Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Man Shoots Robber Charged With Murder!

The Prosecuting Attorney in Logan County says he wants to be careful what he says publicly about a case involving a Logan man who allegedly shot and killed the man who robbed him.

It happened earlier this week at the Logan Wal-Mart.

"At this time, we're still gathering information, statements and whatever else they can come up with, evidence and I really don't want to comment at all," Prosecuting Attorney John Bennett said on Thursday's MetroNews Talkline.

Logan Police say David Abbot, 37, from Chapmanville had taken money from Jesus Canul, 26, of Logan (pictured above right) who had just cashed his paycheck at Wal-Mart.

Abbot threatened Canul with a sharp object, possibly scissors, during that robbery.

Once he took off with the money in the parking lot, reports indicate Canul, who has a concealed weapon permit, pulled out a gun and allegedly shot Abbot in the head. Abbot died at the Logan County Medical Center.

Canul claims he was acting in self defense, but Bennett says there are clear legal definitions for that.

"If and when it ever gets to a grand jury, the judge would instruct them specifically on the law of self defense in this state." He says he has seen cases like this one before now.

"The facts are always somewhat different but, in many respects, quite similar."

At this point, Canul is facing murder charges.

This happened in West Virginia by the name i would bet the robber was a Illegal

Reminds me of some of the best legal advice I ever read. If you ever need to defend yourself in any way, tell the authorities ONLY that you were the victim of a crime and feared for your life. Anything beyond that will be forthcoming AFTER you retain an attorney.

Even if the LEOs on scene appear to be "on your side", you never know how they really feel or how a potential prosecutor may view your story.

Many places if not most this would be a bad shoot. When the bad guy turned and ran the danger was over. If he had shot when the bad guy was in his face and armed to would be a different story.

I know in Washington this would not end well for the shooter.

not in TX

Yep. Texas is far in the lead as far in castle doctrine and self defense.

At least he won't be robbing anybody anymore.

Put me on the jury.

My heart would be with him but if I had to serve on his jury in this state and the evidence came out just like in the story I would have to find him guilty. Not sure of the laws there but here it is an open and shut thing. It was a bad shoot.

Might be a good place for Jury nullification. miles

If i was on the Jury it would be not guilty.

No one here has enough facts to make a judgement.

WildsowhyargueoveritAlaska ��2002-2011

This statement makes no sense. What about the danger of not paying his bills or not geting food for his kids? Do you think the power company cares why you don't have any money?

I see it as a totally righteous shoot.

I'm assuming this is West Virginia based on the names of the towns. If so then, yes, he is guilty of murder. You cannot run someone down from behind after a robbery and shoot them in the head. It isn't, and shouldn't be, legal.

I'm all for self defense but you have to actually be defending yourself in order to be within the law.

Will

Not in Washington, not in Oregon. Not is the story that was posted was the real story. Shooting a fleeing robber in the back of the head will get you hard time in most states.

Better read up on your state laws my friend.

danger of not paying bills is not life threatining.This is flat bad shoot.Do you feel for the guy yes if he would of shot while being threatened this would not be news

Yep. Will be interesting to see how this one turns out.

Yep, shooting someone in the back around here would not be legal either. No self defense there.

"This happened in West Virginia by the name i would bet the robber was a Illegal "

David Abbot is an "illegal's" name ?

What if the shooter says that he was certain the robber turned around, reached into his waistband, and appeared to be drawing a weapon?

Reasonable enough doubt for an acquittal?

I'm not saying a person should lie under oath, but I wouldn't be flapping my gums at the scene until I had legal representation in order to get my side of the story on the right side of the law, to the greatest extent possible.

This is the internet. We make judgements based on the facts the poster gives us.

The liberal media would call it murder and a liberal D.A. would see it as murder even if the guy was stabbed while shooting the perp.

Armed robbery is not a capital crime in any jurisdiction. The guy is in front of you with a weapon demanding money...cap him on the spot in the front.

Guy is running away? You better tackle him because it's not self defense anymore.

S S S !

Yep put me on the jury.

You are all assuming he intended to hit him in the head. Probably just tried to "wing him" to make him drop the money....

The guy was so distraught from being robbed that he was shaking and accidentally gripped the gun too tight and it inadvertently discharged. The fact that the robber was hit in the head was just pure bad luck.

TEXAS is the place to live according to Texas penal code 9.42 you can shoot their ass half mile away in back of their head if you can hit them and you can do it if it your neighbors property also.

I have not had a renewal course in a few years, but IIRC, in TX that could have been a bad shooting too.

IIRC you can shoot that guy as he goes away, but you can't kill him, you can only injure him.

Thinking the terms are something like lethal and non lethal force and their differences.

Now if it was at night, its all totally legal basically.

I could be mistaken though.

Damn shame you can't kill someone after the fact though... I mean it was THEY that engaged, and you simply had to pick your time when it was safe to kill them in return, but no... can't do that....
How could the thug be assured of not being killed? Simple as hell, don't rob anyone. Pretty simple to me.

In Montague co. Texas it would be a NO BILL then they would send you to a Clint Smith type school to teach you to draw faster.

I think the "at night" deal is valid in rural areas only.I don't believe "rural areas" is defined anymore than the phrase.

Only one SSS proponent?

Damn. What a disappointing crowd.

Walmart parking lots are paved.

And have cameras and lots of people watching.

I think it was a fear induced AD, and the slug bounced of the pavement, your Honor,.....so does the rest of the jury,....

very bad Kharma / Mojo,....plain and simple.

GTC

I wish that would work but I am thinking this guy is in deep...

Some time not so far back, here in My closest town,....

GTC

82 Year Old Shoots At Attacker

82-year-old fights off attacker

March 15, 2010
SIERRA VISTA - An 82-year-old woman takes matters into her own hands after she's attacked in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Sierra Vista.

Police said the suspect Stephen Prickett beat the woman with her own cane until she grabbed her gun from her purse and started firing.

After a few days in the hospital, she's out and told News 4 all about it.

She said she was just walking to her car with some groceries when she was approached by the suspect. She said, "In a very mild voice he said, 'this is your day. You are too old to be alive anyway.'"

Moments later she said he grabbed her cane and started beating her and she's got the bruises to prove it. She said, "I got boo boos where I didn't know I had a place to put boo boos."

She eventually went for the gun in her purse and opened fire. She didn't hit him but said it still saved her life. She said, "In the long run I think it saved me because if I hadn't shot the thing no one would have known there was anything wrong and come running."

Wal-Mart employees came to her rescue and police weren't far behind.

Police said the victim did absolutely everything right. As for the suspect, they said he made a big mistake. Tracy Grady with the Sierra Vista Police Department said, "He picked the wrong woman. She was the wrong target."

And the self proclaimed "stubborn, old broad" said you can say that again. She said, "If I go naturally or to a sickness or something, fine. I'm ready to go, but I'm not ready to let some idiot like that take me out."

The victim said owning a gun isn't for everyone but added with the proper training it's a good idea particularly for elderly people like her that are becoming victim's more and more often.

( a good friend TRAINED this neat old Gal, and got her all lined out for CCW, ....GTC)

The suspect was arrested shortly after the attack. He's facing multiple charges including attempted murder.

82-year-old fights off attacker | KVOA.com | Tucson, Arizona

That one is not only a justified shoot it brought a huge grin yo my face. Good for her.

Like I said read the Texas penal codes 9.41 thru 9.44 . If you don't believe that read about the Joe Horn shooting incident in Pasadena Tx a couple of years ago.He killed two guys who burgularized his neighbors house while he was on the phone with the police and was nobilled end of the story.

They won't believe it loyburkes. I've tried to explain how the law is written in Texas to those from other areas many times....sometimes with a copy of the Penal Code in hand. No one will believe that we have the rights we do even when they read it with their own eyes.


Damn I love being from Texas!

God Bless Texas!

Hopefully someone on this guys jury will understand that the world is better place without the robber and the shooter did everyone a favor and vote not guilty.

In my opinion that would be justice. Anyone going around threatening people peacefully conducting their business is a danger to everyone.

Most everywhere I have lived it would come down to the DA and I would say it would be better than 50/50 you would walk with no charge.

Maybe it isn't a Capital offense nowadays but it sure as hell used to be. Check out the history of Northfield, Minnesota. Also, the punishment for stealing cattle, a man's horse, kidnapping, rape, etc. These were all capital offenses until the wussy lawyers started reversing common sense law with their perverted versions of "fairness" concerning what can and should happen to criminals and issuing hunting rules regarding the lawfullness of the way in which you are allowed prevent crime, punish offenders, protect yourself, and recover what is rightfully yours. It's high time we as the governed changed things back to the way things used to be. A good start would be to make it unlawful for any member of the justice system to run for election or to be appointed to any legislative or executive position in government and thereby maintaining the divisions of governmental power and authority/jurisdiction as delineated in the Constitution. Sooner or later this has got to happen as the "Law" gets more unfair, insane, and ridiculous every day.

Flower Child

you can't shoot someone who is no longer a threat. If he runs, he 'walks'. That has been the decision in a number of cases, most recently that of the pharmacist that was robbed.

Where was the robber running to? Was he running for a gun? Running to get to a better spot to attack again? Running to get buddies to come and attack again? All have assumed he was running to get away from guy with gun and stay away? Who knows his real intent was?

and that's why we go to court.

let me add though, that in my oh so humble opinion, if a person commits a crime, if he uses a gun to rob, burgle or the like, then anything and everything that happens subsequent to that should be HIS fault.
If someone shoots and kills him, oh well...........

If the law was cut and dry, it wouldn't even go to grand jury then.

I believe the law is pretty clear on this in most states. Once the threat is over, you can't shoot just because you are mad or to regain property. Now if the victim shot while the guy was facing him with the sharp object, it would be a different situation.

Sam, perhaps we agree on this one. However, I do think the perp needs to be in the victim's house or a confined space; the victim can not just run down the street shooting at the perp.

Like I said above, Texas is way out in front in their laws on this one.

But, please note, this did not go down in Texas and as far as I know there are no other states where this would be justified.

If the information in the OP is true and that is what the DA and the jury will see then this guy is going away for a while.

In Washington this would not have been a good shooting unless the robber was equally or greater armed and the victim had retreated as far as he could go. It is not enough here to be confronted face to face with a robber who is armed. You as the victim must retreat and try to get away.

Cat approaches you with a lethal weapon and robs you and someone is going to impose some "fair fight" fantasy on you? You can sure tell that we have a shortage of people who have ever actually been in a serious fight.

I know that the limp-wristed have made this the law of the land (mostly), but if someone has threatened your life and stolen a portion of your livelihood then his is forfeit at the first opportunity. Screw a bunch of fair-fight bullcrap.

Exactly


If more people committing violent crimes were shot/killed than the next guy might think twice about doing a similar thing.

Give the shooter a medal and a small reward as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly...

And in a majority of states, you'd be wrong - then convicted and sent to prison..

Exactly...

While I agree with you the law does not. It is your choice in a face to face, judged by 12 or carried my 6. But in most states except for Texas you will be judged by 6. It is the law.

Shooting a fleeing robber in the back of the head who only showed something sharp will get you time away from home. Count on it.

I hope he has a good Lawyer,and a Jury like Casey Anthony's

You are a puss.

Not self-defense, but if that's the only way to stop a robber, I think the law should permit it. Property is a very fundamental right. Seems that in a case like this where a robber, who used credible deadly force threats to accomplish a larceny, and is killed at some point after the robbery, but while still in "the heat" of the felonious act, and when no other action will stop the robber from absconding with the ill gotten goods, an exception ought to be codified in law.

Ah he should have used a crossbow!

Absolutely. Just "I was the victim of a crime and feared for my life." That's it till you've spoken to your attorney.

As a juror you stand in judgment both of the facts and the law. If you determine that in a particular case the law, applied literally, would result in an injustice, it's your right and duty to acquit.

agree

Naturally, anything we say here assumes the facts are as described. If it turns out not to be the case, we'd have to reevaluate our responses. This is pretty standard.

Feel free to call me a puss but if someone just threatened me with a 'sharp object' and robbed me I would be in fear for my life regardless if the individual was facing me or not. He could just as likely spin around and kill me or may be thinking he is going to get a more deadly weapon.

I've never been robbed but am fairly certain I would be in a altered mental state for sometime after the initial confrontation. I'm certain my understanding of the duration of my life being endangered would be much different than any other time.

Thank you Sir.

But I have a question for you. Have you ever sat of a jury and listened to the case for a week or more that had to listen to the judge lecture you on the law? It does not come down to how you feel about the law. It has nothing to do about your feelings about the person on trial. It has to do with the facts and did the person on trial break the law. Yes or no, black or white did he break the laws of that state, not the laws in any other state like Texas.

I would not like to send this man to prison. I would loose sleep over it. But let me say it again. If I was on that jury and the facts were presented to me as they are stated in the OP and I was not in Texas I would have to decide if this man committed a crime under the laws in the state where this happened.

I wish one of the guys here with the background in the law would chime in here and tell me where I am wrong.


Now to another point. There question about what exactly constitutes a case where shooting is justified. If someone hikes across my land that is trespass. Is that a justifiable shooting offense? If I ask them to leave and they refuse, that become criminal trespass in this state. Is that a justifiable shooting offense?

II drop my wallet wit twenty bucks in it and someone see me do it, grabs mt wallet and runs away. Is that a justifiable shooting offense? How about someone running over my dog or my llama? Or someone get pissed at me because I took the last can of Bush's Baked Beans off the shelf at the grocery and he pushes me down and grabs my can of beans. Is that a justifiable shooting offense?

Where exactly does an offense become so grievous that killing is justified.

scott, this appears to be a classic eastern wa vs western washington difference of views. the man did not kill a guy grabbing the last can of beans. if he were 30 miles deep in the passayten wilderness and it was his last can of beans, which meant he would die without the beans, killing him would be justified to me. if a guy can kill both pilots of an airplane with a razorblade, I would be dang concerned with a guy swinging scissors. face it.....bad guy changed the dynamics of both parties day, it just worked out a whole lot worse for him. good riddens. IMO, we should send him the bg's welfare checks for his trouble.

I already have, Scott. The job of the juror is more to bring about justice than it is to enforce the literal law. That's part of why we have a jury system, rather than an inquisitorial one, as they do in other nations. A professional judge is all you need to determine if the laws were broken. A panel of the defendant's peers, however, represent the people, not the state, and therefore are empowered to consider whether or not, in the case before them, a rigid application of the law would bring about justice or injustice, and find accordingly.

Why do you think a jury isn't simply instructed to vote yes or no on a set of facts proposed to them by the judge, following which said judge determines if the law was violated? That's not how it's done. A jury not only determines what the facts were, but is also empowered to determine guilt or non-guilt, i.e., a person could be found to have violated a law, literally interpreted, yet still be acquitted, i.e., determined not guilty. Were it otherwise, a jury would only be asked to report to the judge what facts it has found to have occurred. As it is, it's asked only to determine guilt or non-guilt.

In our legal tradition, however, this only works in one direction, i.e., in the direction of acquittal, not conviction. Should a jury decide to disregard the law in their conviction of a defendant, a judge is empowered to acquit notwithstanding a jury's verdict if he determines that the facts don't actually support the conviction.

This is a double safety valve, built into our legal tradition, in favor of the accused..

Here is the whole story of what happen.

http://www.wsaz.com/newswestvirginia/headlines/Shooting_Outside_Wal-Mart_128205923.html

I can agree with most of your statements. The only part I see as a problem lays here.



As I see it the threat was over. If Canul had drawn and killed Abbot when they were face to face I think he would have been good under the law in West Virginia. He probably would be facing charges in Washington.



Isn't this just about the way I stated it. Under the laws of West Virginia self defense is defined. It appears Canul broke those laws and the judge will instruct the jury on those laws. That is how the jury will have to decide this case.

I am really glad I will not be in that jury box. I disagree with the laws here in Washington. I think having to run and hide before being able to defend yourself from an attacker is out and out stupid. But those are the laws here. If I break them then I will have to face the consequences.

perhaps the shooter lost a game of scissor throwing, when his opponent stuck his scissors in a stump at 50 paces after a spinning around from a dead run.

suddenly it sounds justifiable.

From the above link.






Better than Washington laws but no where near as good as Texas. I think this will cost Canul time.

Perhaps but I doubt it will turn out well for Mr. Canul.

Oh, we're in perfect agreement on that.

From reading these articles for years and years and seeing the outcome I think the biggest influence on your odds of getting charged with a crime is the district attorney instead of your state law. Sure it has a bearing, but I've seen some that would fall easily into the excessive force category that were allowed to walk and some that were in the good shoot category that were charged that may/may not have got off later.

I cannot argue that one.

Edited to add:

I hope he walks. He was confronted with a violent man. In the heat of the occasion he made a decision. It was his decision alone and I was not standing in his shoes.

I don't believe the guys doing things like this think at all of the consequences (either by mental defect or ego). But, eliminating one might save a life later.

Scott, I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied the law and ethics of use of force and especially use of deadly force in depth and detail, primarily from a law enforcement perspective (i.e., use of force by police, against police, and against others being investigated by police).

First thing: at law, homicide is the killing of another person. If you have sufficient reason for killing another person, it is justifiable homicide, and it is not a criminal act. If you do not have sufficient reason, it is a crime. Everything hinges on justification.

Second thing: use of deadly force is only justified when the person using said force justifiably believes he is in danger of grave bodily harm, which means danger of being killed or being permanently injured by the offender.

Justifiable is the key word in this definition, and it is the pertinent element of the shooting we're discussing in this thread. In order for a homicide to be justified, the offender must have demonstrated 3 things: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.

Ability means the offender has the ability to kill you or cause you grave bodily harm. He has a gun, an edged weapon, and the strength/size/apparent determination to use it; he's 7 feet tall and has a black belt; etc, etc, etc.

Opportunity means the offender is in a position to actually use his weapon on you. If a gun, within effective range of the weapon. If an edged weapon or bludgeon, within 7 yards or so. If he's got a broadsword but is on the opposite bank of a river and there isn't a bridge in sight, he doesn't have opportunity; if he's got a rifle, he's got opportunity.

Jeopardy means the offender has verbalized or otherwise demonstrated his intent to use the weapon against you right now. Pointing a gun at you is sufficient in most cases. Pointing a pair of scissors at you and saying,'Your wallet or your life' is sufficient. Pointing the scissors at you and saying, 'I might come looking for you with these scissors one of these days' does NOT constitute jeopardy.

In this case, the offender had turned away from the shooter and was apparently leaving the scene of the crime. He still has ability, but opportunity is equivocal and jeopardy is highly doubtful.

Given the facts as outlined in this thread, this is not a justifiable homicide. This man would be arrested in any jurisdiction in the United States, including Texas. There is nothing about this shooting that speaks to duty to retreat or "castle doctrine". I facts come out in the investigation or at trial that contradict the facts presented so far, he may be acquitted, but at this point I would predict he will be convicted of criminal homicide of some kind.

A lot depends on a jury.

There was a shooting in Portland, Oregon a few years ago. A small business in downtown Portland, I believe that it may have been in the Pearl district, was held up by an armed robber. The robber left and was pursued by a person from the business. The pursuer was armed with a .380 auto pistol and shot the fleeing robber. The robber died as a result of being shot. The DA's office let it go to a Grand Jury and they declined to indict, in effect saying it was a righteous shooting. I can't remember where it went from there, if a civil suit was filed,etc..

Shooting such as this, justified or not, may alter how criminals approach prospective victims. With more states enacting legal permits to carry, it could have a dampening effect on daylight, public robberies.

Probably be an improvement over a suggested course of action some years ago when it was suggested if a woman was facing being raped that she void her bladder and bowels....which seems to be a typical liberal reaction to facing a dangerous situation.

Very well stated, Doc.. Kudos..

That is pretty freaking sad, law or not.

It's the same here in TAX HELL WISCONSIN..

Nice, eh?

In Alabama this may or may not be considered legal. The castle laws here state that protecting property (ie cash) is legal grounds for a shoot. The right to own and protect property is highly protected here.

That said, I don't think at that time, given the information posted, that I would have shot. Maybe I'm just a wuss, but for ME, killing a man isn't worth a handful of cash. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

However, the difficult thing with a fleeing crook, is it CAN be difficult to know if the guy is actually fleeing, or if he is repositioning. Given that the article states he had a sharp object, I'd think he was fleeing. If he had a gun though, I would have shot in a heartbeat as I would have still felt threatened due to the fact that he COULD be repositioning. I wouldn't risk my life on a could be.

A person shouldn't have to retreat or submit one little bit to protect their body or property, no matter where they are.

The proper response to "Hand it over or I'll kick your ass" should be the alignment of the sights on center mass.

No argument from me.. But it's the stupid-azzed law in this stupid-azzed state..

I know they're working on a 'castle-doctrine' bill but it's not here yet..

Agreed. But we do not know the situation. Perhaps he did not have time. Perhaps he was not on the alert and the first he knew anything was wrong he was looking at getting his throat slashed. I cannot second guess this as I was not in his shoes.

It is what I would have tried to do but again I was not there and I may well have found myself in the same situation.

And I agree a person should not have to run and try to hide before making the choice to defend himself. What if it were my wife and I? What if I was armed and she was not? Does the state of Washington think I should run and hide and let the bad guys do whatever they wish with her? Then is it OK to defend myself after she id dead and the have me cornered? Sounds like a pretty stupid law to me but this is Washington and that is the way the laws read.

These are decision each of have to make before we carry. It is wise to know the laws in your state and any other states you carry. Then make your own decisions as to how you would react.

BTW. I not case where I have to run and let the bad guys have my wife, it just ain't going to happen. I would rather face prison and execution as a murder that live with letting them have my wife. But that is a decision I have already made.

[quote=HugAJackass
That said, I don't think at that time, given the information posted, that I would have shot. Maybe I'm just a wuss, but for ME, killing a man isn't worth a handful of cash. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

However, the difficult thing with a fleeing crook, is it CAN be difficult to know if the guy is actually fleeing, or if he is repositioning. Given that the article states he had a sharp object, I'd think he was fleeing. If he had a gun though, I would have shot in a heartbeat as I would have still felt threatened due to the fact that he COULD be repositioning. I wouldn't risk my life on a could be. [/quote]

Exactly how I feel.

I'm sure I would be too scared for my life to turn my back and retreat.

Yep. The law is stupid. It was written by idiots who have never had to defend themselves and believe all criminals are really good guys on the inside.

I haven't read all the posts so I might have missed something.

Here's my opinion from Montana.

If murder is the only charge and it's murder or nothing, using jury nullification, it's not guilty based on what's known.

If it's a manslaughter charge, 2nd degree, based on the known information it would be guilty.

I suspect the charge will be manslaughter in the 2nd degree because that should a easy charge to get a conviction on. I doubt it will be a murder charge but hey, it's the liberal gun hating East coast so who knows.

What about the robber leaving the scene of a crime? Leaving the scene of a crime is illegal, isn't it?

Would that not justify the shooting? The victum was only trying to prevent the robber from leaving the scene.

For some reason, police officers are actually considered privileged to shoot those fleeing arrest if 1) they observed them commit a felony, and 2) they have reason to believe they pose a high degree of danger to society. I'd say this case qualifies. Running away was, in essence, fleeing arrest.

Now for the question why cops are in any way distinguished from anyone else in terms of privileged lethal force. There's no logic to it. Originally, we were all "the police," i.e., we all had the common law right to maintain the piece, and defend life and property. Then people got too busy to do it, and decided to either elect or hire someone to do it for them. The people then extended to these officials the full degree of their own common law powers to maintain the piece and defend life and property, i.e., police can have no greater authority than we all possess in these regards. Where did the police derive any greater degree of power than that possessed by the folks who empowered them to do their policing for them?

A reach at best and a long one at that. In this case the robber did not commit a capitol crime. Armed robbery will not get you a death sentence in any state as far as I know.

Face to face with an armed robber and you have a chance. In this state you would have to have pretty convincing proof your life was in emanate danger. In other words the famous dog poop on a stick would not do it. A knife or any other kind of deadly weapon might do it. In this state a fleeing armed robber would get you a long stay away from home.

Gentlemen,
As I see it, this is what comes from allowing a bunch of scabby-kneed, ambulance-chasing lawyers to make the laws. Like the old Ranger said, "Puttin' a lawyer in the legislature is akin to havin' a fox guard your chickens". Jim

Well, if you put the Supreme Court in that category. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Fleeing felon statutes have pretty much been repealed so as a civilian you're looking at making out a case for justifiable homicide if you're a good shot. Imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury and all that. The old rule applies: Don't shoot anybody unless you're left with no choice. Even if justified it'll likely mess with your head.

Should add that Castle Doctrine is a legislative definition of justifiable homicide. Adds no more than that.

It pisses you off doesn't it? That LE can do this under certain circumstances as those within Garner-vs-TN. This doesn't occur outside of the most severe and limited circumstances.

A few points.....

First, in Texas (and yes I know our laws are somewhat unique) the defense of property IS justification for use of deadly force. Deadly force is also justified to prevent or to prevent a felon from fleeing following such things as theft, robbery, assault and even "criminal mischief" under certain circumstances. therefor in Texas this would likely be a justified shooting (particularly if it took place "in the night time"....and no, it makes no difference if it is a rural or urban setting according to the law).

Some have said the a handful of cash isn't reason enough to take a life. For me, a used beer can is reason enough because it's MY beer can.....not yours. Steal from me and pay the price if I know about it and can react.

Second, the idea that a jury "has" to convict because of the way a law is written is bullshit. No one HAS to do anything and there is a legal idea (which lawyers and judges HATE for jurors to be aware of) called Jury Nulification It matters not what THE LAW says....if a juror feels it is not justice.....he can and should "nulify" the law by voting not guilty. If you DON"T do so....in my opinion, you are guily of being an assesory after the fact and just as guilty as the original criminal.

The final point that amazes me is that the same people here who say that the would "have" to vote guilty....even though they also say they think the man was justified.....are mostly the same folks who loudly proclaim that they'd never give up their guns if a law were passed saying they must.

Does this mean that you also believe that a person has the right to ignor any law they choose because they don't agree with it....but MUST follow other laws? You NEVER "have" to convict when on a jury....grow a set of balls and stand up for what's right or blindly follow whatever instructions THE LAW decides you should.....you can't have it both ways.

Maybe I'm a bit different, but I was taught a truth by my father and grandfather....and have taught my children the same thing,

"Never let the LAW stand in the way of what's right and wrong!"