TexasCHLforum.com

three hours after a break-in; quarter mile away

man who fatally shot burglar gets 12 years for murder
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201108 ... /708259776" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rzechula died in a creek bed. His body was discovered two days later. Detectives found jewelry in his pocket that was stolen from Earhart's house.

The jury rejected Earhart's claim that he shot Rzechula in self-defense.

More @ link above

I know that Texas isn't Washington, and our laws do permit some use of deadly force in defense of property, but this is a good illustration for why use of deadly force in defense of property can be a bad idea sometimes.

Much to be learned from this story.

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

I understand the anger he must have felt but to go look for the thief and put his own life in danger on purpose? How on earth could he possibly think that he shot in self-defense?

I just do not get the thought process of some.

DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:I just do not get the thought process of some.

Just because it's "frowned upon" to take care of your own family and property doesn't mean people don't want to do so. Have you ever been robbed? I assure you, you'll not be in a "let the cops handle it" frame of mind immediately afterward. The motivation for his actions are quite simple to understand. Unfortunately, in today's society, these actions are not acceptable behavior.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I know that Texas isn't Washington, and our laws do permit some use of deadly force in defense of property, but this is a good illustration for why use of deadly force in defense of property can be a bad idea sometimes.

Sir, I often agree with you as your annoyances are often the same as mine. But I disagree on this one slightly...I don't think this was "in defense of property" as the robber had already departed the scene. IF the man who was convicted had shot him ON SCENE to prevent his escape, I'm fairly certain that would have fit the definition HERE in Texas, especially since the robber had the stolen items on his person...but, the homeowner went looking for the guy. And though I can understand WHY he did it, it was a very bad decision, indeed. I will add though, that "defense of property" is a situational decision...

On another note, I am DISGUSTED how the prosecution tried to make the dead offender into more of a "tragic victim"...the homeowner took the law into his own hands outside the boundaries of his property. That is what the trial should have focused on, not the fact that the dead offender was a "poor little baby". If the bad guy wouldn't have taken someone elses' property, he likely be alive today. Oh, but I guess that isn't PC enough...thank goodness I live in Texas.

RoyGBiv wrote:

DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:I just do not get the thought process of some.

Just because it's "frowned upon" to take care of your own family and property doesn't mean people don't want to do so. Have you ever been robbed? I assure you, you'll not be in a "let the cops handle it" frame of mind immediately afterward. The motivation for his actions are quite simple to understand. Unfortunately, in today's society, these actions are not acceptable behavior.

Trust me when I say this NO ONE protects/takes care of their family more than I. I also do not think that it is frowned upon to protect/take care of ones property and I will protect/take care of mine if I ever have to. I even understand the motivations behind his actions. However, he was neither protecting/taking care of his family or his property at the time. The burglar was long gone. His family and property were no longer threatened. He was not trying to protect/take care of his property but trying to recover his property. There is a HUGE difference.

Protect: to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.

Since the burglar was gone there is no way he could have been "protecting" from an attack, invasion, or loss. To do so a burglar/intruder would need to be present.

Recover: to get back or regain

Clearly this is what he was trying to do since his property was already taken.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Sir, I often agree with you as your annoyances are often the same as mine. But I disagree on this one slightly...I don't think this was "in defense of property" as the robber had already departed the scene. IF the man who was convicted had shot him ON SCENE to prevent his escape, I'm fairly certain that would have fit the definition HERE in Texas, especially since the robber had the stolen items on his person...but, the homeowner went looking for the guy. And though I can understand WHY he did it, it was a very bad decision, indeed.

(HP said it better than I could have )

AndyC wrote:Thanks for the link - cross-posted to another forum.

I know the feeling he must have felt - I've had my sights on the back of a guy who was fleeing with a housemate's car stereo system (and she being violently anti-gun yet screeching "Shoot him, shoot him!" didn't help any), and it's highly aggravating - but you can't go and hunt somebody down, period.

But it's fun to watch Steven Segal and Bruce Willis do it in the movies...

RoyGBiv wrote:Much to be learned from this story.

That's so true.
1. Thou shalt not steal.
2. He called 911 but when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
3. If the police don't show up in time to prevent the theft, viewtopic.php?f=23&t=16557" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Heartland Patriot wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I know that Texas isn't Washington, and our laws do permit some use of deadly force in defense of property, but this is a good illustration for why use of deadly force in defense of property can be a bad idea sometimes.

Sir, I often agree with you as your annoyances are often the same as mine. But I disagree on this one slightly...I don't think this was "in defense of property" as the robber had already departed the scene.....

No, we are in exact agreement. I guess my sarcasm was too subtle.

I have a very good friend who lives in the Stanwood-Camano area of WA.

Most homes sit on several heavily wooded acres.

There are more Bald Eagles per sq. mile than people.

While the article does not mention drugs, my money is on the side that this is some how drug related.

The area is rural and hard core drug use is a problem.

The guy should not have hunted the burglar down AND shot him.

Hunting was enough. I'd say he did pretty well to find him knowing how remote the area is.

I sympathize.

Don't overlook that good guys report the shooting to 911 and stay on scene to become the victim complainant.

This guy apparently did not report the shooting, since the bad guy was found in the ravine two days later. Failing to report the shooting is an admission of guilt in my book.

AndyC wrote:Thanks for the link - cross-posted to another forum.

I know the feeling he must have felt - I've had my sights on the back of a guy who was fleeing with a housemate's car stereo system (and she being violently anti-gun yet screeching "Shoot him, shoot him!" didn't help any), and it's highly aggravating - but you can't go and hunt somebody down, period.

Yes you can, but you have to do it more carefully now than 50, 100 or 150 years ago.

If you find him/her, you can put them under citizen's arrest and wait for the LEO's. You better not do serious bodily damage unless they are trying to hurt you.

Not as simple as it used to be.