Burglar dies after 68-year-old homeowner ties him to tree with ‘multiple layers of masking tape’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50809201]is that specific to texas' law?[/QUOTE] According to a quick Google search, the following states have Stand your Ground law, which allows for deadly force to be taken if in a potentially life-threatening situation: [QUOTE]Alabama Alaska Arizona Florida Georgia Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Montana Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah West Virginia[/QUOTE] There are also some other states which have Castle Doctrine laws, which are similar, but generally more restrictive on when deadly force is permissible.

[QUOTE=ferrus;50808691]Soo.. suffocation? If he taped his nose and mouth up that warrants some kind of repercussion.[/QUOTE] castle doctrine, plus he's like a 68 year old man so his defense is pretty straight forward. this is just another stupid waste of life though

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50809019]Don't see why he should be charged, he obviously didn't intend to kill him, he just wanted to make sure the burglar wasn't going to get away and probably assumed he'd be able to breath through his nose.[/QUOTE] Negligence is not a valid defense It's still criminally negligent involuntary manslaughter

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50809122]I'm saying that, when restraining a criminal in your house, you should be cautious and think about what you do to restrain them[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the homeowner [I]was[/I] being cautious and thinking about what to do to restrain them. After all, he was [quote]restraining a criminal in your house[/quote] It just happened to be that the dude forgot to use nose-spray before breaking into his house. [QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50809130]It is completely possible to think for one second that taping his mouth could kill him, since there's a possibility he may have problems with his nose.[/QUOTE] Maybe in hindsight, sure. But in the heat of the moment when some motherfucker was breaking into your house and your priorities are to restrain him and call the police? Fuck no. Whether or not a burglar has a stuffy nose won't even register in your brain unless someone was breaking into your house while you were reading this thread. [sp]That last sentence has now gone and freaked my brain out, thanks self.[/sp]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50809139]Oh for gods sake, just about anything can [I]potentially[/I] kill someone. If a criminal has heart problems and you wrestle him to the ground that can [I]potentially[/I] kill them. You can't expect a 68 year old fucking man to consider every possible medical condition on the planet when dealing with a criminal trying to break in.[/QUOTE] If that were the case, that would be an accidental death and wouldn't be considered involuntary manslaughter

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50809130]It is completely possible to think for one second that taping his mouth could kill him, since there's a possibility he may have problems with his nose.[/QUOTE] If you just had your house broken into, chased down the burglar, and tackled him to the ground, no, that's definitely going through anyone's head. Pretty much on the level of "taze him in the leg".

Well while all of yall are argueing about if the guy will get charged or not, at the time being Johnson, the 68 year old is not being held on criminal charges at the time being while they await an autopsy report; after which the evidence will be presented before a grand jury and chances are the case will get thrown out. Especially since Alabama has stand your ground laws and in general are more than likely to see what happened as an accident and not pursue anything. Yall would know all this if you read the article

[QUOTE=Sableye;50809274]castle doctrine, plus he's like a 68 year old man so his defense is pretty straight forward. this is just another stupid waste of life though[/QUOTE] Castle doctrine may be a valid defense for him. I don't think he'll get charged.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;50809102]today I learned that citizens are allowed to bind up potential criminals and inhibit their means of escape, communication, and breathability.[/QUOTE] You're right, we should work harder to protect the rights of people breaking into our homes at night. We all need to be conscious of the fact that the burglar's needs are just as important as our own, and it'd be extremely unfair to inhibit their ability to rob us and get away with it.

[QUOTE=srobins;50809391]You're right, we should work harder to protect the rights of people breaking into our homes at night. We all need to be conscious of the fact that the burglar's needs are just as important as our own, and it'd be extremely unfair to inhibit their ability to rob us and get away with it.[/QUOTE] the only way to inhibit his ability to rob him was to duck tape his mouth shut everyone knows burglars are capable of exuding acid from their mouth to disintegrate bonds

If he was tying him to the tree to simply restrain him until police arrived then why tape his mouth?

[QUOTE=Dominic0904;50809813]If he was tying him to the tree to simply restrain him until police arrived then why tape his mouth?[/QUOTE] I think he didn't want him to cry for help, someone may hear him and think he was an innocent lad being wronged

Definitely deserves to get punished, you don't just tape someone's mouth shut.

So basically, Cops can defend themselves but regular citizens should just report everything to the police and do nothing?

[QUOTE=Megadave;50810029]So basically, Cops can defend themselves but regular citizens should just report everything to the police and do nothing?[/QUOTE] in what world do you live in where you have a dichotomy of action between "doing nothing" and "taping a guy to a tree with his mouth taped shut"

i'd say tying him to something isn't really that bad as he had called the police. the mistake was when he covered his mouth

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50810071]in what world do you live in where you have a dichotomy of action between "doing nothing" and "taping a guy to a tree with his mouth taped shut"[/QUOTE] But it's in every one of these types of threads, you have people bashing the victim for defending himself. I'll admit not the best example in this thread, but it still happens. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] at least this guy was halfway not trying to kill the dude

Uh guys this is a SIXTY EIGHT year old man. Of course he would have to be cautious in restricting the burglar. And the guy's a BURGLAR for fuck's sake. He deliberately broke into the house of an old man to steal shit and -potentially- harm the old man/homeowner.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50810142]i'd say tying him to something isn't really that bad as he had called the police. the mistake was when he covered his mouth[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. Atleast he could have checked on him and noticed if he couldn't breathe, maybe removed the tape once he passed out and called again for an ambulance or something.

[quote]In an attempt to make it look like nobody was home, Johnson parked his vehicle at a neighbor’s home and returned to his abode and waited, Sitting near his back door, Johnson told police, he turned the lights off and placed a car mirror near a window so he could see what was happening outside, according to WALA.[/quote] That's premeditation

[QUOTE=Cold;50810263]That's premeditation[/QUOTE] Premeditated victimization. Add that one to the law books...

[QUOTE=Cold;50810263]That's premeditation[/QUOTE] I thought that was only a thing in Canada (and most of Europe)

[QUOTE=Cold;50810263]That's premeditation[/QUOTE] What the fuck was he thinking. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Revenge282;50810397]Premeditated victimization. Add that one to the law books...[/QUOTE] Stand Your Ground doesn't protect you if you purposefully put yourself into a situation where deadly force could be necessary. If he was aware someone was going to break in, made it easier for them, and concealed his own presence than a prosecutor could easily make that case here.

[QUOTE=Cold;50810263]That's premeditation[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=plunger435;50810956]Stand Your Ground doesn't protect you if you purposefully put yourself into a situation where deadly force could be necessary. If he was aware someone was going to break in, made it easier for them, and concealed his own presence than a prosecutor could easily make that case here.[/QUOTE] Entrapment law, which seems broadly similar, holds that a police officer is only committing entrapment if they encourage someone to break a law when they wouldn't otherwise. Convincing a guy to break into a house because it looks like an easy target would be entrapment. Leaving the door open and letting him make the decision to break in would not be. Granted, that's entrapment, but I don't think 'you left your front door open, clearly you were asking for it' is how the law is supposed to work.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50810993]Entrapment law, which seems broadly similar, holds that a police officer is only committing entrapment if they encourage someone to break a law when they wouldn't otherwise. Convincing a guy to break into a house because it looks like an easy target would be entrapment. Leaving the door open and letting him make the decision to break in would not be. Granted, that's entrapment, but I don't think 'you left your front door open, clearly you were asking for it' is how the law is supposed to work.[/QUOTE] It's more so that he even ignored the guy knocking on the door, and then stopped the guy before he could even enter the house then subdued him as he was backing him.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50811013]It's more so that he even ignored the guy knocking on the door, and then stopped the guy before he could even enter the house then subdued him as he was backing him.[/QUOTE] [quote]Johnson did not answer and continued to wait as he heard the person move to the back door and break the lock, [/quote] nothing but good intentions

[QUOTE=Perrine;50811022]nothing but good intentions[/QUOTE] I'm telling you the letter of the law. Specifically Texas Penal Code §9.41/§9.42 [QUOTE]Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.[/QUOTE] [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.[/QUOTE] He doesn't fall under any of the provisions for deadly force as he was not in possession of stolen goods, not inside the home yet, and not displaying deadly force of his own. He was justified in non-lethal force though.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50811035]I'm telling you the letter of the law. Specifically Texas Penal Code §9.41/§9.42 He doesn't fall under any of the provisions for deadly force.[/QUOTE] (1) (2)(A) (3)(B) breaking the last two down: [quote](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[/quote] To prevent the other's imminent commission of ... theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime (criminal mischief is the destruction of property, such as the house lock) [quote](3) he reasonably believes that: (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. [/quote] The victim is nearly 70 years old confronted with a 31 year old burglar

[QUOTE=Perrine;50811052](1) (2)(A) (3)(B) (Victim nearly 70 years old)[/QUOTE] §9.41 only covers inside the home. (2)(A) Deadly Force was not necessary, as the crime was already prevented, necessary means deadly force is the only way to prevent the crime. (3)(A) Suspect was tied up, posing no threat. If he had shot the man as he entered his home he'd be protected under the law, but because the suspect was already subdued there isn't anything to necessitate deadly force.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50811064]§9.41 only covers inside the home. [/QUOTE] No, 9.41 covers land and property, the guy's backyard is his domain. [quote](2)(A) Deadly Force was not necessary, as the crime was already prevented, necessary means deadly force is the only way to prevent the crime. (3)(A) Suspect was tied up, posing no threat.[/quote] Yeah the duct taping WAS the force used to prevent the crime. I wouldn't call it deadly force since there's no reasonable expectation that it would end in a fatality but even if it were it'd be justified.