This guy, who live in Texas, who shoots a random stranger and hires a lawyer to minimize the consequence? He is no “gentleman”. He’s a sociopath, not a gentleman.
2 Likes
I think we can all agree that the shooting was morally wrong regardless of whether he was in the driveway. But I like to think that these forums are not just about deciding or confirming what is morally wrong about other peoples actions.
The stand your ground legal defense is at the center of this story, and that entirely depends on whether he was in fact in the driveway.
The driveway matters to the victim’s family who are worried the claim will let him off the hook.
Destroying this guys story may make him serve time. Even if it doesn’t, truth and facts matter greatly in the age of disinformation.
Even stand your ground laws require a reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger (the only difference from normal self-defense laws is that you don’t have to try to escape the situation before resorting to lethal force). A person running (or driving) away from you negates the “reasonable belief of imminent danger” part. So, no, it doesn’t matter if he was still in the driveway when the shot was fired.
1 Like
That’s a recent one and absolutely not the one I’m thinking of. However, considering I can’t even find the one I’m thinking of because any search brings up dozens and dozens of similar incidents in many different states (including Texas), your point still stands. I can’t wait to escape this barbaric country.
3 Likes
Texas has a castle doctrine that allows you to murder people if you think your property is in danger at night. You don’t have to feel threatened at all.
However, shooting at someone in their own car, when they are leaving the area is hopefully not covered by that doctrine. But I’m not going to count on it.
Texas interprets castle doctrine so broadly a judge let Amber Guyger claim that she had castle doctrine rights and was the victim when she murdered Botham Jean in his home, because she supposedly thought it was hers, so, magical right to kill anyone she thinks is in her home, whether it’s actually her home or not.
4 Likes
I don’t believe that the Castle Doctrine applies to driveways (it does seem pretty clear about applying to one’s domicile or vehicle), though I could be wrong.
In the Amber Guyger trial, they let her use that as a defense, but she was ultimately found guilty. I think this case will turn out the same. In the end, it’s not a matter of whether that defense is used, but whether the jury buys it.
2 Likes
It does, in Texas.
See the link I posted earlier about the 1994 case where a jury declined to indict Jerry Casey after he murdered Tommy Dean Morris, who was legally repossessing a vehicle at the time and Casey did not fear for his life, nor was he shooting at someone in his home or even on his porch.
"Casey, 35, who was three days late on a payment for his pickup truck, was accused of murder in the Feb. 25 shooting of Tommy Dean Morris, 54. Casey said he thought Morris was a car thief when Morris arrived at night and started to tow his truck away.
Under Texas law, homeowners are permitted to shoot at nighttime intruders if they feel their safety or property is threatened."
1 Like
Projection, perhaps?
1 Like
But in that case, the victim was actually trying to take the murderer’s pickup truck. Jerry Casey, not knowing that his truck was being repossessed, had “reasonable” belief of imminent threat to his property. I do not believe that that case would have gone that way if the victim just happened to be on the murderer’s driveway.
The murderer in this case is trying to claim he feared a gun. Sounds implausible, especially since there was no gun. But it’s Texas and the shooter is white and the murder victim is brown. So I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a conviction.
1 Like
I understand your pessimism, but it will ultimately come down to what a jury is willing to believe, and you never know who will end up on the jury, even in a state like Texas.
2 Likes
So you’re saying if he were in the driveway, his murder would have been justified? What a monstrous position to take.
Yes. you’re right. making murder an intellectual exercise to show one’s cleverness is much better! /s
4 Likes
And you are right that BoingBoing is no place for intellectual cleverness.
ETA: My post which started the pileon:
was about defending the right and appropriateness of @VeronicaConnor to further the discussion by debating whether the driveway narrative given by the shooter was correct:
It sounded like @anon61221983 was trying to shut down discussion and shame @VeronicaConnor for going against groupthink with the post:
Somehow my post got twisted into me trying to earn approval for cleverness and/or supporting the shooter or stand your ground laws.
I could and should have been more clear, which is the reason for this edit. Just to restate once more: The driveway should NOT be important. But the driveway IS important due to the legal system failings. And discussing or acknowledging the shooter’s lies around the driveway is NOT antithetical to justice or respectfulness.
1 Like
There is being intellectual and then there is using the pain of others to show off how intellectual you are.
5 Likes
Yeah, that’s the problem - there are so many, and all over the place. That was just the first one that leapt to mind. (Though I still often think of the Yoshihiro Hattori case in Louisiana, even after all these years, and how the shooter was acquitted.)
The Aristocrats!
America!
3 Likes
Something, something, cleverness, something, Scalzi.
7 Likes
5 Likes
On Boingboing, when someone writes “gentleman”, they usually mean “asshole”; so yeah.
7 Likes
Tomato:Tomato
