Bonds(wo)man Shoots and Kills a Man

If a suspect is fleeing and you’re defending life or personal property with deadly force, you’d consider it self defense.

This was what I quoted when I originally asked about libertarian viewpoint on it. I thought it stemmed from that.

Assuming the suspect is actually guilty of the thing for which he was killed, then I consider it justifiable. If you kill someone who has done nothing wrong, then that is some form of unjustifiable homicide. Edit: Like I said earlier, a lot rests on who was in the right to begin.

In this incident, I assume this guy had given the lady some right to take him into custody and recover her money. He was not allowing her to do so, and I’m pretty sure there was nothing she could do about that short of what she did. 2nd Edit: I don’t even think this shooting has been deemed justified; it just fell short of being 1st degree murder.

I agree. I was just thinking at the very least.

Your gonna shoot a man with 2nd degree burglary and pot charges. Seriously. Just absurd to me. The kids reaction says everything.

1 Like

When you say that you can use deadly force to protect property in Texas. I seem to recall many instances of people getting charged with manslaughter for shooting people who were merely theives. I think that might be more urban legend than actual jurisprudence.

I don’t know how the lady made the call to shoot a fleeing client. Was she new?

http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-41.html

http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42.html

I think it’s important to note that these things are always subject to some subjective reasonableness standard. I don’t think any law is going to permit you to shoot a toddler who walks on your grass.

Also, it’s good to remember that one can be charged with a crime without actually having committed that crime.

Looks like the law is not interpreted that consistently. 5 minute search gave me examples of both. It is unwise to use deadly force over property, even in Texas.

1 Like

@Basement_Gainz

Looks like the first was murder-an absurd act, much like defending your grass against a toddler.

The second was cleared by grand jury.

The third( https://www.alternet.org/drugs/texas-jury-sends-message-swat-raid-cops-finds-man-not-guilty-shooting-three -that’s a similar case that may bode well for the guy) and fourth have yet to go to trial.

A subjective reasonableness standard always applies; and the further you get from what is (as-close-as-possible-to) undoubtedly reasonable, the more risk you take.

Perhaps it’s a result of my legal naivete, but I am deeply skeptical of the theory that entering into a bond agreement grants the bond agent property rights that extend to shooting an absconding defendant in the back.

I highly doubt it does. I don’t think that has been presented. This case just shows that the legal system still works well enough that a prosecutor can’t just claim a homicide was premeditated murder with no evidence and expect a jury to accept it.

This is a question to the whole crowd.

Always been curious as to the required timeline to justify as “premeditated.” Like in this example, the moments leading up to killing a fleeing man had to be premeditated, but obviously that short time period doesn’t qualify as “premeditated.”

@pfury, I don’t think you’re going to get something like a required timeline. I would think it could be anywhere from seconds to years.

Well that’s what I mean. When this bondswoman fire her gun at a fleeing target (ie, no longer a threat), she made the premeditated decision to kill him. But clearly those seconds weren’t long enough to warrant be called “premeditated.”

That’s why you say you didn’t shoot to kill but to stop.

1 Like

Imo, gun owners accept the responsibility of potentially ending a life every time they squeeze the trigger at something with a pulse.

It’s also hard to defend not intending to kill him given he died. She clearly wasn’t proficient enough with that gun to justify attempting to stop in a risk/reward scenario.

At the risk of sounding sexist, the first mistake was a woman thinking she could handle a physical confrontation with a man. If you can’t take a person into custody without killing him then you get backup.

When I was in MP school the instructors told the females to just stay in the car and let the men handle things when it came to potential physical confrontations.

2 Likes

It’s not just your opinion. Shooting a gun at someone is considered deadly force, in all 50 states, even if the person doesn’t die. It’s the same for stabbing someone or hitting them in the head with a pipe. So the question in any individual case is: “is the use of deadly force justified?” And pretty much the only justification for the use of deadly force is in defense life (yours or someone else’s). Except maybe in Texas, that seems less clear than I thought.

Also, I’m the one who brought Texas up, as a joke. Defense of property doesn’t have anything to do with this case. That Bondswoman really should be in prison.

2 Likes

Double jeapody as I understand it’s tied to the offense not the charge. So no they cannot prosecute her again for the same incident with a different charge, barring some extreme circumstances that are extremely rare.

And she almost certainly would be if she’d been charged with the crime she committed!

Holy fuck that is a disturbing video. Absolutely no justification shooting an unarmed man in the back, especially for the crimes that he did, which weren’t in the worst category. I don’t think a bondsman/bounty hunter is a legitimate job for a man let alone a woman. If a male bondsman did the same thing you can bet he would be guilty of murder. I call…pussy pass.
It should have been in the hands of the police from the start.
Any motherfucker could come up to you in plainclothes and say they have the official authority to do x,y,z, to you, shoot you if you don’t comply. What’s next…summary execution for J walking?

There was a situation in Australia a few years ago, female security guard doing cash pick ups, by herself was robbed at gun point, beaten quite badly because she refused to give up the money. She pissed herself from fear, but shot the robber in the back as he was running away. In her

Oops, something went wrong there, I didn’t get a chance to finish the story.
In the case of the Australian security guard, she took a life, but was justified in her actions. She was doing her job, and the robber knew the risks in robbing an armed guard. She had already been beaten badly. The police were treating her as a criminal for doing her job, with reasonable expectations. Eventually the police either didn’t charge her or dropped any charges, I can’t remember. She chose to never work again as a security guard.
Whilst the security guards story is different, it still has a common theme with the op. The person(whether a male or female) shouldn’t have been alone doing the job. It definitely shouldn’t have been a woman by herself. Reality trumps political correctness every time.