El Lago Shooting

[Mhoward]

Sorry if this has already been posted, I spent the past hour browsing before I posted this just to see if I ran into it.

Any how, opinions on this one? From what I've read the victim has a fairly lengthy criminal history. I believe the doctor was wrong in what he did. Any LEO's with input? Should they have taken his BAC?

http://www.click2houston.com/news/local ... index.html

HOUSTON -
Local 2 Investigates obtained the 911 call placed by the man who shot and killed a neighbor in a well-to-do community near the Johnson Space Center.

The incident on May 26 at about 4:30 a.m. is still under investigation by the Lakeview Police Department, a small agency that serves the Timber Cove subdivision.

[jmra]

With the information given (or the lack there of) I'm not exactly sure how you could make any determination whatsoever. What in this article makes you think that the shooter was wrong?
If he was indeed attacked and feared for his life, would he be wrong to shoot?

[Mhoward]

That is the main problem with the story, the lack of information.from what I have read the shooter ran back to his house to get his gun, then shot the man off his property. Once the trespasser (not going to say victim this time as the shooter could be the victim) left the property the home owner should have stayed put, on the phone with 911.this all happened at 4:30am, home owners son stated everyone was intoxicated. If it were me I would have not left my property.I don't see how he could have been in fear for his life if he followed the man off his property.

[2firfun50]

That is the main problem with the story, the lack of information.from what I have read the shooter ran back to his house to get his gun, then shot the man off his property. Once the trespasser (not going to say victim this time as the shooter could be the victim) left the property the home owner should have stayed put, on the phone with 911.this all happened at 4:30am, home owners son stated everyone was intoxicated. If it were me I would have not left my property.I don't see how he could have been in fear for his life if he followed the man off his property.

I'm afraid this may not end well for anyone involved. Firearms and booze just don't mix.

[bdickens]

What is with the insane need to keep referring to the criminal perpetrators of incidents as "victims?"

[Bfuselier]

This person's criminal history was alcohol related. No bodily injury type history, no muggings or rapes, etc. It really is irrelevant here. The shooter had ample opportunity to call the police prior. He did not. Instead, he took the law into his own hands, went into his home and got a weapon. At that time, why would he not simply lock the door and call police?

The 911 recordings are now out. You can google them. Odd that the son told someone to "flush it, all of it". There apparently were some "altered states of mind" in this equation.
I find it odd that the shooter was not tested for drugs or alcohol. They were still up partying at 4:30 in the morning. The shooter deemed it necessary to pursue the deceased off the property and down the street. He was quite a distance off the property when he shot Smith. I have personally walked this scene.

Lakeview PD has done a poor job investigating. But rest assured, 21mph in their 20mph zone will get you a ticket :)

I think the shooter may very well be in some trouble here. The man he shot was unarmed and off his property. Although it seems the deceased was probably argumentative I don't believe it warranted being shot in the street. Just my .02

[Moby]

An unarmed person 68 feet away from me is of little threat to my life or the lives of others.
(assuming others were also 68 feet away)

[tbrown]

What is with the insane need to keep referring to the criminal perpetrators of incidents as "victims?"

Alinsky could tell you. So could Goebbels.

I think it's obvious that a ne'er–do–well who crashes a party in a private home, gets kicked out, and returns with canine backup is the aggressor, not the victim.

[Bfuselier]

The "canine backup" was a Jack Russel Terrier...being at a party, unwelcomed, may deserve an azz kicking....but not a march of death down a public street. To shoot the unarmed man while off the premises is a major problem. Another thing to consider is that it is unlikely that the deceased just showed up for the heck of it, got ran off, and then decided it was so much fun he wanted to come back. I would bet there is more to the story. The shooter and the other party goers were admittedly intoxicated so a number of things could have spurred the argument/confrontation. Regardless of all the minor details...an unarmed man, alone, was shot by the homeowner while the remaining party guests looked on. I feel confident that a better resolution could have been found. The bottom line is that the homeowner went inside, obtained his weapon, and went back out to the unwanted guest unnecessarily. He, at that point, became the aggressor. We can't allow that to happen. Having a license to carry a weapon does not give someone a license to take a life at will.
Again, my .02...or .04 now...

What is with the insane need to keep referring to the criminal perpetrators of incidents as "victims?"

Alinsky could tell you. So could Goebbels.

I think it's obvious that a ne'er–do–well who crashes a party in a private home, gets kicked out, and returns with canine backup is the aggressor, not the victim.

[monato]

Another thing to consider is that it is unlikely that the deceased just showed up for the heck of it, got ran off, and then decided it was so much fun he wanted to come back.

When you say it like that, it does sound like he returned to the doctor's house with malice in his heart.