Basically, the guy caught some punks trying to break into his girlfriends car and shot one of them dead wounded a second and missed the third.
He’s being charged with 1st degree intentional homicide even though he was provoked by the criminal behavior of the three who are now the vicitms in this case.
Do you believe the man is being overcharged and if so what should the charge be?
If you believe the charge is correct, why?
[The original story was posted on Jan, 18th, but does not include any additional details that I believe would sway your decision. (you can register for free if you want go into the archives).]
More details are needed. But from the look of it, he shot at unarmed thieves, killing one from behind. That doesn’t sound like self defense, and self defense - it seems to me - is the only way he could be justified in using lethal force this way.
It really depends on how the situation played out. If, for example, he warned them and they moved to attack him, I’d have a different opinion.
The defense is suggesting that the men may have been armed, and police failed to search for their weapons. That may simply be a “reasonable doubt” tactic, or it may be because White said as much. More details are needed.
I think it’s safe to say that if simply came upon the thieves trying to steal the car and opened fire, with no threat to his life or anyone else’s first, that’s murder.
Ropiak being the responding officer. If your car was broken into you don’t lie to the police unless you did something wrong. He shot someone in the back. He should go to jail and he should go there for a very long time.
Insufficient data. But in general, if you shoot people in the back, you need a pretty good explanation for why that’s self-defense. “I was aiming at the other guy” could work (at least it would cut the charge to manslaughter), but “They were busting up my girlfriend’s car!” won’t.
I am a big supporter of anti-crime measures and self-defence but I agree that this article has far too few details of the series of events. I’ll have to wait till I hear more.
Well I can’t seem to access the story as it requires email/password.
But from what I’ve heard in this thread this is a good example of defending property in an inappropriate manner. The whole situation would be different if I had reason to believe the man was attempting to defend himself, and very different if these guys were coming in to the man’s home and not just messing around with his girlfriend’s car.
I do question the first degree murder charge, I don’t know the laws in the given state but most states (Virginia which I’m familiar with, anyways) first degree murder is for premeditated homicides. I’d think this would be second degree murder.
He may not be guilty as sin. If the officer is to be believed, then he lied to the officer… but that doesn’t make him guilty. Perhaps he acted in legitimate self-defense, but still feared being charged with a crime, and so decided to deny his involvement in the shooting.
In Virginia, § 18.2-32 defines first and second degree murder. Case law further holds that any premeditation, even if measured in seconds, is sufficient to sustain a first degree murder charge. We don’t have a clear picture of what he did; if he, for example, had to load the gun before he shot, that is evidence of premeditation.
Yeah and perhaps all three people got temporary amensia and forgot what happened moments before. Sure its possible but the much more likely scenario is that he knew he did something wrong and was trying to get away with it.
Yes, but my understanding of the story is he saw people messing around with his girlfriend’s car and pulled a gun and shot them in the heat of the moment. It was definitely an inappropriate response, but I have doubts that there was any premeditation involved.
As I’m sure you are aware of this, but it varies by state. The article doesn’t give many details, but if it happened in Texas, at night or on his own property it would be completely justified:
(bolding mine)
Of course, this is Texas, and you would still probably be sued. Looking at the Wisconsin statute, §939.49, deadly force cannot be used for the sole purpose of protecting property.
Morally, he had a right to kill every one of them. Legally of course we can’t have that sort of thing or people would use it as a cover for casual murder. However, even in the real world, if he shot auto burglars in the act (even if they were fleeing,) he doesn’t deserve 15 to 20, maybe 7 to 10 with time off for good behavior at the most (I’d be satisfied if he’s out in three). Of course I don’t know what the penalty for “1st degree intentional homicide” is.
In the decision to confront the burglars he also made the decision to arm himself for protection, which I believe to be a wise decision (that is if confronting the offenders was a wise choice in the first place). However the moment that his possible crime crossed over from brandishment to homicide is where the mistake was made. If the presence of a firearm was enough deterrent to sufficiently de-escalate the situation to the point that you have the opportunity to back shoot one of the assailants, you crossed the line, and in my opinion deserve to be charged exactly as he has been.
How on earth does he have a moral right to kill every one of them? If he had done nothing the worst that could have happened is they would have stolen the car. Under what circumstances is ownership of a car worth a human life?
As for premeditation, I’d say stopping to pick up a gun before leaving the house implies an intent to do more than simply investigate the disturbance.
Nighttime is not sufficient excuse. I know people like to think of Texas as the Wild West. But it’s not completely accurate. Perhaps you missed the third part, which you quoted, but I’ll bold for emphasis:
Sneaking up behind some car burglar and shooting him in the back is by no means reasonable. There was nothing to indicate that was the only way to protect the property nor that using another means would be dangerous.
(bolding mine)
It’s mindsets like yours that make it just SO WRONG for gun licenses to be handed out without first obtaining a mental health examination.