Is this self-defense? Vote "yes" or "no" and give reasons
- Thread starter bestdefense357
- Start date
Vides definately screwed the pooch here. But, too many other questions to really make a judgement. Disparity of force, nature of injuries Vides had already suffered, etc as have already been mentioned here.
Two points I want to make are that the whole incident probably only lasted a few seconds at most. Real easy to make wrong choices when things happen so fast.
Next is the fear factor. Did Vides truely believe his life, or someone elses, was in danger? In my state, self-defense centers on this fear level. If you genuinely believe that death or serious injury WILL happen, lethal force is justified. The trick is to be able to convince a jury that you were that frightened.
Justified self-defense? No. A frightened shop keeper trying to save himself? Yes. Did Vides do anything right? Not that I see.
However, do I think a jury would convict him? No way. We've had a couple of questionalble shoots in my area in the last couple of years. Like Vides, these were honest people who made some stupid choices when faced with a criminal. Technically, these folks could have been hung out to dry, but the Grand Jury refused to charge them. You see, the members of the grand jury are fed up with criminals too
------------------
TFL's official "Curmudgeon Member" and damned proud of it!
Two points I want to make are that the whole incident probably only lasted a few seconds at most. Real easy to make wrong choices when things happen so fast.
Next is the fear factor. Did Vides truely believe his life, or someone elses, was in danger? In my state, self-defense centers on this fear level. If you genuinely believe that death or serious injury WILL happen, lethal force is justified. The trick is to be able to convince a jury that you were that frightened.
Justified self-defense? No. A frightened shop keeper trying to save himself? Yes. Did Vides do anything right? Not that I see.
However, do I think a jury would convict him? No way. We've had a couple of questionalble shoots in my area in the last couple of years. Like Vides, these were honest people who made some stupid choices when faced with a criminal. Technically, these folks could have been hung out to dry, but the Grand Jury refused to charge them. You see, the members of the grand jury are fed up with criminals too
------------------
TFL's official "Curmudgeon Member" and damned proud of it!
I think that to use lethal force in Texas to prevent theft it must be 'theft in the nighttime'. No mention was made of time of day in the article. Lawdog will have to check it out, my book is in Texas. If the shooting is not used to 'prevent' it will not be a good shooting. Shooting to 'punish' is not legal in Texas, only to 'prevent'.
Well guys, this is the same type condition I'd made mention of several days ago of an incident near Dallas several years ago.
That shooting was deemed justifiable self-defense even when one of the guys was running away from the crime scene. The property owner opened fire shooting him in the back, and killed the guy. No charges were filed against him.
Yes there are differences between that case, and this one. In this one, the guy has his wife go for the gun. And one man is shot and killed while he says he was protecting himself.
Was this guy running away, after the assault of the storekeeper. And the guy was so upset that he dropped him???
Like I said there are differences, but MANY SIMILARIRTES TOO, expecially the use of a firearm in stopping an alledged assailant.
Juries out on this one for me. I'd have to know about this situation.
Like what's the criminal background on the dead guy? Any history of violent actions toward others?
Are there warrants on him now, and if so, for what?
How do I know he was homeless, has someone from the local shelter, or flophouse identified him?
Is there videotape of this thing in action?
Best Regards,
Don
------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
That shooting was deemed justifiable self-defense even when one of the guys was running away from the crime scene. The property owner opened fire shooting him in the back, and killed the guy. No charges were filed against him.
Yes there are differences between that case, and this one. In this one, the guy has his wife go for the gun. And one man is shot and killed while he says he was protecting himself.
Was this guy running away, after the assault of the storekeeper. And the guy was so upset that he dropped him???
Like I said there are differences, but MANY SIMILARIRTES TOO, expecially the use of a firearm in stopping an alledged assailant.
Juries out on this one for me. I'd have to know about this situation.
Like what's the criminal background on the dead guy? Any history of violent actions toward others?
Are there warrants on him now, and if so, for what?
How do I know he was homeless, has someone from the local shelter, or flophouse identified him?
Is there videotape of this thing in action?
Best Regards,
Don
------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
Ask, and ye shall receive, Jeff.
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.
The site I use is: http://www.cowtown.net/Cop_Shop/
It has a good collection of the Texas penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and realated Texas laws.
LawDog
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.
The site I use is: http://www.cowtown.net/Cop_Shop/
It has a good collection of the Texas penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and realated Texas laws.
LawDog
I don't believe in the Right of criminals to be able to attack good people, while putting the good person on trial for his actions thereafter.
Especially in today's age of hepatitis etc. One bloody knuckle can give you a life time (or death time) disease.
Even as a healthy young man, I do not see the reason why I should have to risk my health defending myself from someone who attacks me like that. I realize that as a healthy young man I HAVE to legally defend myself with the minimum force until I am at serious risk, but I do not agree that I should have to, and I would change that law if I could. There is no reason for a good innocent person to have to take a physical risk and defend himself with the least force possible when he is outright attacked by a criminal.
What if he tried to defend himself with his bare hands and he lost? Is that a risk he is supposed to take when he did not create the situation?
The criminal here attacked the old store owner for no reason at all. If this is an accurate story, I personally see no reason for an innocent man to have to defend himself from an unwarranted attack by a criminal. He was justified in shooting the man. The homeless man got what he deserved; he created the incident and attacked an innocent old person and he reaped the outcome of the situation that HE created.
Especially in today's age of hepatitis etc. One bloody knuckle can give you a life time (or death time) disease.
Even as a healthy young man, I do not see the reason why I should have to risk my health defending myself from someone who attacks me like that. I realize that as a healthy young man I HAVE to legally defend myself with the minimum force until I am at serious risk, but I do not agree that I should have to, and I would change that law if I could. There is no reason for a good innocent person to have to take a physical risk and defend himself with the least force possible when he is outright attacked by a criminal.
What if he tried to defend himself with his bare hands and he lost? Is that a risk he is supposed to take when he did not create the situation?
The criminal here attacked the old store owner for no reason at all. If this is an accurate story, I personally see no reason for an innocent man to have to defend himself from an unwarranted attack by a criminal. He was justified in shooting the man. The homeless man got what he deserved; he created the incident and attacked an innocent old person and he reaped the outcome of the situation that HE created.
Wouldn't we need to know what was in the mind of the shop owner?
If the shop owner was only trying to stop a theft, and the thief attacked the shop owner and put him in fear of serious bodily injury or death, then the shoot would be questionable only because:
- the perp was shot in the back (?perhaps during a struggle?) and
- the shop owner's stupid, self-incriminating statement indicating (at the least) wanton negligence.
Looks bad to me at this point.
If the shop owner was only trying to stop a theft, and the thief attacked the shop owner and put him in fear of serious bodily injury or death, then the shoot would be questionable only because:
- the perp was shot in the back (?perhaps during a struggle?) and
- the shop owner's stupid, self-incriminating statement indicating (at the least) wanton negligence.
Looks bad to me at this point.
IF there is no spalling or powder burns on the back of the deceased, and IF the wound in the back is an entry wound and not an exit wound, then it can shown that the deceased was ~4-6 feet away from the weapon, and facing away from the bearer of the weapon.
In other words, shot in the back while moving (retreating) away from the owner of the weapon.
This can and will be used as proof that the deceased posed no imminent threat of Death or Serious Bodily Injury to the bearer of the weapon.
Remember the limitations on the use of Deadly Force to protect property from theft: it must be after dark, and the use of Force other than Deadly Force would place the actor or another, in danger of Serious Bodily Injury.
If the deceased was attacking--justified.
If the deceased was, in fact, retreating--not justified.
If this took place at night, and the bearer of the weapon felt there was no way his <$20 could be recovered by another (are LEO's counted under the title of 'another'?)--then it could be argued under the Law as being justified.
Morally speaking, if the deceased was retreating with <$20 of groceries and was posing no further threat to life or limb, I don't feel it justified to kill him over <$20 of groceries.
Just my humble opinion.
LawDog
[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 13, 2000).]
In other words, shot in the back while moving (retreating) away from the owner of the weapon.
This can and will be used as proof that the deceased posed no imminent threat of Death or Serious Bodily Injury to the bearer of the weapon.
Remember the limitations on the use of Deadly Force to protect property from theft: it must be after dark, and the use of Force other than Deadly Force would place the actor or another, in danger of Serious Bodily Injury.
If the deceased was attacking--justified.
If the deceased was, in fact, retreating--not justified.
If this took place at night, and the bearer of the weapon felt there was no way his <$20 could be recovered by another (are LEO's counted under the title of 'another'?)--then it could be argued under the Law as being justified.
Morally speaking, if the deceased was retreating with <$20 of groceries and was posing no further threat to life or limb, I don't feel it justified to kill him over <$20 of groceries.
Just my humble opinion.
LawDog
[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 13, 2000).]
I live in DeSoto, just south of Dallas. Saw this story in the morning news. I think the guy should have concentrated on getting a good description of the perp and then called the police. The shot in the back troubles me. With the info provided, I have to say "no".
------------------
When guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw.
------------------
When guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Mr. Milan "didn't have a weapon, so we cannot clearly establish that the homicide was justifiable," Sgt. Kirkpatrick said. [/quote]
Putting myself in the shooters shoes:
My shirt is pulled over my face, and someone with a bag of canned goods (heavy blunt objects) is hitting my wife. All I can go by is what I can hear.
I wonder if Sgt. Kirkpatrick would want me to hit him in the face with a can of coffee? I wonder if he would think there was no weapon involved?
Yeah right.
Call a lawyer before saying anything and hope the LEO's that secure the scene are competent. (See Lawdog's last post)There just isn't enough to go by,and we all know how much trust to put into a media report.
re: shot in the back by the front door.
Not knowing the caliber of the weapon, it's impossible to even guess how far someone could go with a fatal wound. There was a thread a few weeks ago where the BG took a load of 00 buck to the torso and made it out the front door and halfway down the driveway.
[This message has been edited by RAE (edited April 14, 2000).]
Putting myself in the shooters shoes:
My shirt is pulled over my face, and someone with a bag of canned goods (heavy blunt objects) is hitting my wife. All I can go by is what I can hear.
I wonder if Sgt. Kirkpatrick would want me to hit him in the face with a can of coffee? I wonder if he would think there was no weapon involved?
Yeah right.
Call a lawyer before saying anything and hope the LEO's that secure the scene are competent. (See Lawdog's last post)There just isn't enough to go by,and we all know how much trust to put into a media report.
re: shot in the back by the front door.
Not knowing the caliber of the weapon, it's impossible to even guess how far someone could go with a fatal wound. There was a thread a few weeks ago where the BG took a load of 00 buck to the torso and made it out the front door and halfway down the driveway.
[This message has been edited by RAE (edited April 14, 2000).]
My guess, Vides will be cleared. He can show that him and his wife were in danger and BG was inside his store. Maybe he intentionally shot him in the back, then tried to cover himself by saying the gun went off accidentally.
The real interesting story is the second one of the article. Man shot while stealing junk fridge by other man hanging out his second story window. Both cases can be made that someone was protecting their property, and we all know that in Texas you can shoot somebody for stealing your personal property. Mr. Sanchez was just exercising his right of protecting his junk fridge. Nice shot!
------------------
bullet placement is gun control
The real interesting story is the second one of the article. Man shot while stealing junk fridge by other man hanging out his second story window. Both cases can be made that someone was protecting their property, and we all know that in Texas you can shoot somebody for stealing your personal property. Mr. Sanchez was just exercising his right of protecting his junk fridge. Nice shot!
------------------
bullet placement is gun control
My ruling:
True bill him in the Grand Jury, send him to trial, and let the jury decide.
HOWEVER, I really don't see much point in arresting him on the spot. He's got a business, and isn't going anywhere.
Of the guy shooting at the fellow with the refrigerator, it sounds pretty clear cut that he committed murder.
Hey! Greyfox is back! Greyfox is Back! When did that happen? Welcome back, buddy!
L.P.
True bill him in the Grand Jury, send him to trial, and let the jury decide.
HOWEVER, I really don't see much point in arresting him on the spot. He's got a business, and isn't going anywhere.
Of the guy shooting at the fellow with the refrigerator, it sounds pretty clear cut that he committed murder.
Hey! Greyfox is back! Greyfox is Back! When did that happen? Welcome back, buddy!
L.P.
One thing that hasn't come up yet. This is not a misdemeanor theft of <20$ of groceries. It may have started out that way, but it became a robbery under Texas law from the moment the subject used force on the store owner. Aggravated robbery if the subject used any sort of improvised weapon, or if the store owner is elderly. I would consider it justifiable. Maybe it was an ND. That is actually illrelevant except in the civil suit. The use of force level had been met when the subject escalated the confrontation. However, if investigation reveals that the store owner is giving a false story, that is something else again. I worked a shooting a couple of years back where two subjects made it out of the store with a full shopping cart. (theft) and then turned on the pursuing store clerk with a tire tool. (robbery) One round of .410 was expended, Grand Jury no billed it before lunch. Surviving robber received 45 years.
One factor I don't see mentioned here. This was Mr. Vides' place of business. Under the castle doctrine he has no duty to retreat. In my opinion he was justified in using whatever degree of force he felt was necessary to stop the attack, just as if he was in his bedroom at home. His wife was also justified if, in fact, she fired the shot. If the attacker was fleeing then lethal force was not justified since the attack had ceased prior to the shot being fired.
The problem is that Mr. Vides is claiming that the shot was an accident. NO accidental shooting is ever justified, even if it was the perfect thing to do under them circumstances. It can't be justified since you didn't mean to do it. I wouldn't even call this excusable homicide. If the Mr. Vides says he pointed a gun and accidentally pulled the trigger, it's manslaughter.
The problem is that Mr. Vides is claiming that the shot was an accident. NO accidental shooting is ever justified, even if it was the perfect thing to do under them circumstances. It can't be justified since you didn't mean to do it. I wouldn't even call this excusable homicide. If the Mr. Vides says he pointed a gun and accidentally pulled the trigger, it's manslaughter.
Duh, Dog!!! 
Thanks, Enfield, the Robbery aspect never even crossed my mind. I've been out of the business too long.
Enfield is correct. The moment force was used against the store owner, the Simple Theft became Robbery--a felony.
Sorry about that.
LawDog
[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 14, 2000).]
Thanks, Enfield, the Robbery aspect never even crossed my mind. I've been out of the business too long.
Enfield is correct. The moment force was used against the store owner, the Simple Theft became Robbery--a felony.
Sorry about that.
LawDog
[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 14, 2000).]
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Is there video of this?
This case really points out the need for those with handguns to get serious training in their use, the laws and the ethical issues involved.
My favorite rant is that the decision to use lethal force is not served by rhetoric like
"homeless scum". Many homeless are mentally ill and dumped on the street by a cruel society.
This case really points out the need for those with handguns to get serious training in their use, the laws and the ethical issues involved.
My favorite rant is that the decision to use lethal force is not served by rhetoric like
"homeless scum". Many homeless are mentally ill and dumped on the street by a cruel society.
Jeff Thomas
New member
Just to clarify something, I notice a number of people referring to the 'old' shop owner. I don't see that in the story. Instead, they state "Manuel Lara Vides, 35, had shot Leroy Anthony Milan, 38, the day before at Chupacabra, a small grocery in the 4800 block of Ross Avenue."
'told him to leave the goods in his bag at the store before leaving'
The story does not say if the bag was dropped after the scuffle or if Milan was attempting to exit the store with the bag in his possession. If he was taking the property as a result of a robbery then lethal force is justified, if he was trying to escape without the property then no robbery or theft took place so the shooting would not be justified. In Texas, you may shoot to prevent, but not to punish.
The story does not say if the bag was dropped after the scuffle or if Milan was attempting to exit the store with the bag in his possession. If he was taking the property as a result of a robbery then lethal force is justified, if he was trying to escape without the property then no robbery or theft took place so the shooting would not be justified. In Texas, you may shoot to prevent, but not to punish.