Texas Couple Shoots 4 for Trespass. Boy, 7, Dies

Status
Not open for further replies.
The states just order a new supply of needles, but I think we can save the states some cash and end it all on .78 cents.
Ok cheaper if we use a 22lr but I would suspect the heads of these two individuals in very dense based on their actions.
 
Unless they are galactically stupid, or find a lawyer that is, then I doubt this will go to trial. I would suspect a plea to avoid a 1st degree murder conviction. If it does go to trial I'll bet the most they get is 2nd degree or CNH. A pity.
 
Too bad the media will jump all over guns with this one, even though the tool that killed these people is irrelevant. One of my old coworkers was killed when a person strung a chain across two trees on a known 4 wheeling path that went through his property. Should the kids have been 4 wheeling there? No. Does that justify putting a deadly trap there to stop them? Absolutely not.
 
I am for gun rights. Dammit, I own 4 guns. But I think this story sucks, and pisses me off.

Well, the story has nothing to do with gun rights. Murder or negligent homicide does suck, no doubt.

This paranoid, stupid, immoral couple needs to be shot!

It may be paranoid, stupid, and immoral, but the important thing here is that it is illegal, assuming what is described is accurate.
 
+ 10 Double Naught. If this went down as stated, this is murder and should be tried as such. Nothing to do with gun rights. The anti`s will be on this one like a "duck on a June bug".
 
Alright, folks, let's simmer down.

We needn't express our dismay or disgust coming up with new and more inventive ways to execute them.
 
Seems to me that they were waiting for such moment all their life, a little excuse to shoot some one?
"The wife took a shot & handed to husband who took another shot"??? DAMN what were they doing? hunting doves or what? I would really like them to receive capital punishment. This is simply a cold blooded murder.
 
Here's hoping the shooters get a quick and fair trial by a jury of their peers.
Texas law and the court system are now involved and it's out of our hands.
Let the system do its job, folks. It's the American way.
 
Another point I discovered in looking at the property records is that the shooters were relative newcomers to the area, having purchased the property from a relative less than 2 years ago.

I just cannot imagine anybody being so callous and can't help but wonder where they got the attitude that this was an acceptable solution. Hopefully, it wasn't from reading Brady articles mischaracterizing Texas gun laws like the Castle Law.
 
A sad day

My deepest simpathy an condolences to little Donalds family & loved ones...

I hope justice is dealt swiftly and a lesson is learned by others who similarly think killing people for such rediculous reason (or lack of) might refrain from doing the same in the future.

I hope the shooters are proud of themselves...... may they rot in 'you know where'
 
Hopefully, it wasn't from reading Brady articles mischaracterizing Texas gun laws like the Castle Law.

Or hopefully it wasn't because they were staunch gun supporters who firmly believed that they could push the limit of the law based on their extremist right wing beliefs combined with their own personal right wing views of Texas law and how the law should be in their opinion. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why would you even interject this with some sort of Brady issue when it has nothing to do with Brady? It sounds like you are just fabricating a way to stir up anti-gun disgust for no apparent reason other than to do so when such Brady concerns are no in evidence from anything so far. Mike Irwin suggests simmering down and you seem to be furiously fanning the flames.

We can fabricate any sort of hostile theories, but how is that even remotely relevant to the discussion given the information?
 
Why would you even interject this with some sort of Brady issue when it has nothing to do with Brady?

Well, considering how much effort the Brady Campaign put into deliberately distorting the view of what was legal during debates on Castle Doctrine laws, I think it does have some relation to this topic. For example:

Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign, says that they have shipped information about the law to more than 120 leading U.S. and international journalists, as well as to trade publication editors in the travel industry and editors at consumer travel magazines. The inflammatory ads, which are being placed in key gateway cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and selected overseas markets, read: "Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. A new law in the Sunshine State authorizes nervous or frightened residents to use deadly force. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads." The flyers being handed out suggest ludicrous rules visitors should follow: Avoid unnecessary arguments with local people; stay in their cars and keep hands in plain sight if involved in a traffic accident or near-miss; and maintain a positive attitude and avoid shouting or threatening gestures if someone appears to be hostile toward them.
Source

Or how about this one?

LET'S SAY that you're behind the wheel and think someone wants to carjack your automobile and cause you bodily harm. Or suppose you get into a dispute with another shopper over a place in the supermarket's checkout line, and the shopper's aggressive behavior causes you to fear imminent peril. In both cases, you could -- and common sense suggests that you should — retreat or back away from the scene if it can be done safely. But in Florida under a measure passed overwhelmingly by the state legislature last week, you would no longer have a duty to escape or retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. The bill, signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Jeb Bush (R), will allow people in Florida — without fear of criminal prosecution or civil action — to shoot, stab or pummel to death anyone who causes them to fear for their lives outside of their homes, on the street, or in their cars or businesses.
Source

Admittedly, there is no shortage of posters running around firearms forums propagating myths about when it is legal or appropriate to use deadly force; but at least in those forums someone will usually step up and correct this misinformation when it is propagated.

Apparently the shooters in this case got the idea that it was OK to shoot at four-wheelers on their property in order to protect their levee. I'm just curious where they got that idea from since it is far beyond what anyone I know considers acceptable, moral or responsible (and I live in Texas). It is just as possible that they got it from an "It is OK in Texas" thread at Glocktalk as they got it from reading a Brady inspired quote in the Washington Post; but I'm still curious how they arrived at that conclusion that this was acceptable behavior.
 
ABC News has some new information: http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7557222&page=1

Apparently both the Muhs have been arrested previously, though police did not say for what. The Liberty County Sheriff is saying both vehicles were on a public road and that they never trespassed on the Muh's property - and that also the levees the Muhs were concerned about are government owned. Apparently, four-wheeling on them is fairly common.

Sheila Muhs fired the first shot at the vehicle and then dropped the shotgun and pursued them on an ATV. While the vehicles were attempting to flee, one of them veered off the road and Gayle Muhs picked up the shotgun as fired the lethal shot. Police think as many as four rounds (15 pellet buckshot) may have been fired.

The Muhs are also now being charged with murder. Looking at the pictures of the Muhs and their place, I just keep thinking that this place screams "Meth Lab!"
 
Attention Meth lab owners

Shooting people is not a good way of remaining 'undetected'

The best way of not being caught is to shoot yourself!
 
Scum bags for sure. They eliminated any doubt. That sign alone will leave them hanging. Does Texas still have the death penalty? These 2 are a waste of good oxygen.:mad:
 
I don't see any way these people can make a serious claim for protection under Texas law. In order to claim some defense regarding criminal mischief at nighttime, they first need to show that the use of force was "immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property."

Bartholomew, go back over Section 9.42. Deadly force is permitted only when immediately necessary "to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief [(damaging or destroying the tangible property of the owner)] during the nighttime" or "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property". No mention of trespass.

You have quoted part of 9.41. No mention at all of deadly force.

In most states, the only lawful recourse to trespass is to ask the trespasser to leave; after that, one is to call the for law enforcement officials, who may issue a citation or who may arrest if the trespasser refuses to leave. States vary a great deal, and there are different degrees of trespass, but the foregoing dates back many centuries to the common law. In no state is deadly force permitted for simple trespass.

You never want to injure a trespasser or risk endangering his health unless he is engaged in a more serious crime and you have no other choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top