TexasCHLforum.com

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=8926644" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Road rage fight
They somehow stop in front of the dudes house
He runs in brother comes out shooting
But says they shot at him first.
Bullet hole in house and all.
Woman in car dies.


Why would they follow him home and stop there? That's stupid unless you are looking for trouble.

yea but he hit the wrong person, so yea its negligent homicide, if he had hit the person with the gun then no problem

JP171 wrote:yea but he hit the wrong person, so yea its negligent homicide, if he had hit the person with the gun then no problem

I guess this is assuming (not concluding) the husband and wife were in the wrong.

If so, then wouldn't the wife be guilty also, so if anything, the husband would be charged with felony manslaughter or whatever it's called and the brother would be in the clear.

Disclaimer: I got my DA certificate in a box of Cracker Jacks.

Thomas wrote:

JP171 wrote:yea but he hit the wrong person, so yea its negligent homicide, if he had hit the person with the gun then no problem

I guess this is assuming (not concluding) the husband and wife were in the wrong.

If so, then wouldn't the wife be guilty also, so if anything, the husband would be charged with felony manslaughter or whatever it's called and the brother would be in the clear.

Disclaimer: I got my DA certificate in a box of Cracker Jacks.

Absent other non-mentioned evidence, the wife is not guilty for any of the husband's actions. The brother shot and killed an innocent bystander.

Whether it was truly self defense, and whether the brother was reckless in the shooting, are highly dependent upon case facts and we'll never get that level of detail in the newspaper.

The person being chased gets out of the car and runs into the house and the person he's running from does not chase him into the house, right? Then another person not involved in the original issue comes out with a gun. He claims self defense and that the other guy, the husband of the deceased, fires first and just returns fire in self defense killing the passenger. I can see where the husband will claim self defense and that he only shot first because someone was coming at him with a gun. I don't think this is going to turn out very well for the 20 year old brother that shot the woman.

C-dub wrote:The person being chased gets out of the car and runs into the house and the person he's running from does not chase him into the house, right? Then another person not involved in the original issue comes out with a gun. He claims self defense and that the other guy, the husband of the deceased, fires first and just returns fire in self defense killing the passenger. I can see where the husband will claim self defense and that he only shot first because someone was coming at him with a gun. I don't think this is going to turn out very well for the 20 year old brother that shot the woman.

I dont think it will either, but just playing devils advocate,

If your brother was running towards your house yelling that he was being shot at and you looked past him and saw a man holding a gun, would you not open fire? Couldnt the husband be charged with the wifes death if he did initiate the altercation?

zero4o3 wrote:

C-dub wrote:The person being chased gets out of the car and runs into the house and the person he's running from does not chase him into the house, right? Then another person not involved in the original issue comes out with a gun. He claims self defense and that the other guy, the husband of the deceased, fires first and just returns fire in self defense killing the passenger. I can see where the husband will claim self defense and that he only shot first because someone was coming at him with a gun. I don't think this is going to turn out very well for the 20 year old brother that shot the woman.

I dont think it will either, but just playing devils advocate,

If your brother was running towards your house yelling that he was being shot at and you looked past him and saw a man holding a gun, would you not open fire? Couldnt the husband be charged with the wifes death if he did initiate the altercation?

thats how im seeing it.. if it happened that way.

chase my family down and stop in front of my house with a gun and you are your gang will be shot. was he supposed to wait until the drive by was complete and the babies inside were killed before shooting back?

Thomas wrote:

JP171 wrote:yea but he hit the wrong person, so yea its negligent homicide, if he had hit the person with the gun then no problem

I guess this is assuming (not concluding) the husband and wife were in the wrong.

If so, then wouldn't the wife be guilty also, so if anything, the husband would be charged with felony manslaughter or whatever it's called and the brother would be in the clear.

Disclaimer: I got my DA certificate in a box of Cracker Jacks.

Thomas, from the story I gather the husband and deceased wife followed the one person home, that in and of itself isn't necessarily wrong, however the brother of the shooter said there is a guy outside with a gun(paraphrasing) that makes in my mind the husband wrong as wrong can be, if he had his weapon out then shooting at the house of the subject he made himself a target and legally suseptable to being shot. The deceased however no matter what she said or as in the car did prior to the shots being fired had no reason to be shot, so therefore the shooter who killed the deceased is guilty of at least negligent homicide.

zero4o3 wrote:

C-dub wrote:The person being chased gets out of the car and runs into the house and the person he's running from does not chase him into the house, right? Then another person not involved in the original issue comes out with a gun. He claims self defense and that the other guy, the husband of the deceased, fires first and just returns fire in self defense killing the passenger. I can see where the husband will claim self defense and that he only shot first because someone was coming at him with a gun. I don't think this is going to turn out very well for the 20 year old brother that shot the woman.

I dont think it will either, but just playing devils advocate,

If your brother was running towards your house yelling that he was being shot at and you looked past him and saw a man holding a gun, would you not open fire? Couldnt the husband be charged with the wifes death if he did initiate the altercation?

If my brother is safe inside then I just call the police. How many times have we talked about the tactical error of going out looking for trouble. Let trouble come to me if it wants to. I'm ready.

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. I guess it could go either way.

When someone is killed during the commission of a crime, if the person killed is one of the parties that is involved in the crime, the person committing the crime is guilty of murder. So, since the man in the car was committing a crime, the woman in the car became an accessory to the crime. When the woman died as a result of the actions evolving from the crime, the man in the car becomes the actor charged with her death.

For example, three kids are riding in a car. One of the kids gets involved in a drug deal. The deal goes south, the kid draws his weapon, and the other party to the drug deal then draws his and shoots. If one of the kids in the car dies as a result, the kid involved in the drug deal will be charged with that kid's death.

The shooter could also be charged, depending upon the facts of the case, but the husband is guilty already merely by having been the person who precipitated the events that led to her death.

That's my non-lawyerly take on the law.

baldeagle wrote:When someone is killed during the commission of a crime, if the person killed is one of the parties that is involved in the crime, the person committing the crime is guilty of murder. So, since the man in the car was committing a crime, the woman in the car became an accessory to the crime. When the woman died as a result of the actions evolving from the crime, the man in the car becomes the actor charged with her death.

For example, three kids are riding in a car. One of the kids gets involved in a drug deal. The deal goes south, the kid draws his weapon, and the other party to the drug deal then draws his and shoots. If one of the kids in the car dies as a result, the kid involved in the drug deal will be charged with that kid's death.

The shooter could also be charged, depending upon the facts of the case, but the husband is guilty already merely by having been the person who precipitated the events that led to her death.

That's my non-lawyerly take on the law.

I think you are correct, but the question that remains is whether or not the husband actually committed a crime. He probably did, but the question is still there.

the way the police and the DA see it looks more like what I said, the shooter has been arrested and charged with murder, bail set at 75,000

So (apples and oranges here, but...) were any of the NY officers charged when they wounded 9 bystanders?

jmra wrote:So (apples and oranges here, but...) were any of the NY officers charged when they wounded 9 bystanders?

Laws are for the little people. Especially in New York. Do you think things have changed since Serpico's time or is it just better managed?

The felony murder rule usually only is invoked when someone dies in the commission of a violent felony. Each state is somewhat different, of course.

The typical scenario is an armed robbery, say a pizza joint. The 4 robbers, one driving the get-a-way car, go to the store, 3 go inside to rob the store. Somebody gets excited, resists, etc. pulls a gun, and shoots one of the robbers who dies. The 3 surviving robbers are guilty of murder under the felony murder rule. The shooter, who was minding his own business before the robbery, committed no crime, self-defense, defense of others, etc.

The other usual variation is the dead person is an innocent bystander. All 4 robbers are guilty of murder, even though only one was the shooter. Let that be a lesson to you if you are running around with armed companions you don't know well!!!

There are all sorts of variations and permutations, of course.

Perhaps in this case, the shooter has the defense of protecting others. It may come down to who fired first. If husband had fired towards/into the house, that changes things.