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

[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, [B]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.[/B][/QUOTE] If you left your front-door open for any reason besides creating a situation like this everything would be okay. And court might not believe you when you claim you did it 'because i like it that way', and you might have to defend why. But he already admitted to the police that he did it for the sake of creating a conflict.

[QUOTE=Perrine;50811098]No, 9.41 covers land and property, the guy's backyard is his domain. 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.[/QUOTE] Definition of what constitutes property under Castle Doctrine is found in Texas Penal Code §30.01 [QUOTE] Sec. 30.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes: (A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and (B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle. (2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use. (3) "Vehicle" includes any device in, on, or by which any person or property is or may be propelled, moved, or drawn in the normal course of commerce or transportation, except such devices as are classified as "habitation."[/QUOTE] Backyard doesn't constitute it unfortunately unless it contains a fence or 'Do Not Trespass' signs, which his doesn't. Deadly force doesn't mean fatality, it means you or the court would be aware that it could pose serious bodily harm if used that way, which in the case of taping over someones face multiple times fits, and even if it wasn't considered deadly force, his death still elevates it to manslaughter.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50811148]Definition of what constitutes property under Castle Doctrine is found in Texas Penal Code §30.01 Backyard doesn't constitute it unfortunately unless it contains a fence or 'Do Not Trespass' signs, which his doesn't. Deadly force doesn't mean fatality, it means you or the court would be aware that it could pose serious bodily harm if used that way, which in the case of taping over someones face multiple times fits, and even if it wasn't considered deadly force, his death still elevates it to manslaughter.[/QUOTE] A backyard isn't a habitation, building, or vehicle. It's residential land. Regardless of that, he was still in the commission of burglary. To clarify, he would need trespass signs/a fence/a verbal warning to use force to prevent the burglar's trespass, not destruction of property.

[QUOTE=Perrine;50811198]A backyard isn't a habitation, building, or vehicle. It's residential land. Regardless of that, he was still in the commission of burglary. To clarify, he would need trespass signs/a fence/a verbal warning to use force to prevent the burglar's trespass, not destruction of property.[/QUOTE] He'd already used confinement as justifiable force under the law, which inherently precludes additional deadly force. [QUOTE]Sec. 9.03. CONFINEMENT AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. Confinement is justified when force is justified by this chapter if the actor takes reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows he safely can unless the person confined has been arrested for an offense.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=plunger435;50811223]He'd already used confinement as justifiable force under the law, which inherently precludes additional deadly force.[/QUOTE] I'm saying the tape IS the force. If you think taping his mouth was an additional use of force, then that's for the courts to decide. It basically boils down to "Was it reasonable to assume he'd consider the robber having a congested nose"

Having a crime committed against you doesn't absolve you of legal responsibility for all of your ensuing actions.

[QUOTE=Dolton;50811268]Having a crime committed against you doesn't absolve you of legal responsibility for all of your ensuing actions.[/QUOTE] It can in some cases, actually.

[QUOTE=Perrine;50811250]I'm saying the tape IS the force. If you think taping his mouth was an additional use of force, then that's for the courts to decide. It basically boils down to [B]"Was it reasonable to assume he'd consider the robber having a congested nose"[/B][/QUOTE] I'm not sure where everyone came up with the congested nose bit? It's not in the video interviews or articles, I only see a poster mention it on the first page as a possible case. My assumption is that tying him with wire, rope, and tape all across his chest while standing probably suffocated him. In which case it'd still be manslaughter.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50811273]I'm not sure where everyone came up with the congested nose bit? It's not in the video interviews or articles, I only see a poster mention it on the first page as a possible case. My assumption is that tying him with wire, rope, and tape all across his chest while standing probably suffocated him. In which case, still no justification for lethal force, so it's still manslaughter.[/QUOTE] Tape isn't lethal force. No jury in the world would come to this conclusion. The equivalent would be tazing someone and them having a heart attack and dying. This will probably be ruled an accidental death in the course of self defense/legal detainment of a criminal.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50811278]Tape isn't lethal force. No jury in the world would come to this conclusion. The equivalent would be tazing someone and them having a heart attack and dying. This will probably be ruled an accidental death in the course of self defense/legal detainment of a criminal.[/QUOTE] I don't know how everyone keeps coming to the self defense conclusion, but it's not applicable here under the codes I already listed. If you kill someone not displaying lethal force it's not justified. Killing someone in self defense when lethal force isn't justified is still manslaughter, even if accidents. If he dies it's lethal force.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50811293]I don't know how everyone keeps coming to the self defense conclusion, but it's not applicable here under the codes I already listed. If you kill someone not displaying deadly force it's not justified.[/QUOTE] He didn't go out of his way to kill him, he died accidentally while being legally restrained. Accidental death is a thing and it's not the same thing as manslaughter. [quote] Accidental Killing: A death caused by a lawful act done under the reasonable belief that no harm was likely to result. Accidental killing is different from Involuntary Manslaughter, which causes death by an unlawful act or a lawful act done in an unlawful way.[/quote] [url]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Accidental+Killing[/url]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50811304]He didn't go out of his way to kill him, he died accidentally while being legally restrained. Accidental death is a thing and it's not the same thing as manslaughter. [url]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Accidental+Killing[/url][/QUOTE] Texas Law on involuntary manslaughter. [QUOTE]A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.[/QUOTE] From hiding his car, turning off all his lights, not answering the knock on purpose, waiting for him out back, tying him up out back with thee different materials and covering his face, waiting to call the police until after everything has happened he fits the bill perfectly.

It would be on the prosecution to prove that the homeowner was aware of the great risk to life that masking tape apparently poses and chose to disregard it, which I doubt will happen. It is not illegal to lie in wait if you are expecting to be burgled. The police can't do anything until after a crime has been committed.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50811331]It would be on the prosecution to prove that the homeowner was aware of the great risk to life that masking tape apparently poses and chose to disregard it, which I doubt will happen. It is not illegal to lie in wait if you are expecting to be burgled. The police can't do anything until after a crime has been committed.[/QUOTE] It's up to the prosecution to prove that he deviated from normal behavior in how he handled the situation, which given all the steps he took to mask his presence, avoid any police response early even though he was fully aware of what was happening. Everyone seems to miss the bit where he tied to the man with electrical wire, then rope, then finally the tape over his face.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50811339]It's up to the prosecution to prove that he deviated from normal behavior in how he handled the situation, which given all the steps he took to mask his presence and avoid any police response early is fair game.[/QUOTE] He called the police after the threat to his property and health was taped to a tree. He wasn't going to call them in the middle of a scuffle, that's an unreasonable expectation. He can't call them before the crime occurred, that's a waste of police resources on a hunch. It is absolutely not illegal to expect a burglary and make preparations for it. There is no case for manslaughter here, let alone murder. It's unreasonable to expect him to be aware of the burglar's apparent inability to breathe through his nose, the man is not a law enforcement officer and hasn't been trained in restraint procedure so he did what came to mind. I am sympathetic to the burglar, suffocation is an awful way to go. But it wasn't inflicted on him intentionally.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50811345]He called the police after the threat to his property and safety was taped to a tree. [B]He wasn't going to call them in the middle of a scuffle, that's an unreasonable expectation.[/B] [B]He can't call them before the crime occurred, that's a waste of police resources on a hunch[/B]. It is absolutely not illegal to expect a burglary and make preparations for it. There is no case for manslaughter here, let alone murder. It's unreasonable to expect him to be aware of the [B]burglar's apparent inability to breathe through his nose,[/B] the man is not a law enforcement officer and hasn't been trained in restraint procedure so he did what came to mind. I am sympathetic to the burglar, suffocation is an awful way to go. But it wasn't inflicted on him intentionally.[/QUOTE] He was aware of the burglar from the time he knocked on the front door, to the time he crept up the back, which is plenty of time to phone the police. You also can, and should call the police if you suspect a crime is about to take place, which he clearly did. It's not a single circumstance that would make this manslaughter, but all of them put together used to demonstrate the killing was due to reckless behavior. Can I please get a source on the burglar suffocating due to nose congestion, you're mentioning it also, but no source I've found mentions anything about that. I'm not saying the burglar died intentionally, the entire crime of manslaughter hinges on the perpetrator not having intent. There's no such thing as intentional manslaughter.

He had to go to his neighbor's house to call the police. Do you think this man owns a telephone? I'm guessing not. I'm not citing nose congestion, but his nose wasn't taped over, so for one reason or another he couldn't breathe through his nose and died as a result. I don't think he was being reckless. I think he only did what he knew to do. Intent was the wrong word. To me this is an accidental death, not manslaughter.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50811378]He had to go to his neighbor's house to call the police. Do you think this man owns a telephone? I'm guessing not. I'm not citing nose congestion, but his nose wasn't taped over, so[B] for one reason or another he couldn't breathe through his nose and died as a result.[/B][/QUOTE] At which point when he dropped his car off to initially stake out he could have called them, told the man to leave when he first knocked, or done any other number of things to prevent what he knew was happening. Nor does it excuse any of the other behavior. He was tied across the chest with three different bindings, it's more than likely his chest was compressed and he couldn't breathe out of his nose or mouth either way.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50809787]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[/QUOTE] Boo hoo, I'm playing the world's smallest violin for the burglar who was stupid and weak enough to be restrained by an old man and then suffocate via a stuffy nose. It's sad that he died but are you for real right now? You're going to get all smarmy and snide because I don't think an old man defending his home is evil for assuming the world's most inept burglar is capable of breathing through his nose? Get over yourself.

[QUOTE=srobins;50811482]Boo hoo, I'm playing the world's smallest violin for the burglar who was stupid and weak enough to be restrained by an old man and then suffocate via a stuffy nose. It's sad that he died but are you for real right now? You're going to get all smarmy and snide because I don't think an old man defending his home is evil for assuming the world's most inept burglar is capable of breathing through his nose? Get over yourself.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure there's a difference between restraining someone and self-defense and taping over their mouth so they have difficulty breathing. And a stuffed nose killed him? Really? The fact you can't even seem to realise that maybe the family of the burglar will get upset over this, even despite the fact that obviously the burglar committed a crime and the old man had the right to defend himself, shows a serious lack of empathy.

[QUOTE=srobins;50811482]Boo hoo, I'm playing the world's smallest violin for the burglar who was stupid and weak enough to be restrained by an old man and then suffocate via a stuffy nose. It's sad that he died but are you for real right now? You're going to get all smarmy and snide because I don't think an old man defending his home is evil for assuming the world's most inept burglar is capable of breathing through his nose? Get over yourself.[/QUOTE] I understand restraining the suspect but what does taping someone's mouth shut have to do with defense, if you're in a position to do it odds are you've already got the person restrained. Its excessive.

[QUOTE=srobins;50811482]Boo hoo, I'm playing the world's smallest violin for the burglar who was stupid and weak enough to be restrained by an old man and then suffocate via a stuffy nose. It's sad that he died but are you for real right now? You're going to get all smarmy and snide because I don't think an old man defending his home is evil for assuming the world's most inept burglar is capable of breathing through his nose? Get over yourself.[/QUOTE] I understand justifying criminal deaths because they're criminals, but because he was stupid and weak? What difference does that make?

dont fuck around with people's shit and you wont accidentally die

[QUOTE=srobins;50811482]Boo hoo, I'm playing the world's smallest violin for the burglar who was stupid and weak enough to be restrained by an old man and then suffocate via a stuffy nose. It's sad that he died but are you for real right now? You're going to get all smarmy and snide because I don't think an old man defending his home is evil for assuming the world's most inept burglar is capable of breathing through his nose? Get over yourself.[/QUOTE] i know fp can get awfully confrontational, but you don't have to go into borderline sociopathic territory just to be snarky

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50809176]Man, this is conflicting. It's an innocent mistake with not-so-innocent consequences. Terrible situation all around, but I guess I don't think he should be charged[/QUOTE] fuck that, find me one legitimate reason to tape up someone's mouth

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50811345]He called the police after the threat to his property and health was taped to a tree. He wasn't going to call them in the middle of a scuffle, that's an unreasonable expectation. He can't call them before the crime occurred, that's a waste of police resources on a hunch. It is absolutely not illegal to expect a burglary and make preparations for it. There is no case for manslaughter here, let alone murder. It's unreasonable to expect him to be aware of the burglar's apparent inability to breathe through his nose, the man is not a law enforcement officer and hasn't been trained in restraint procedure so he did what came to mind. I am sympathetic to the burglar, suffocation is an awful way to go. But it wasn't inflicted on him intentionally.[/QUOTE] He moved away his truck and pretended not to be home to lure in a burglar, that's not preparation that's bait. From a different case: [quote] Smith, 65, was convicted of two counts each of first- and second-degree murder in the deaths of Haile Kifer, 18, and Nick Brady, 17 ... He focused instead on premeditation when talking to the jury. He pointed out that Smith had moved his pickup truck away from his house that day to make it look like nobody was home. ... He then discussed the chair where Smith sat in his basement, waiting for the burglars to come to his house again.[/quote] The difference between this and all other cases of burglary that ends with a bang is the premeditation that went it to it, and people do apparently get convicted for that.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50811600]i know fp can get awfully confrontational, but you don't have to go into borderline sociopathic territory just to be snarky[/QUOTE] All I'm saying is that it was clearly an accident and it is not unreasonable to assume the burglar could maintain his airway via the nose. There are valid reasons to tape the mouth, most likely of which being to prevent him from screaming for help and being let loose by a good Samaritan who wasn't aware he was a thief. Calling me a sociopath for defending a 68 year old homeowner's lapse of judgement is so incredibly childish, come off it.

[QUOTE=srobins;50811694]All I'm saying is that it was clearly an accident and it is not unreasonable to assume the burglar could maintain his airway via the nose. There are valid reasons to tape the mouth, most likely of which being to prevent him from screaming for help and being let loose by a good Samaritan who wasn't aware he was a thief. Calling me a sociopath for defending a 68 year old homeowner's lapse of judgement is so incredibly childish, come off it.[/QUOTE] i was only talking about the "boo hoo weak thief" stuff

[QUOTE=Cold;50811681]He moved away his truck and pretended not to be home to lure in a burglar, that's not preparation that's bait. From a different case:[/QUOTE] The Smith case also involved him shooting two teens to death and taunting them as they died, a far cry from an old man capturing a burglar and not realizing the burglar was incapable of breathing through his nose. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50811699]i was only talking about the "boo hoo weak thief" stuff[/QUOTE] Why do you even care? What function are you performing by chastising me like a child for insulting a literal thief? I don't see what difference it makes. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;50811585]Maybe the burgler let it happen because he had no intention of harming an old man? Theives are not murderers[/QUOTE] Sorry but you're pretty wrong. Thieves often are murderers, and given that there's no way to know until they actually murder you, its safest to assume the worst. I highly doubt the burglar let himself be tied to a tree and asphyxiated by an old man out of the kindness of his heart.

[QUOTE=srobins;50811703]Sorry but you're pretty wrong. Thieves often are murderers, and given that there's no way to know until they actually murder you, its safest to assume the worst. I highly doubt the burglar let himself be tied to a tree and asphyxiated by an old man out of the kindness of his heart.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf[/url] Stats say otherwise.