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

[Dr. Strangelove]

A sad situation.

Trespass alone does not give anyone the right to kill another human being. If and when trespassers threaten your life, we have a different situation. I've walked up on trespassers on hunting land owned by a family friend - words have been exchanged, but both of us made clear to the other we were not going to get into a gunfight. Maybe this is just the middle Georgia way, but if we get into a fight, it won't be with rifles or shotguns.

Condolences to the family who lost a child, and hopefully the aggressors in this situation will feel the full effects of the law. For the rest of us, why don't we look at this as an example of how not to behave.

 

[qwman68]

these two people must have been lunatics or something..that is truely messed up.. they had to be tweekers or something

 

[shortwave]

You don`t fix that by changing laws, you fix that by making examples out of ignorant idiots when they do really stupid, illegal things.

+ 10. My home/ property is about fifteen minutes from town. Easy access. Every year, deer and turkey season, its a non-stop battle with trespasser`s and poacher`s. Had a guy(idiot lives down the road) sit his 13 yr.old daughter on a stump facing a downhill ridge,no backstop, spotted with hunters. Her dad told her to shoot any deer coming down the ridge. Again on my propery. She shot approx. 2 ft. over my head. After questioning her, I found out that her dad had left her there and went home telling her if she shot a deer to come home and get him he would be asleep on the couch. Alot happened after that which I won`t bore you with but bottom line is, it didn`t give me the right to shoot anyone. I `ve heard property owners say"if I`m on my own property and someone shoots close to me, I`m returning fire". What if I would have shot this 13yr girl. Getting older, I`ve learned the hard way that getting mad and knee-jerk reactions usually have bad consequences that will hang a few more skeletons in your closet. Don`t need anymore of them. Trespasser`s are very annoying, self centered, slob hunters that don`t deserve the right to hunt and I wish the laws would be more strictly enforced. Again, if things stated about this story are true, these property owners are guilty of murder and should be charged as such.

 

[tblt44]

Some older people get like that I know an older lady that says she will shoot anyone that come on her property,will she do it ? maybe depending on her mood at the time.There should be a point where firearms are removed from there home just like there drivers licence gets pulled because the could kill someone.

 

[SkySlash]

I think TX law in 9.41 & 9.42 are perfectly clear in both their meaning and intent. I think they make it perfectly clear that what happened here was unjustified, and there is obviously no defense to prosecution available under either of those statutes, even if the trespassers had been on the Muhs property, and even if the Muhs owned the levees, which they didn't.

It doesn't take a law degree to figure out what happened here was murder, and given the mitigating circumstances (sign/attitude), it can very likely be considered premeditated. One can only hope there was a meth operation on the Muhs property so we can bypass the legal niceties and bump this straight up to capital murder. If the child had been 6 or under, it would have been a Capital Crime in TX, by statute.

I see no need to alter TX law to deal with morons who lack the common sense to know you can't simply kill someone for crossing your lawn. I seriously doubt the ignoramus cretins in our story have ever even heard a reading of 9.41/2, much less read it themselves.

Does anyone seriously think they, or those like them, would make any more effort to know the penal code if it was somehow altered, than they already had in the past? I think not, myself.

-SS

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There have been some analyses suggesting that as people get older and more irrational (loss of frontal lobe mediated inhibition), that they should lose the abilitiy to own firearms.

However, making this some special case of licensing over and above a general competency hearing opens up a tremendous can of worms. It implies that gun ownership in general requires a license. Is that something we want?

Before one suggests a giant system for such, it's more likely that our current laws will deal with them. I would prefer that rather a system to license gun owners and call in all the older folk for periodic tests.

If you do have an older relative who is unreliable (did these folks?), you might deal with it with dignity. I did see a middle aged man have to almost wrestle a rifle away from his older dad at a range when the latter wouldn't respect a ceasefire to place new targets. Twice Dad insisted he could shoot and wouldn't put down the gun.

 

[Evan Thomas]

the facts (at this time) do not seem to indicate that the intent was to shoot a 7 year old boy dead. That was the result, and due process will make them pay. But it appears that the shots were fired at the vehicles, with no knowledge of who was inside.

Oh, and... doesn't the Fourth Rule say something about being sure of your target?

Does anyone seriously think they, or those like them, would make any more effort to know the penal code if it was somehow altered, than they already had in the past?

No -- but given the outcry there'd be if the Texas law were changed, I'm sure that word would get out even to folks like these that you can't shoot at people unless they're actually threatening you. Idiots like these might still take potshots at people, but it would make it a lot harder for them to think they were justified.

If you do have an older relative who is unreliable (did these folks?), you might deal with it with dignity. I did see a middle aged man have to almost wrestle a rifle away from his older dad at a range when the latter wouldn't respect a ceasefire to place new targets. Twice Dad insisted he could shoot and wouldn't put down the gun.

Yikes.

It's no different, really, from convincing your elderly parent that it's not safe to for them to drive any more. (I suspect many of us have had to deal with this one in some form or other.) There are better, more tactful ways of handling it than calling their insurance company or the DMV... You want to make it their decision, basically: convince them rather than coerce them. So, yes, make it a personal thing rather than trying to legislate it...

 

[JohnKSa]

No -- but given the outcry there'd be if the Texas law were changed, I'm sure that word would get out even to folks like these that you can't shoot at people unless they're actually threatening you.

Yeah, what a great idea!

Two ignorant idiots commit murder, so let's change the law (effectively reduce the rights of all 24 million persons who live in the state of TX) in the hopes that action might educate other ignorant idiots.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Two ignorant idiots commit murder, so let's change the law (effectively reduce the rights of all 24 million persons who live in the state of TX) in the hopes that action might educate other ignorant idiots.

John, if you've read my other posts in this thread, you know that's not my reasoning. What I am questioning is the ethical basis of the law itself:

...this problem is made worse by allowing the possibility of using deadly force over minor property crimes at all. In my opinion, this is a line that ought not to be crossed by private individuals over any property crime, but certainly not one that's at the level of a misdemeanor; I find this ethically abhorrent, and I'd like the laws to which I and other people are subject to have some relation to ethical norms of conduct.

Granted, I don't live in Texas, so I'm not subject to this particular law, but my point isn't about "educating ignorant idiots." It's a more fundamental one, which is that I think it's a mistake to give 24 million people the "right" to use deadly force over a minor property crime.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Oh, and... doesn't the Fourth Rule say something about being sure of your target?

The Muhs were sure of their target...people in vehicles tearing up the levees.

No -- but given the outcry there'd be if the Texas law were changed, I'm sure that word would get out even to folks like these that you can't shoot at people unless they're actually threatening you. Idiots like these might still take potshots at people, but it would make it a lot harder for them to think they were justified.

So what you are arguing is essentially that you want the law to be changed in spite of the fact that the Muhs are idiots and that this would not have made one iota of difference in this case. That is absolutely absurd. How can you argue that the law should be changed based on this case and still argue that a change in the law would not have been effective in this case?

 

[JohnKSa]

It's a more fundamental one, which is that I think it's a mistake to give 24 million people the "right" to use deadly force over a minor property crime.

Aside from the fact that it's an oversimplification to make the blanket statement that Texans have "the right to use deadly force over minor property crimes."; when you can get a majority of TX voters to agree with you then things will change.

 

[Evan Thomas]

So what you are arguing is essentially that you want the law to be changed in spite of the fact that the Muhs are idiots and that this would not have made one iota of difference in this case. That is absolutely absurd. How can you argue that the law should be changed based on this case and still argue that a change in the law would not have been effective in this case?

No, I'm not arguing that the law should be changed based on this case. I'm arguing that the ethical underpinnings of the law are deficient.

I was making three different points, which I perhaps didn't separate clearly enough:

First, the law as it stands legitimizes conduct which I regard as unethical.

Second, the lack of a clear line between allowing the use of deadly force to protect life -- the only justification, in my opinion -- and its use to defend property, which I have serious problems with, makes it easier for the law to be misunderstood, as it may have been in this case; we have no way of knowing for sure whether, at the time of the shooting, the Muhs really believed that they were legally defending their property, but that seems to be their defense.

Third, just as we have no way of knowing whether they believed at the time that their actions were legal under current law, we have no way of knowing whether they would in fact obey the law if it were changed. However, if the law restricted the use of deadly force to defending one's person (or someone else's), there would be no room for any confusion as to whether they could reasonably have thought they were justified in shooting at a fleeing vehicle.

Aside from the fact that it's an oversimplification to make the blanket statement that Texans have "the right to use deadly force over minor property crimes."

If it's legal to do so under any circumstances which don't also involve a threat to life, I fail to see how that's an oversimplification.

when you can get a majority of TX voters to agree with you then things will change.

Oh yes, I know it's an uphill battle...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

First, the law as it stands legitimizes conduct which I regard as unethical.

That is funny. I think the law is hugely ethical.

Second, the lack of a clear line between allowing the use of deadly force to protect life -- the only justification, in my opinion -- and its use to defend property, which I have serious problems with, makes it easier for the law to be misunderstood, as it may have been in this case; we have no way of knowing for sure whether, at the time of the shooting, the Muhs really believed that they were legally defending their property, but that seems to be their defense.

Well, we need to change the laws in all the states where people think that if they shoot somebody outside the home that they need to drag them inside to make it legal, huh?

So protection of property should be out because it would simplify the law? Well, I guess if we get rid of a lot of laws, the law would be simplified.

Third, just as we have no way of knowing whether they believed at the time that their actions were legal under current law, we have no way of knowing whether they would in fact obey the law if it were changed. However, if the law restricted the use of deadly force to defending one's person (or someone else's), there would be no room for any confusion as to whether they could reasonably have thought they were justified in shooting at a fleeing vehicle.

Yet you claim...

No, I'm not arguing that the law should be changed based on this case.

and still your points 2 and 3 are based on this case in that you think if the law was changed that this incident likely would not have happened because the people would have better understood the law, but you still think they are idiots and it may not have made a difference. Nope, still doesn't hold water.

I see the crux of it being the fact that you expressed in 1 and 2 that you don't like the law yourself. You think the law is confusing people and that is the other half of your argument, only there isn't any indication in evidence that this is a problem. So we are left ONLY with the notion that you don't like the law, hence it should be changed.

If you want to argue that the current law is not legitimate, then stop using this case as part of your example. It doesn't give you any credibility in the matter, in huge part, for the very reason you noted including that the Muhs might have acted anyway, we don't know the Muhs' knowledge of the law in general, we don't know the Muhs' confusion of the specific law, etc.

And just for the record (as indicated by the news accounts), only the first shot was at a stationary vehicle. The second shot was at a fleeing vehicle.

 

[JohnKSa]

...we have no way of knowing for sure whether, at the time of the shooting, the Muhs really believed that they were legally defending their property, but that seems to be their defense.

It doesn't matter what they thought. The law is clear and their actions are clearly outside of what it allows. Your continued attempt to argue your point of view based on the action of the Muhs makes it clear that you're not getting it.

The Muh's broke the law and murdered someone in the process. That is not evidence of a problem with TX law, it's evidence that the Muh's are ignorant of the law. You don't fix ignorance of the law by changing the law.

However, if the law restricted the use of deadly force to defending one's person (or someone else's), there would be no room for any confusion as to whether they could reasonably have thought they were justified in shooting at a fleeing vehicle.

The current law leaves no room for confusion. They were clearly in the wrong. The issue is not the law, it's their ignorance of it or their disregard for it.

I KNOW you've said that's not the problem (that you object primarily on the basis that you believe the law is unethical), but you keep bringing up the Muh's and their actions. You're either using them as a red herring or you were being disengenuous when you made your earlier statement that: "you know that's not my reasoning. What I am questioning is the ethical basis of the law itself:" Either this is about the Muhs or it's not. If it is, my earlier statement stands. You don't restrict the rights of 24 million people because there are ignorant idiots/criminals in the world. If it's not then you can't keep bringing up what they did as evidence for your arguments.

...I fail to see how that's an oversimplification.

It's an oversimplification because the laws in question take up a page or more. Read in their entirety the laws are clearly not about "shooting people over minor property crimes" but rather have several common and common-sense themes that weave the laws together into a whole that actually is quite reasonable.

Trying to condense it into a single sentence is an obvious oversimplification and makes the laws appear to be much more simplistic than they really are.

Oh yes, I know it's an uphill battle...

Either you think that TX will be a better place when criminals can feel more secure about committing crimes in TX or you want TX to be a worse place than it is now.

I'm against both.

By the way, one of the main points of having individual states (instead of just one large country) is so that each individual state can enact it's own laws as its own citizens see fit. In other words, a person, who, like you, believes that the use of deadly force should be heavily restricted can happily find a home in a state like IL which has deadly force laws that match your ideals and leave others to enjoy life in states like TX which place a heavier emphasis on protecting the rights of the law-abiding than on protecting the rights of people caught in the act of committing crimes.

In other words, there is a place for people with views like yours. A place where you don't have to change any laws to be happy with what they say. TX is not that place.

 

[Evan Thomas]

My argument boils down to this. I happen to think that taking someone's life over a property crime, especially a misdemeanor, is unethical, and ought not to be legal, no matter whether it's at night, no matter whether the crime couldn't be prevented in any other way, etc., etc. But that's, as I've said, just the first point. My other concern has to do with the likelihood of killing innocents, not with protecting criminals.

Whether we are talking about defense of life OR defense of property, there will always be people who push the boundaries of what's legal, either because they genuinely don't understand the law, because they willfully misinterpret it, or because they don't give a ****. Nothing to be done about the last kind except throw the book at them. But in the case of the first two, I think it makes a difference where the boundaries are set in the first place: given the consequences of a mistake about where they are, I'd rather set them conservatively -- in the sense of erring on the side of protecting lives at the expense of some property, rather than on the side of preventing relatively minor criminal conduct at the cost of an increased risk of taking innocent lives.

I think -- along with pretty much everyone else who's posted on this -- that the Muhses were clearly violating the law as it's written, and ought to be tried for murder; stupidity and ignorance are no excuse. But assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that they were acting in good faith when they shot at that car, that they genuinely believed that it was legal to shoot, that the victims were damaging their property and that they had no other recourse, they were wrong. They made a mistake, albeit an incredibly stupid and criminal one. People can and do make mistakes in evaluating a situation, even when they're well-informed about the law. This comes up time and time again in discussions on this board, about when to use force in the case of an intruder in one's home, for example, or how best to intervene if one witnesses a violent crime. As is often stated in those discussions, it's not always easy to determine quickly just what is happening, so that the possibility of making a lethal error is very real.

So, John, your comment about placing "a heavier emphasis on protecting the rights of the law-abiding than on protecting the rights of people caught in the act of committing crimes" misses the point. The more generously you set the threshold of when lethal force is permissible, the greater the likelihood that law-abiding citizens will mistakenly be killed, as happened in the case being discussed in this thread. This is why I've used as it as an example, not as "the basis" of my argument, as both you, John, and Double Naught, keep insisting I'm doing. The basis of that part of my argument is this: the negative consequences of the mistaken use of lethal force in an apparent property crime outweigh any possible benefit, in terms of protecting property, in an actual one.

If either of you wants to take up the arguments I'm actually making, fine... but if the best you can do is to continue to misstate them, I'm done, I think...

 

[JohnKSa]

The more generously you set the threshold of when lethal force is permissible, the greater the likelihood that law-abiding citizens will mistakenly be killed, as happened in the case being discussed in this thread.

That's a rather creative premise. I've not found that people who make the assessment that you can shoot people for trespassing (and I've heard it from more than one person) base their belief on an analysis of the law. Instead they base it exclusively on what they heard from some other person (or persons) who are also totally ignorant of the law and who heard it from others who were also totally ignorant of the law... (you get the point.)

The point is, and remains, that you can't fix ignorance by changing something that ignorant people are ignorant of. If they knew the law and kept up with the changes to the law then there would be no problem. The problem is that they do NOT know the law and do NOT keep up with the changes to it. Therefore changing the law can not have any effect on what they do.

This is why I've used as it as an example,...

It's not a valid example because what you're proposing as a solution will clearly have no effect on them or people like them. In fact, your argument is contradictory if you claim they are an example for the reasons I listed above.

...that they were acting in good faith when they shot at that car, that they genuinely believed that it was legal to shoot...

If this is true then they clearly didn't know the law. If they knew the law they would not have fired on the trespassers unless they wished to commit murder. If they wanted to commit murder in violation of the law then changing the law can have no effect. If they were ignorant of the law then changing the law can have no effect because their ignorance (and the similar ignorance of others) can't be fixed by changing that which they are ignorant of.

In other words, you're attempting to use an emotionally charged incident to support your view (deadly force laws in TX need to be changed) but even your own arguments demonstrate that the incident is not applicable to the view you're airing. That glaring lack of applicability is what has driven you to repeatedly make statements like:

"I'm not arguing that the law should be changed based on this case."
"...my point isn't about "educating ignorant idiots."

 

[OldMarksman]

I happen to think that taking someone's life over a property crime, especially a misdemeanor, is unethical, and ought not to be legal, no matter whether it's at night, no matter whether the crime couldn't be prevented in any other way, etc., etc.

I happen to agree.

....assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that they were acting in good faith when they shot at that car, that they genuinely believed that it was legal to shoot, that the victims were damaging their property and that they had no other recourse, they were wrong. .... People can and do make mistakes in evaluating a situation, even when they're well-informed about the law.

If the shooting had taken place on their property and the Muhs had shot to protect low value property from being defaced, and if that provision of the code made their act lawful, that might be relevant, and regardless of whether the Texas legislators who enacted Section 9.42 understood that that might happen, it would now be the subject of very legitimate debate. However, it is not relevant.

I think it makes a difference where the boundaries are set in the first place:

OK, just where would you draw them? Would you make the use of deadly force unlawful in all circumstances, reversing a millenium of established law?

Forget Texas for a moment. We've had a homeowner shoot a sleeping drunk in his house Washington, a man try to strike a trespasser in Tennessee with a hammer, and someone kill someone at night with a "warning shot" in Colorado in recent months--all criminal acts. We've had people opine that it's OK to shoot a fleeing felon in Illinois, to point guns at trespassers and tell them to get on the ground in the Southeast, and draw and shoot people "making threatening gestures" somewhere far to the northeast of Texas, all very ignorant of the law, but what "boundaries" are set in such a manner that they made a difference in these misconceptions? None, I think.

I seriously doubt that the Muhs had any more knowledge of the content of Texas Code Section 9.42 than the night watchman in Colorado had about the lethal force laws there (deadly force to protect property is very clearly unlawful) or the Washington State homeowner knew about the appellate court rulings that establish a castle doctrine there . Both face murder charges, but it wasn't because of anything wrong with the way the law is framed.

No, I think the Texas Code contains a provision that is completely unethical and I expect that, should something really bad happen that turns out to be beyond the pale, the law will be amended, either by the legislature or by judicial interpretation. But I do not think that any part of the law as written and as understood by the Muhs contributed at all to the tragedy now at hand.

Actually, for the most part, I think the Texas code is very well written; there's enough specificity in it to minimize the likelihood of misinterpretation by persons not knowledgeable of the case law. I think there are real problems with Section 9.42, but if that section comes up in court in this case it won't be because the Muhs had ever read it.

 

[Texan_Mama1985]

The Muhs'

Personally, they should stick them (alive and bloody), in a room filled with hungry hogs to be eaten alive. Then if there is anything left, grind it up and feed it to the gators in the Trinity.

 

[Bernie Lomax]

Does Texas still have the death penalty?

You're joking, right?

TX may lead the country in state executions.

Texas executes the most people in total, but Oklahoma executes the most per capita.

 

[Al Norris]

Bringing back a thread from a year and a half, just to vent.

Closed.