Armed crook loses life in tangle with Marine vet

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

As I said, if he's not convicted then a serious miscarriage of justice will have occurred and there's something seriously wrong with your country if that's allowed to happen. He killed a man who wasn't an immediate threat to him in a revenge attack. That is completely over the top.

He will be tried by a jury of his peers. Before you start condemning my country why don't you clean up your own.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

He will be tried by a jury of his peers. Before you start condemning my country why don't you clean up your own.

I'm not condemning it as the marine hasn't been tried yet. I'm saying that if he isn't convicted there will be a problem.

Revenge attacks are unlawful in the US, correct? If so, he should be convicted.

[XerXis]

pretty sure he put himself in danger in ww2 also since he was a 75 year old retired marine. You must not really be "Hardcore till i die"

pretty sure you either suck at math or at history ;)

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

I'm not condemning it as the marine hasn't been tried yet. I'm saying that if he isn't convicted there will be a problem.

Revenge attacks are unlawful in the US, correct? If so, he should be convicted.

The Crook escaped with some of the Marines Money This was NOT revenge. I said he will be probably charged with some crime, probably vehicular homicide. In this country, a Judge does not convict you, a jury of your peers listens to the evidence and then they decide innocence or guilt. What I am saying is it is going to be very hard to find 12 people to unanimously find this Marine Guilty. The vote has to be 12-0 to either Guilt or Innocence. In my experience dealing with such matters, this will be hard if not impossible to do. You have an old Marine and a criminal with a weapon that fired shots at the Marine.

[Gone]

I'm not condemning it as the marine hasn't been tried yet. I'm saying that if he isn't convicted there will be a problem.

Revenge attacks are unlawful in the US, correct? If so, he should be convicted.

Not to be a grammar Nazi, but it's Marine, not marine .

[Hardcore Til I Die]

The Crook escaped with some of the Marines Money This was NOT revenge. I said he will be probably charged with some crime, probably vehicular homicide. In this country, a Judge does not convict you, a jury of your peers listens to the evidence and then they decide innocence or guilt. What I am saying is it is going to be very hard to find 12 people to unanimously find this Marine Guilty. The vote has to be 12-0 to either Guilt or Innocence. In my experience dealing with such matters, this will be hard if not impossible to do. You have an old Marine and a criminal with a weapon that fired shots at the Marine.

Why does it matter who is involved in the offence? An offence was still committed. The marine unlawfully killed the crook. Even though the marine was robbed, he was not acting in self-defence or protecting his property.

The fact that he was robbed would be mitigation but not a defence. Surely he should be convicted of manslaughter and be given the bare minimum sentence he can get, as there's a lot of mitigating factors.

The fact of the matter is that he still committed a crime and should be punished for it.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

this punk got exactly what he deserved. What I dont like is how the old man is probably going to go to prison for the rest of his life. Maybe if more people did **** like this to people that wronged them the world would be a better place to live. Ala the 1800's

Criminal got what he deserved. He pointed a gun the guy and repeated said "you're dead". Then he stole his money and ran away...pathetic guy got what he deserved; death. I see it as one less pathetic soul to worry about when I leave my home every morning.

He put a LOADED GUN to the guys forehead, aka, gun to his face. The criminal deserved to die for putting someone in that position.

Wrong. The armed robber left the office and no longer posed an immediate threat. If he stayed and the 72-year-old Marine veteran killed him, then it would've been in self defence. Unfortunately, he pursued the armed robber with the intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm after he retreated and ended up killing him. That makes him a criminal too... and a worse one at that.

You can't kill someone simply because they robbed you. Anyone that says the robber deserved to die (after retreating) has issues. As I said before, the Marine should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

If you still think the armed robber (or any armed robber) deserves to die for pointing a gun at you, then answer the following questions: Would you kill a 14-year-old girl if she pointed a gun at you and stole your money? Also, would you pursue her with the intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm?

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Wrong. The armed robber left the office and no longer posed an immediate threat. If he stayed and the 72-year-old Marine veteran killed him, then it would've been in self defence. Unfortunately, he pursued the armed robber with the intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm after he retreated and ended up killing him. That makes him a criminal too... and a worse one at that.

You can't kill someone simply because they robbed you. Anyone that says the robber deserved to die (after retreating) has issues. As I said before, the Marine should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

The voice of reason finally comes along, about time :p

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Why does it matter who is involved in the offence? An offence was still committed. The marine unlawfully killed the crook. Even though the marine was robbed, he was not acting in self-defence or protecting his property.

The fact that he was robbed would be mitigation but not a defence. Surely he should be convicted of manslaughter and be given the bare minimum sentence he can get, as there's a lot of mitigating factors.

The fact of the matter is that he still committed a crime and should be punished for it.

The crook still had some of his money with him. Now I have said all that I am going to in this matter. I said that he will be charged but it will be very hard to get a jury of 12 to convict him./

[Hardcore Til I Die]

The crook still had some of his money with him. Now I have said all that I am going to in this matter. I said that he will be charged but it will be very hard to get a jury of 12 to convict him./

Yeah, the law about being able to protect your property doesn't include being able to kill somebody who already stole from you.

[~Johnny]

Wrong. The armed robber left the office and no longer posed an immediate threat. If he stayed and the 72-year-old Marine veteran killed him, then it would've been in self defence. Unfortunately, he pursued the armed robber with the intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm after he retreated and ended up killing him. That makes him a criminal too... and a worse one at that.

You can't kill someone simply because they robbed you. Anyone that says the robber deserved to die (after retreating) has issues. As I said before, the Marine should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

If you still think the armed robber (or any armed robber) deserves to die for pointing a gun at you, then answer the following questions: Would you kill a 14-year-old girl if she pointed a gun at you and stole your money? Also, would you pursue her with the intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm?

No where does it say the man went after him with the intention of inflicting bodily harm - he likely went after him to get his money back and make sure he didn't get away.

He only hit him with the car in self defence, after he was shot at by the thief. If an armed robber starts shooting at you, then you probably have a right for self defence. And he didn't run him over either with intent of killing of him, he hit him with the car to stop him shooting (which he did). Not, just drove straight over him with all four wheels and continuously rammed him until his guts were all over the parking lot

[Hardcore Til I Die]

No where does it say the man went after him with the intention of inflicting bodily harm - he likely went after him to get his money back and make sure he didn't get away.

He only hit him with the car in self defence, after he was shot at by the thief. If an armed robber starts shooting at you, then you probably have a right for self defence. And he didn't run him over either with intent of killing of him, he hit him with the car to stop him shooting! Not, just drove straight over him and continuously rammed him until his guts were all over the parking lot

" He said he spotted the robber in a parking lot of a strip mall on Northline and headed toward him."

So the marine started driving at the robber before the robber shot at him. The robber was the one acting in self-defence at this point; he had a car coming towards him.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

No where does it say the man went after him with the intention of inflicting bodily harm - he likely went after him to get his money back and make sure he didn't get away.

He only hit him with the car in self defence, after he was shot at by the thief. If an armed robber starts shooting at you, then you probably have a right for self defence. And he didn't run him over either with intent of killing of him, he hit him with the car to stop him shooting! Not, just drove straight over him and continuously rammed him until his guts were all over the parking lot

Wrong again. It's no longer self defence when you deliberately seek out an armed individual. It's like going up to a lion, killing it after it bites you, and claiming you killed it in self defence. If you put yourself in that situation, you're putting yourself at risk. The Marine went after the armed robber and ran him over. That seems like voluntary manslaughter to me. If anything, the armed robber acted in self defence when she shot at the approaching vehicle.

[~Johnny]

" He said he spotted the robber in a parking lot of a strip mall on Northline and headed toward him."

So the marine started driving at the robber before the robber shot at him. The robber was the one acting in self-defence at this point; he had a car coming towards him.

"Headed towards him". Not "Accelerated straight at him in an attempt to run him over". Obviously if you've trying to find someone, you're going to drive towards them @__@, and it's very unlikely at that point he was intending to run him over (otherwise he would have picked up enough speed to have properly disabled the guy the first time he hit him).

He was porbably driving towrds him, get out the car and try and get the money back. The robber sees the guy he's just robbed in a car, he shot, the old man now has the right to defend himself

[Hardcore Til I Die]

"Headed towards him". Not "Accelerated straight at him in an attempt to run him over". Obviously if you've trying to find someone, you're going to drive towards them @__@, and it's very unlikely at that point he was intending to run him over (otherwise he would have picked up enough speed to have properly disabled the guy the first time he hit him).

He was porbably driving towrds him, get out the car and try and get the money back. The robber sees the guy he's just robbed in a car, he shot, the old man now has the right to defend himself

The robber sees someone he has just robbed driving towards him in a car. He's clearly going to think he's about to get ran over and now has the right to defend himself

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

One Final comment. I suppose that none of you wannabe Lawyer's read that the Marine is a Former Attorney so I suppose he is and is well aware of the law in Texas.

[Twiddle]

pretty sure he put himself in danger in ww2 also since he was a 75 year old retired marine. You must not really be "Hardcore till i die"

He would have only been 3 years old when WW2 started....So I highly doubt he fought in WW2.

[Green_Eye]

As was mentioned earlier in this thread pointing a gun at a Marine who after years of service to his country and living in fear of death at every turn as he served his term only to come back to the land he put his life on the line for and have a gun shoved in his face is an act worthy of death. I don't care what your law says to be honest because any law that would send him to jail for that is a law I cannot respect. I dont care if you are running away if you point a loaded gun in my face and then displace me of my hard earned property while also threatening the life of my family I will hunt you down and bathe in your blood.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

"Headed towards him". Not "Accelerated straight at him in an attempt to run him over". Obviously if you've trying to find someone, you're going to drive towards them @__@, and it's very unlikely at that point he was intending to run him over (otherwise he would have picked up enough speed to have properly disabled the guy the first time he hit him).

He was porbably driving towrds him, get out the car and try and get the money back. The robber sees the guy he's just robbed in a car, he shot, the old man now has the right to defend himself

I don't think a sensible person would pursue an individual they knew was armed. Did you think the Marine wanted to ask for his money back politely despite knowing the robber had a gun?

One Final comment. I suppose that none of you wannabe Lawyer's read that the Marine is a Former Attorney so I suppose he is and is well aware of the law in Texas.

A better understanding of the law doesn't necessarily mean you would never break the law. I don't know why you brought that up because it's quite irrelevant.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread pointing a gun at a Marine who after years of service to his country and living in fear of death at every turn as he served his term only to come back to the land he put his life on the line for and have a gun shoved in his face is an act worthy of death. I don't care what your law says to be honest because any law that would send him to jail for that is a law I cannot respect. I dont care if you are running away if you point a loaded gun in my face and then displace me of my hard earned property while also threatening the life of my family I will hunt you down and bathe in your blood.

Would you do that if the person who robbed you was an old lady or a young girl? Probably not. If you'd do it anyway, then you're worse than the armed robber because it would no longer be self defence.

[Lamp0]

As was mentioned earlier in this thread pointing a gun at a Marine who after years of service to his country and living in fear of death at every turn as he served his term only to come back to the land he put his life on the line for and have a gun shoved in his face is an act worthy of death. I don't care what your law says to be honest because any law that would send him to jail for that is a law I cannot respect. I dont care if you are running away if you point a loaded gun in my face and then displace me of my hard earned property while also threatening the life of my family I will hunt you down and bathe in your blood.

And what a primitive animal you are.

[Green_Eye]

I don't think a sensible person would pursue an individual they knew was armed. Did you think the Marine wanted to ask for his money back politely despite knowing the robber had a gun?

A better understanding of the law doesn't necessarily mean you would never break the law. I don't know why you brought that up because it's quite irrelevant.

Would you do that if the person who robbed you was an old lady or a young girl? Probably not. If you'd do it anyway, then you're worse than the armed robber because it would no longer be self defence.

I absolutely would do it, I don't care who it is, you do not accidentally end up with a loaded fire arm in your hands pointed at an innocent civilian, you would be completely aware of what you are doing and the trauma you are putting someone through, to then displace them of their property, if you can consciously make the decision to do that then you can consciously deduce that you are likely to meet a violent response/end like this loser did. Open your eyes, actions have consequences this Marine didn't ride down an innocent he rode down someone who threatened his own life with a loaded fire arm and I take my hat off to him. The sooner society can learn to face up to the consequences of their actions the sooner we will improve as a species.

[Twisp]

Blablabla, all of you who thinks that what the old man did was wrong needs to stfu. If a person threatens to kill another person with a gun that person automatically accepts every possible repercussion of his/her actions, which in this case was death.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

As was mentioned earlier in this thread pointing a gun at a Marine who after years of service to his country and living in fear of death at every turn as he served his term only to come back to the land he put his life on the line for and have a gun shoved in his face is an act worthy of death. I don't care what your law says to be honest because any law that would send him to jail for that is a law I cannot respect. I dont care if you are running away if you point a loaded gun in my face and then displace me of my hard earned property while also threatening the life of my family I will hunt you down and bathe in your blood.

Amen!

I don't think a sensible person would pursue an individual they knew was armed. Did you think the Marine wanted to ask for his money back politely despite knowing the robber had a gun?

You obviously do not know many Marines!

A better understanding of the law doesn't necessarily mean you would never break the law. I don't know why you brought that up because it's quite irrelevant.

I brought it up because most of you know absolutely nothing about the law in Texas. And because he knows the law, he would know when he was within his rights a whole lot more than you would. Now I am done here with this thread. You all know where I stand and there is no one here that will change my mind. I don't really believe that there is a prosecutor in Texas that would go forward with this case. In case you don't know, Texas has an express lane to the death chamber. :cool:

[Green_Eye]

And what a primitive animal you are.

And what kind of animal are you? You say that as an insult but it really isn't an insult for me, I know exactly what I am and take no shame in it, I bet your tune would drastically change if you were the one standing in front of the loaded gun with your family around you being threatend with death unless you give up your possessions.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I absolutely would do it, I don't care who it is, you do not accidentally end up with a loaded fire arm in your hands pointed at an innocent civilian, you would be completely aware of what you are doing and the trauma you are putting someone through, to then displace them of their property, if you can consciously make the decision to do that then you can consciously deduce that you are likely to meet a violent response/end like this loser did. Open your eyes, actions have consequences this Marine didn't ride down an innocent he rode down someone who threatened his own life with a loaded fire arm and I take my hat off to him. The sooner society can learn to face up to the consequences of their actions the sooner we will improve as a species.

If the person is retreating, then it's either voluntary manslaughter or second-degree murder and no longer a matter of self defence. I don't know why you'd go after a retreating individual with the intent to kill them. It doesn't matter what they do beforehand because the fact that they retreated means they no longer pose an immediate threat. You're right... actions do have consequences and the actions you mentioned will likely land you in jail.