Current Events > Texas grand jury fails to indict man who shot a 9 year old instead of the robber

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/us/arlene-alvarez-9-year-old-shooting/index.html

i guess the ravenous gun culture crowd thinks it's perfectly acceptable to just start blasting away at random and anyone caught in the crossfire is an unfortunate victim of freedom.

like what in the actual mother of fuck is wrong with these people

Probably had a good lawyer.

When you look into even the basics of law, it's REALLY interesting just how many loopholes and technicalities you can implement to win or lose a case... which is also why you can get sued for dang near anything, and why a lot of seemingly random and disproportionate lengths of sentences actually aren't too random :x

That's the downside of having a jury of your peers. You sometimes get shit decisions like this. At the least maybe the family can sue the pants off of the irresponsible POS

i thought it was obvious by now, but it's important to the nuts that run america that guna have more rights than children.

Houston da is real bad and I'm a dem

They intend to charge the robbery suspect with murder if they can find him, which seems pretty consistent with the law tbh

Its Texas. Of course they value guns over human life.

DipDipDiver posted...

They intend to charge the robbery suspect with murder if they can find him, which seems pretty consistent with the law tbh

which is kinda fucked, IMO. so if a guy robs me, i'm allowed to pull out my boom stick and randomly start shooting and i'm somehow not responsible for any damage my recklessness caused? i dont understand.

Dude shot someone running away and killed a little girl.

DipDipDiver posted...

They intend to charge the robbery suspect with murder if they can find him, which seems pretty consistent with the law tbh

This. Ya'll act like they just filed this one under "oopsie daisy".

Giant_Aspirin posted...

which is kinda fucked, IMO. so if a guy robs me, i'm allowed to pull out my boom stick and randomly start shooting and i'm somehow not responsible for any damage my recklessness caused? i dont understand.

Yes, in fact this legal principle is often used when police accidentally shoot bystanders too

I remember this case.....

Fuck that shooter

Giant_Aspirin posted...

which is kinda fucked, IMO. so if a guy robs me, i'm allowed to pull out my boom stick and randomly start shooting and i'm somehow not responsible for any damage my recklessness caused? i dont understand.

No. You cant randomly start shouting. That isnt what happened in this case. Read the article.

There are several basic things in play here, the easiest to understand is the felony murder rule. If someone dies in the commission of a felony the person committing the felony is responsible. Standard principle in all US states (afaik). Here the robber is the one that should be held criminally responsible for the death of this innocent person not the guy that was trying to defend himself.

whitelytning posted...

There are several basic things in play here, the easiest to understand is the felony murder rule. If someone dies in the commission of a felony the person committing the felony is responsible. Standard principle in all US states (afaik). Here the robber is the one that should be held criminally responsible for the death of this innocent person not the guy that was trying to defend himself.

the part i struggle with is how it's a 100% dismissal of any and all responsibility when the 'victim' makes a mistake. i feel like the person who did the shooting (ie the victim of the robbery) should need to prove that s/he acted within a reasonable and responsible manner.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

i guess the ravenous gun culture crowd thinks it's perfectly acceptable to just start blasting away at random and anyone caught in the crossfire is an unfortunate victim of freedom.

Have you not been paying attention at all?

This is exactly what gun nuts want. A world where everyone has a gun and everything is solved by people shooting each other.

whitelytning posted...

No. You cant randomly start shouting. That isnt what happened in this case. Read the article.

There are several basic things in play here, the easiest to understand is the felony murder rule. If someone dies in the commission of a felony the person committing the felony is responsible. Standard principle in all US states (afaik). Here the robber is the one that should be held criminally responsible for the death of this innocent person not the guy that was trying to defend himself.

I feel like it becomes a little more complicated if it turns out the robber was not shooting at him

Giant_Aspirin posted...

the part i struggle with is how it's a 100% dismissal of any and all responsibility when the 'victim' makes a mistake. i feel like the person who did the shooting (ie the victim of the robbery) should need to prove that s/he acted within a reasonable and responsible manner.

This likely depended on the instructions provided to the jury that made the decision. In other words they had to make a decision that the shooting was defensive or excused by some application of TX law. It likely was part of the instructions and the jury found it to be so.

This is also just the criminal side. I would be shocked if the shooter wasnt subject to a wrongful death suit.

The passage in Leviticus states, "And a man who injures his countryman as he has done, so it shall be done to him [namely,] fracture under/for fracture, eye under/for eye, tooth under/for tooth. Just as another person has received injury from him, so it will be given to him." (Lev. 24:1921).

I mean an eye for an eye is in the bible

CADE_FOSTER posted...

The passage in Leviticus states, "And a man who injures his countryman as he has done, so it shall be done to him [namely,] fracture under/for fracture, eye under/for eye, tooth under/for tooth. Just as another person has received injury from him, so it will be given to him." (Lev. 24:1921).

I mean an eye for an eye is in the bible

even going by that asinine standard, it doesn't seem like lethal force is a justified response to property crime

Why would anyone willingly set foot in Texas? I'd rather go to Somalia

The Dirt Star State