Totally legal and totally cool to kill 9-year olds in Houston

[Serak The Preparer 3,431]

Yesterday a jury in Harris County no-billed a dude who shot and killed a nine year old because he got confused and fired into the wrong pickup truck. 

From the linked article: 

Quote

An investigation determined Earls and his wife were targeted by a robber near a Chase Bank ATM in the Gulfgate area. Earls then got out and shot at the fleeing suspect and a pickup truck that he thought the person was getting into, police said.

But the pickup was not the suspect's getaway car. Instead, Arlene and her family were inside.

Earls was arrested and charged with aggravated assault but with the grand jury's decision, his case cannot be presented again, according to Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg.

This could go in one of the "What the hell is wrong with ...." threads but seemed relevant. And for those curious, it turns out Earl was not out on bond as that seems to be a popular topic to bring up by certain interests.

[chainsaw 9,873]

10 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Yesterday a jury in Harris County no-billed a dude who shot and killed a nine year old because he got confused and fired into the wrong pickup truck. 

From the linked article: 

This could go in one of the "What the hell is wrong with ...." threads but seemed relevant. And for those curious, it turns out Earl was not out on bond as that seems to be a popular topic to bring up by certain interests.

This is a direct result of our gun policy. It was clearly foreseeable. We love the mythology of the self-reliant individual defending himself and his community with firearms. We don't love the inconvenient truth that firearms tend to escalate situations. We don't love the inconvenient truth that lethal force doesn't guarantee safety. We don't love the inconvenient truth that guns can turn honest mistakes into fatal mistakes.

I'm surprised this even went to a grand jury. But my guess is that their hands were tied by Texas laws.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,211]

If the suspect was fleeing, where was the imminent danger to this psycho and his wife?

[Helobious 9,464]

A problem with decisions like these is that it teaches everyone you don’t need to use caution or discretion when discharging your firearm in Texas. Children’s lives that we totally care about and value and love so much be damned.

[Pato del Muerto 52,566]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This is a direct result of our gun policy. It was clearly foreseeable. We love the mythology of the self-reliant individual defending himself and his community with firearms. We don't love the inconvenient truth that firearms tend to escalate situations. We don't love the inconvenient truth that lethal force doesn't guarantee safety. We don't love the inconvenient truth that guns can turn honest mistakes into fatal mistakes.

I'm surprised this even went to a grand jury. But my guess is that their hands were tied by Texas laws.

And he got no-billed so that people in favor of said policy can continue to recklessly use it. 
 

how many times in this state do heroes courageously save their own lives from people running or driving away from them?

[yoladu 4,094]

For every good guy in a mall in Indiana, there are about 100 of these guys.

[Hammerin Hank 1,227]

Wtf did the robber steal that warranted attempting to take his life? How can we justify pulling out a gun and firing, apparently indiscriminately, over something like this? And now they’re trying to blame the robber for the death? He deserves to be prosecuted for the robbery but he didn’t kill that poor child 

[crash_davis 23,114]

If you get mugged, as the mugger runs away, just spray a volley of bullets into the general direction, damned be to anyone in the way. You are apparently immune from prosecution. To any innocent shot in the process, you are the real hero sacrificing yourself to uphold our right to shoot with reckless abandon. 

This is what has become of this country. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by crash_davis

[chainsaw 9,873]

2 minutes ago, Hammerin Hank said:

Wtf did the robber steal that warranted attempting to take his life? How can we justify pulling out a gun and firing, apparently indiscriminately, over something like this? And now they’re trying to blame the robber for the death? He deserves to be prosecuted for the robbery but he didn’t kill that poor child 

I agree and disagree on this point. When you commit a violent crime, you are morally responsible for all of the consequences including the ones you didn't plan out.

[Deej 76,897]

5 minutes ago, yoladu said:

For every good guy in a mall in Indiana, there are about 100 of these guys.

You left at least a couple of zeros off. 

[crash_davis 23,114]

Just now, chainsaw said:

I agree and disagree on this point. When you commit a violent crime, you are morally responsible for all of the consequences including the ones you didn't plan out.

So the dipshit piece of shit shooter bears no responsibility for being a overzealous fuckhead with a gun and killing an innocent 9 yr old?

[chainsaw 9,873]

Just now, crash_davis said:

So the dipshit piece of shit shooter bears no responsibility for being a overzealous fuckhead with a gun and killing an innocent 9 yr old?

He does, in my mind. He is responsible for escalating, but he is not responsible for instigating. I would punish both the instigator (we obviously don't want to let instigators off the hook) and anyone who can't resist the urge to make a bad situation worse.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,212]

[wildcat09 29,376]

This is literally in the fucking penal code: 

Quote

Sec. 9.05.  RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.  Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

Ogg's office tanked the case to the grand jury.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,820]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

This is literally in the fucking penal code: 

Ogg's office tanked the case to the grand jury.

Pew pew!!!   

That's what will be written about the downfall of our society.

[chainsaw 9,873]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

This is literally in the fucking penal code: 

Ogg's office tanked the case to the grand jury.

Mistaken identity (wrong truck) to me isn't the same thing as being reckless, unless he was just indiscriminately spraying or something.

[Js1 85,522]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Ogg's office tanked the case to the grand jury.

Ogg is really not doing a great job, tbh.  Fighting with Lina Hidalgo's office, sending her lawyers to run against local judges she doesn't like, her mealy-mouthed response about prosecuting abortion cases.  She must be glad she's not up until 2024 and can piggy back on higher presidential election turnout. 

[Hammerin Hank 1,227]

14 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I agree and disagree on this point. When you commit a violent crime, you are morally responsible for all of the consequences including the ones you didn't plan out.

I understand this sentiment and realize we have laws written to this effect for certain situations. I can’t get behind it in this situation. This may not be the time to discuss the legal theory and merits of such laws so I’ll just leave it at that.

[FartingMonk 3,608]

I'm just gonna start carrying hand grenades.  

[Helobious 9,464]

4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Mistaken identity (wrong truck) to me isn't the same thing as being reckless, unless he was just indiscriminately spraying or something.

Shooting at something without being 100% sure it’s your true target seems pretty reckless to me. In his own initial statement he told police he “thought” the robber hopped in that car, even though he didn’t actually see him do it. That’s an absurd defense and it totally worked.

[yoladu 4,094]

if someone mugs you for $100 and is running away, ending their life because of that unlawful act against you is ok?

Why not just make the penalty of robbing someone for $100 death in a court of law? It appears to already be codified and honestly, it would be a bit more fair (at least that person had a judge and/or jury).

 

Sheesh.

Edited July 20, 2022 by yoladu

[Js1 85,522]

2 minutes ago, yoladu said:

if someone mugs you for $100 and is running away, ending their life because of that unlawful act against you is ok?

Yes

[chainsaw 9,873]

6 minutes ago, yoladu said:

if someone mugs you for $100 and is running away, ending their life because of that unlawful act against you is ok?

Why not just make the penalty of robbing someone for $100 death in a court of law? It appears to already be codified and honestly, it would be a bit more fair (at least that person had a judge and/or jury).

 

Sheesh.

I'm not saying it's okay. I'm saying it's consistent with Texas gun policy, which is batshit insane.

[SquishMitten 10,425]

41 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is literally in the fucking penal code: 

Ogg's office tanked the case to the grand jury.

Seriously. Gotta think they were hoping for a no-bill. No idea how a grand jury comes back like that if the DA even put in a tiny bit of effort

[Bevo&Pevo 5,217]

57 minutes ago, Hammerin Hank said:

Wtf did the robber steal that warranted attempting to take his life? How can we justify pulling out a gun and firing, apparently indiscriminately, over something like this? And now they’re trying to blame the robber for the death? He deserves to be prosecuted for the robbery but he didn’t kill that poor child 

The article I read said it was all over 20 dollars.

[Guest]

so it's not murder/ or provable as murder.

It's still at least reckless endangerment at a minimum, right?

Remove the gun from the equation and say the defendant drove a car into a crowd.  They still did some terrible shit, gun or not.  What am I missing?

Edited July 20, 2022 by slorch

[Dahobbs 17,653]

2 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Seriously. Gotta think they were hoping for a no-bill. No idea how a grand jury comes back like that if the DA even put in a tiny bit of effort

Yeah, what the fuck. This is not why she was elected. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

IMO, if a thief is being shot at by the victim AND an innocent bystander is killed, then both the thief and "victim" are responsible for the murder. Its bs that you can legally fire in the general direction of the the fleeing suspect and have zero responsibility for your actions. 

[chainsaw 9,873]

8 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

That’s a pretty textbook example of “reckless”.  It would be murder if it wasn’t mistaken identity. “Oops, I made a mistake (that a reasonable person shouldn’t have made)” is exactly the situation that code section is meant to address.

When I hear "reckless" driving drunk or blindfolded are what come to mind. Firing a pistol into the air. Committing to buy Twitter for $40bn without even reading the paperwork.

I don't believe the law should allow someone to use lethal force on a fleeing subject. Unfortunately, the Texas legislature disagrees. Texas says you can use lethal force to defend your own property, even when it's just $100.

So be it. But it looks like you can't be "reckless" if you're going to be defending your property. Firing a gun at your intended target probably doesn't count as "reckless" in a society where it's okay to fire a gun at people who are taking your property.

I agree that being wrong about the target can be "reckless" under certain circumstances. If I get mugged by Mark Mangino and I got a clear look at him as he was mugging me and as he was fleeing, it's "reckless" for me to fire my weapon at Kevin Hart.

If I see Mark Mangino jump into an old F-150 with peeling red paint and he turns the corner, if I follow him (which again I don't believe this should be legal but whatever) and if I see a red F-150, it's not "reckless" to conclude that's my target. I don't think it should be legal to fire my weapon at this target, but in the bizarre world where it's legal to shoot a fleeing person for stealing or trying to steal your property, it's not "reckless" to fire at the red F-150.

It's not what I would do. It's not what a decent person would do. But it seems like it's technically legal. And that's the real problem.

[TwiceHorn 31,529]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

This is literally in the fucking penal code: 

Ogg's office tanked the case to the grand jury.

Yeah, one huge problem is if he was charged only with agg assault.  That, I am virtually certain, requires an intention to harm the victim.

Why he wasn't charged with manslaughter (recklessly) or criminally negligent (self explanatory) homicide is a critical question.

 

ETA:  apparently, he was charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide by the time the grand jury got it.

Huge sandbag by Ogg. 

ETA2:  Actually, it seems like Ogg threw the kitchen sink at the grand jury and they were probably confused by the whole mess.  That seems fairly characteristic of her office.  They should have shot for manslaughter and taken any self defense off the table with 9.05.

Edited July 20, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Hammerin Hank 1,227]

13 minutes ago, Bevo&Pevo said:

The article I read said it was all over 20 dollars.

If true holy shit. Life is cheap in this state 

[Hank Scorpio 17,729]

I really wish someone would primary Ogg. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

someone shot a gun at someone for stealing $20? the shooter is a worse person than the thief.

[Helobious 9,464]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

someone shot a gun at someone for stealing $20? the shooter is a worse person than the thief.

It wasn’t just a $20. He took the victim’s car keys (didn’t attempt to steal the actual car) and threw the keys on the ground as he ran away. Victim went to retrieve the keys and decided to fire at that point as well. 
 

Needless to say the victim’s story has never made a ton of sense, adding to the girl’s family’s frustration. 

[hobbes2702 13,054]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Mistaken identity (wrong truck) to me isn't the same thing as being reckless, unless he was just indiscriminately spraying or something.

He didn’t know. He admitted as such. This is the definition of reckless. This also is just further evidence of the problems with the prevalence of guns in our society.

[Guest]

Y'all gonna make this about guns, regardless.

Fuck that.

It was the lack of deliberate, defensible behavior that resulted in an innocent child losing their life.  As others have stated, that behavior should be prosecuted according to existing law.

Edited July 20, 2022 by slorch

[Helobious 9,464]

11 minutes ago, slorch said:

Y'all gonna make this about guns, regardless.

Fuck that.

It was the lack of deliberate, defensible behavior that resulted in an innocent child losing their life.  As others have stated, that behavior should be prosecuted according to existing law.

I think it is all about guns, that’s where we are in society. Had he mistakenly stabbed someone or run down someone with his car it’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t have gotten indicted. You do something with the almighty firearm it changes everything, for everyone on both sides of the issue.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

8 minutes ago, slorch said:

Y'all gonna make this about guns, regardless.

Fuck that.

It was the lack of deliberate, defensible behavior that resulted in an innocent child losing their life.  As others have stated, that behavior should be prosecuted according to existing law.

Guns and the bullet can project the impact further and has less control than other options. While an unintentional death could theoretically occur with throwing a knife or a rock, it's much less likely.

Side question: are you allowed to murder a hit-and-run driver? 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,211]

17 minutes ago, slorch said:

Y'all gonna make this about guns, regardless.

Fuck that.

It was the lack of deliberate, defensible behavior that resulted in an innocent child losing their life.  As others have stated, that behavior should be prosecuted according to existing law.

And we as a society as a whole have to own it.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

If the 9 year old's dad started firing back in self defense at the shooter/original victim and killed the shooter/original victim, would that murder also been justified?   Or what if the 9 year old dad was confused about who shoot his child and he murdered a bystander who was just recording the madness for TikTok?

Our laws seem to allow for unpunishable murder as long as you had a good reason.

[Serak The Preparer 3,431]

27 minutes ago, slorch said:

Y'all gonna make this about guns, regardless.

Fuck that.

It was the lack of deliberate, defensible behavior that resulted in an innocent child losing their life.  As others have stated, that behavior should be prosecuted according to existing law.

Gee Simple Slorch, I wonder why this might be about guns. You can say it should be prosecuted, but it wasn't. Even if he didn't kill the little girl, there is no fucking way it is justifiable to shoot someone leaving after stealing 20 bucks. This doesn't happen without guns.

And nobody in this thread is even talking about gun control, just the simple observations that we have a culture that says it's ok to shoot kids if you're trying to shoot someone else.

[Fondren & Main 6,732]

The robber and victim should both be liable for the death imo.

[Js1 85,522]

Slorch came out very defensive when no one brought up gun control.  

[Dahobbs 17,653]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, one huge problem is if he was charged only with agg assault.  That, I am virtually certain, requires an intention to harm the victim.

Why he wasn't charged with manslaughter (recklessly) or criminally negligent (self explanatory) homicide is a critical question.

 

ETA:  apparently, he was charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide by the time the grand jury got it.

Huge sandbag by Ogg. 

ETA2:  Actually, it seems like Ogg threw the kitchen sink at the grand jury and they were probably confused by the whole mess.  That seems fairly characteristic of her office.  They should have shot for manslaughter and taken any self defense off the table with 9.05.

 

55 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I really wish someone would primary Ogg. 

My understanding is that the original victim was out on bail. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an effort to sandbag by Ogg's office as political cover. I really don't see how you could fail to get the GJ to indict unless completely and totally incompetent or tanking the presentation on purpose. My suspicion that this is on purpose is largely confirmed by Ogg insisting that they can't re-present this case to another grand jury. She totally could, but doesn't want to.  

Edited July 20, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Pato del Muerto 52,566]

Hey @slorch watch this…

 

so was this shooter a white gentleman perchance?

eta the Hispanic surname of the little girl may also be of relevance. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Pato del Muerto

['stache 21,836]

It's already been established. Guns are more important than children in America. Best country evar!

[Macanudo 13,009]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Our laws seem to allow for unpunishable murder as long as you had a good reason.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, yoladu said:

For every good guy in a mall in Indiana, there are about 100 of these guys.

Actually had this thought with the Indiana situation.

Shooter in a mall. GGWAG pulls it and starts blasting. In the scene, he ends up hitting the shooter, but also blasts a couple of people behind the shooter.

Or shooter in a mall, GGWAG mistakes a person for the shooter and fires (i.e. the officer in Uvalde who they said had a bead on the shooter before he entered, but it turned out to be a coach). 

Just seems like it could get real messy, real easy.

[Js1 85,522]

7 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Shooter in a mall. GGWAG pulls it and starts blasting. In the scene, he ends up hitting the shooter, but also blasts a couple of people behind the shooter.

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

 

 

at least the kid died free