Law Two Texas men charged with First Degree Murder after shooting man in dispute over roadside garbage -

(Watch the video first)

  • Guilty!

    Votes: 80 23.7%
  • I doubt it!

    Votes: 257 76.3%

  • Total voters
    337

stupidpieceofshit

Halloween in January is better.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Yeah but if you read the actual statutes in the state of Texas, the actual law and how it is written, these guys did some very illegal things.
I just looked up their jail records, they are only being charged with Murder, there are no other charges (currently) including any weapon charges.

Which makes it all the more weirder for the police/DA normally they add charges (such as weapon charges) so if the murder charge doesn't stick something else will, or even used in as a "tool"/leverage for pleading guilty and the other charges will be dropped/lessen/etc.

archive.li wasn't working with the URLs so I had to take screen shots.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Crippled Eagle

Top Floppy Slotter 1977
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I just looked up their jail records, they are only being charged with Murder, there are no other charges (currently) including any weapon charges.

Which makes it all the more weirder for the police/DA normally they add charges (such as weapon charges) so if the murder charge doesn't stick something else will, or even used in as a "tool"/leverage for pleading guilty and the other charges will be dropped/lessen/etc.

archive.li wasn't working with the URLs so I had to take screen shots.
Yeah I saw that. Odd. DA must be pretty cocksure.
 

Trans-istor

kiwifarms.net
Two Hillbilly's leave their house with weapons drawn to confront neighbour over a mattress, neighbour lands out getting shot in the back.

Cut and dry imo.

But my God, they are all dumb (I know I'm late and it's been said). Why leave your house with guns drawn? Why fight over a mattress? Why record (recording makes idiots want to perform)? Why fight with armed men? Why threaten armed men? Why do armed men feel threatened, they are armed? Why throw a bat at armed men? Why would armed men shoot a man for throwing a bat? It's only a bat, and once he throws it, he no longer has a bat. Why then shoot him in the back? It looks bad.

Fucking exceptional all around.

Edit: it reads to me like two hicks thought if they provoked a reaction from their neighbour that they could just shoot him. I mean, you know your neighbour hates you and you him, you know he has a temper and likes a fight. You wager he would flip out if you pull a gun on him in front of his wife and kids, so you do. He flips out, you shoot him in the back.
I can't think of a serious gun owner who would go outside with a drawn weapon over a mattress in an alley. Even if some bald dude was taunting me over said mattress.

Myself, I would think "I ain't risking legal fees over this stupid mattress" and walk away.
What everyone who says "they weren't justified in bringing their guns" is missing is that Aaron Howard was their neighbor. They knew exactly how this would play out. They knew he was psychotic. They were preparing for the eventuality that they'd have to defend themselves, and they ended up needing to defend themselves.
Sure, it's not legally justification apparently, but it goes a long way to explaining why it happened the way it did.
 

stupidpieceofshit

Halloween in January is better.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Yeah I saw that. Odd. DA must be pretty cocksure.
After seeing just that they are charged with murder and nothing else, and given the questionable nature of everything I am now thinking the DA doesn't really want to charge them but feels pressure to place charges. So he did it with something that he knows most likely won't stick and will easily be defeated by the defense.

The son may face a better chance of getting hit with manslaughter (murder is still questionable) if Orange Shirt wasn't charging/approaching them, the father according to what was shown a few posts up (or somewhere on page 10) fire when Orange Shirt had the bat (but that was some what given by the bat throw) and 7 feet away which makes self defense as a legal defense way more plausible.
 

Spellskite

kiwifarms.net
What everyone who says "they weren't justified in bringing their guns" is missing is that Aaron Howard was their neighbor. They knew exactly how this would play out.
They knew they would have to shoot him dead? They probably should have prepared better, then.
 

stupidpieceofshit

Halloween in January is better.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I can't quite jive that the DA doesn't want to charge them, though. If that was the case they wouldn't have requested that their bail be raised.
Bail was only raised after public pressure via the media.
If the DA really wanted to charge (and for it to stick) the two, there would be more charges then just murder, such as unlawful discharge, unlawful brandishing of a firearm (assuming there are laws in the city/county/state about those two things), and other "trumped up" charges in a way for plea deals (so it doesn't go to court) and if that fails to try and get something to stick. Or the DA is just incompetent to LOLSuit fashion.

DAs are elected officials and they often brag about their conviction rates during election time, as such I see this more as "I really don't want to charge these two" vs "herp derp MURDER ONLY!"
 

Commander Keen

in GOODBYE GALAXY!!!
kiwifarms.net
After seeing just that they are charged with murder and nothing else, and given the questionable nature of everything I am now thinking the DA doesn't really want to charge them but feels pressure to place charges. So he did it with something that he knows most likely won't stick and will easily be defeated by the defense.

The son may face a better chance of getting hit with manslaughter (murder is still questionable) if Orange Shirt wasn't charging/approaching them, the father according to what was shown a few posts up (or somewhere on page 10) fire when Orange Shirt had the bat (but that was some what given by the bat throw) and 7 feet away which makes self defense as a legal defense way more plausible.
Texas law allows for killing someone in defense of a third party in the instances of violence or sexual violence.
 

stupidpieceofshit

Halloween in January is better.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Texas law allows for killing someone in defense of a third party in the instances of violence or sexual violence.
Self Defense normally does include a third party acting on the interest (not to get harmed/die/etc) of the (would be) victim.

I only state that the Son might face a better chance of getting hit with a charge staying would be because the video shows that the bat was thrown and (assuming the guy wasn't charging at them still) ceased to (at lease at the time) be a threat, Self Defense normally only applies to active threats, people have been convicted of manslaughter or murder for killing a robber [i.e. shot in the back] after they started to flee the scene even if the robber fired shots during the robbery.

I do not think a murder charge will stick to either party, if it a manslaughter charge there is a bigger (but still very questionable) chance that the son might have been found guilty. But since we just have the video and testimony of the two gunmen, the borther of orange shirt and his wife (+ possible kids) if the charges are not dropped (or the guys plead out for some reason) the trail might get in to just "he said she said" along with where the bullets and pellets hit the guy at.
 

Commander Keen

in GOODBYE GALAXY!!!
kiwifarms.net
Self Defense normally does include a third party acting on the interest (not to get harmed/die/etc) of the (would be) victim.

I only state that the Son might face a better chance of getting hit with a charge staying would be because the video shows that the bat was thrown and (assuming the guy wasn't charging at them still) ceased to (at lease at the time) be a threat, Self Defense normally only applies to active threats, people have been convicted of manslaughter or murder for killing a robber [i.e. shot in the back] after they started to flee the scene even if the robber fired shots during the robbery.

I do not think a murder charge will stick to either party, if it a manslaughter charge there is a bigger (but still very questionable) chance that the son might have been found guilty. But since we just have the video and testimony of the two gunmen, the borther of orange shirt and his wife (+ possible kids) if the charges are not dropped (or the guys plead out for some reason) the trail might get in to just "he said she said" along with where the bullets and pellets hit the guy at.
You need to pull up Lexusnexus and cite case law in Texas where that happened. I’ve never heard of anyone getting popped for murder for shooting a robber.
 

stupidpieceofshit

Halloween in January is better.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Criminal case law that doesn't go beyond the original court as far as I am aware of are not considered precedent, only the higher appeals courts are.

About three or fore months ago a man in Texas named Jarrell Ivory Chaney was charged after shooting (would be) robbers in the back as they were running away for murder. From what I can tell the case hasn't gotten to court yet there has been no updates since late June in the news sites.

I did find something interesting in the Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42 ( https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42.html / https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm )

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.
In theory if the robber was fleeing during the daytime when they got shot under the law, yes they can be charged.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

We are on the Brave BAT program. Consider using Brave as your Browser. It's like Chrome but doesn't tell Google what you masturbate to.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino