TexasCHLforum.com

The news reports that a homeowner confronted two trespassers. The homeowner was threatened with death by one of them as the two trespassers sat in a car. The homeowner shot and killed the man who threatened him, then emptied his pistol into the second man who lunged towards the rear of the vehicle, killing him, as well. The homeowner then called 911, reported what happened, and waited by the end of the driveway for the police to arrive.

The result: the homeowner has been arrested and charged with two counts of murder.

So, how does a homeowner end up charged with two counts of first-degree murder on these facts?

Violating the Element of Imminence

Well, the homeowner violated one of the required elements of a claim of self-defense, the element of imminence. The element of imminence essentially holds that in order for your use of defensive force to be lawful, it must be force necessary to stop an imminent harm to you. That is, the harm you are defending yourself against must either be actually happening, be in progress, or be about to happen right now. Example: “I’m going to draw my pistol and shoot you,” as the speaker reaches for his holstered pistol.

Conversely, a threat of future harm is insufficient to justify a use of deadly defensive force, if by future harm we mean some prospective future event that is not about to happen right now. Example: “I’m going to go home, get a gun, come back here, and shoot you.” For this kind of future, prospective threat that may or may not ever actually happen, the law expects you to pursue other options rather than an immediate use of defensive force. Call the police, seek the assistance of others, leave the area, etc.

The evidence on the issue of imminence is often subjective and ambiguous—was the bad guy drawing back his fist in preparation to strike, was he moving his hand to his waistline in preparation for presenting a weapon. Sometimes, however, the evidence is crystal clear—and particularly so when it comes right from the “defender’s” own mouth.

In this particular case when asked by police why he shot the first trespasser, the homeowner himself gave up the element of imminence. As reported in the news story linked above:

When asked if there was something specific that caused Chandler to draw his gun, he told troopers it was when Marx said he would kill him “eventually.”

“Eventually” does not mean “right now” and does not qualify as a sufficiently imminent threat as to justify an immediate use of defensive force—and especially not deadly force that snuffs out two human lives.

With imminence lost, so is lost any legal justification for the use of deadly force in killing the two trespassers, and thus the homeowner is facing two charges of first-degree murder.

KLB wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:12 pm Andrew Branca reports:

The news reports that a homeowner confronted two trespassers. The homeowner was threatened with death by one of them as the two trespassers sat in a car. The homeowner shot and killed the man who threatened him, then emptied his pistol into the second man who lunged towards the rear of the vehicle, killing him, as well. The homeowner then called 911, reported what happened, and waited by the end of the driveway for the police to arrive.

The result: the homeowner has been arrested and charged with two counts of murder.

So, how does a homeowner end up charged with two counts of first-degree murder on these facts?

Violating the Element of Imminence

Well, the homeowner violated one of the required elements of a claim of self-defense, the element of imminence. The element of imminence essentially holds that in order for your use of defensive force to be lawful, it must be force necessary to stop an imminent harm to you. That is, the harm you are defending yourself against must either be actually happening, be in progress, or be about to happen right now. Example: “I’m going to draw my pistol and shoot you,” as the speaker reaches for his holstered pistol.

Conversely, a threat of future harm is insufficient to justify a use of deadly defensive force, if by future harm we mean some prospective future event that is not about to happen right now. Example: “I’m going to go home, get a gun, come back here, and shoot you.” For this kind of future, prospective threat that may or may not ever actually happen, the law expects you to pursue other options rather than an immediate use of defensive force. Call the police, seek the assistance of others, leave the area, etc.

The evidence on the issue of imminence is often subjective and ambiguous—was the bad guy drawing back his fist in preparation to strike, was he moving his hand to his waistline in preparation for presenting a weapon. Sometimes, however, the evidence is crystal clear—and particularly so when it comes right from the “defender’s” own mouth.

In this particular case when asked by police why he shot the first trespasser, the homeowner himself gave up the element of imminence. As reported in the news story linked above:

When asked if there was something specific that caused Chandler to draw his gun, he told troopers it was when Marx said he would kill him “eventually.”

“Eventually” does not mean “right now” and does not qualify as a sufficiently imminent threat as to justify an immediate use of defensive force—and especially not deadly force that snuffs out two human lives.

With imminence lost, so is lost any legal justification for the use of deadly force in killing the two trespassers, and thus the homeowner is facing two charges of first-degree murder.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/04/l ... th-murder/

WildRose wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:57 pm Confronting trespassers while armed especially in rural areas is good common sense, no premeditation.

According to a criminal complaint, Chandler told a trooper “I shot Dustin Marx in the head, and I expended the rest of my magazine into Michael White as he was scurrying back… I presumed to execute Michael White as he was reaching for something.”

Troopers found no weapons inside the van or near either Marx or White.

Even before Monday night, neighbors were wary of the home where the shooting took place. One neighbor, who wished to remain anonymous, said this was not the first time that shots had been fired on the property.

“We’ve heard gunshots coming from there at different times in the past,” the neighbor said. “Usually there’s a high volume of transient traffic, people just stopping by along the road, going in to do something in a matter of minutes and then driving away.”

“We essentially try to avoid it, stay away from it, not get involved in anything that’s going on there”

One of the victims is connected through court records to an accused Seward area drug dealer. Dustin Marx had been charged in a half-dozen property crimes since July 2018. In at least one of those cases his bail was posted by George Via, who is awaiting trial on felony drug charges.

KLB wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:02 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:57 pm Confronting trespassers while armed especially in rural areas is good common sense, no premeditation.

Yes, but actually shooting someone without a threat of IMMINENT serious bodily injury or death courts a criminal charge--and conviction. It's the same principle that criminalizes an abused woman killing her boyfriend when he's not violent, taking him by surprise. She commits a crime, because he isn't trying to hurt her at the moment--just as it appears the defendant here apparently committed a crime.

KLB wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:02 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:57 pm Confronting trespassers while armed especially in rural areas is good common sense, no premeditation.

Yes, but actually shooting someone without a threat of IMMINENT serious bodily injury or death courts a criminal charge--and conviction. It's the same principle that criminalizes an abused woman killing her boyfriend when he's not violent, taking him by surprise. She commits a crime, because he isn't trying to hurt her at the moment--just as it appears the defendant here apparently committed a crime.

mcscanner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:33 am I wondering if he had spoken to the police thru his attorney if things would have been different.

Looks like another case of only "name, rank and serial number" and the rest of the story when I have an attorney,

Mike