Yuku free message boards

What I wrote is a legitimate argument used by prosecutors in cases where someone is shot in the back, you douchebag, asstard, parlour-boy, ladyfingered mantroll.

In this case, the fat-assed Texan took the law into his own hands as he was defending someone else's property and there is no evidence that he was told to be the caretaker for his neighbor nor that he was in any imminent danger of bodily harm.

HOWEVER, these criminals were repeat offenders, so do we really want to go by the "letter of the law" to put someone in jail where two lowlifes are now no longer able to terrorize peaceful citizens? That's the dilemma and, frankly, although I hate that motherfucker fat-assed Texan and don't want someone like him to take the law into his own hands, those two offenders WERE burglarizing property and would probably do it again, maybe even killing people...so, I err on the side of letting him go.

No, that is the argument against him.

One prong of the statute that the prosecutor could have used against him the most is:

(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.


If someone is fleeing the scene, the land can be protected by other means - letting the guys run away. For (B), obviously, he was in no danger of serious bodily injury as they were running away from him.

These are the arguments to be made in defense of the "letter of the law."

But, like I said, two lowlifes are gone. Jury nullification works sometimes (or a prosecutor realizing it's not worth pressing the case).

If no texas jury will convict those who shoot others in the back...then it becomes de-facto legal, doesn't?

Well, I see what you are saying - but not really. Who knows how another jury will rule given a similar set of facts. Or a "more capable" prosecutor will argue his/her case, etc. The law is still the law and the justification still must be met based on all the facts.

Course, you did say "no Texas jury!" So, yeah... But I think there may be another jury pool out there that would see this as unjustifiable homicide. Hey, this is why attorneys spend such a long time doing jury deliberations. They want the best mix of people to get them to win their case.