental gun safety rules for me. Know your target before pulling the trigger.

 

[oldag]

Anyone with even a shred of common sense would not press charges in this case.

 

[Younggun]

With Texas penal code @toddnjoyce posted, Manslaughter would be the most appropriate charge. I don't think, just based on what we know at this moment, there was intent by the father to kill the daughter. He was in fear for his life and thought he was protecting his family. The recklessness displayed by not ID'ing the target before shooting - verbally or visually - would be the legal clincher for me.

Leaning toward no charges still, because it wouldn't really serve the public any good.

I don’t think I’d be able to convict on anything. Just to horrible of a situation and would imagine the pain will be far more punishment than I could ever imagine inflicting on someone for most crimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

I think from a legal standpoint, either case could go to trial...

Charges have to he preferred before anything goes to a trial. The question @cycleguy2300 posed is what charge is appropriate.

TPC 9 has some good nuggets in there about presumed reasonableness and what happens when there’s reckless injury to a third party.