Girlfriend Charged in Would-Be Thief's Death

Munoz was confronted by residents, claimed he was armed, and was immediately fatally shot.

If the crime goes bad you can end up being charged with your partner's death.

Don't bring harsh language to a gunfight?

If you claim to be armed then I may treat you as armed according to the situation. In this case he was shot and killed.

As the late goofy goober there found out the hard way.

Someone trying to steal something, call the cops and put out an insurance claim. Only time I was allowed to use deadly force was, threat of death and/or great bodily harm to myself or others, stealing stuff that could cause great bodily harm/death (bombs/guns/etc), attacking/stealing things vital to national security/infrastructure (powerplants, gas pipelines, encryption codes, etc), attacking nuclear related stuff(weapons, NNPP, radwaste). Since I'm not in the military anymore most of those are now moot. That said, it's not exactly clear from this story who shot who, since the partner was brought up on murder charges I have to assume she shot her partner for some reason. The entire story is short on details.

The resident shot the thief.

A number of states have laws that say if any death results from the commission or attempted commission of a crime (even the lawful death of one of the criminals by the would-be victim), the surviving criminals get charged with murder, whether they directly caused the death or not.

And since the criminal in this case claimed to be armed, the victims were under no moral or legal obligation to wait for him to prove it by becoming even more of a threat.

That's my point, I was specifically trained for when I was allowed to use deadly force. This didn't meet that criteria. Just saying you have a weapon isn't enough, you also have to have intent and opportunity, which since the article isn't very specific isn't all that clear if those other points were met. While I'm willing to give the innocents the benefit of the doubt in this case, the proper course of action is simply to report the crime in progress, shelter in place, and file an insurance claim after the fact. Yes the thieves shouldn't be stealing, but is it really worth killing someone over a recreational water sport vehicle? Or a better question, would you be willing to die over that? I wouldn't, and if they were armed and actually decent shots there was a very good possibility that this lady and her kid could be on a slab right now.

In Texas it is completely legal to use deadly force to protect your property. Most of us aren't in the service and aren't standing armed military guard duty. Your view give a criminal the right to take anything he wants from anyone simply by threat of force. Try that down here and we will respond as if he had actually produced the gun.

If I was taking your stuff and you approached me with a gun, I would shoot you. The risk simply isn't worth it, just hunker down and call it in. My view doesn't somehow give the thieves the right to do anything, it's designed to make sure random civilians don't run out trying to play hero over a playstation or some other gadget or toy. It's just not worth it, unless your life is worth less than $200, then go ahead. You can replace the stuff, little harder to replace your life or that of a loved one.

They are how I make a living for my family. Without them I have no job. And yes, they are both insured. But for the time that it takes the insurance to pay, I purchase more tools, build my toolbox, find a replacement truck, my clients will have gotten another to do the job. Meanwhile I still have to pay my bills. It would take 4-6 months to be back financially to the point I was when they were stolen.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Pretty sure that wasn't necessary to maintain her livelihood. Also kind of curious why she brought her kid with her to a potential gun fight. I guess that would be OK if the kid was 14+ and also armed and knew what they were doing, but why put them in harms way? Also why the heck steal a skidoo, are those easy to fence? This whole article is just odd.

Some stuff I won't fight over, some I will. Some has only minor importance to me, some is critical. But I get to make that decision.

Morally, if it is wrong to shoot a thief to defend a one dollar, then it is wrong to shoot a thief over something of vast value. That gives the thief the right to take anything he wants by demanding it or else. I would morally have to retreat from my own home. There are DU posters who have stated exactly that in explicit termms - that I should flee my home.

I have no sympathy for the dead thief or for his girlfriend. By claiming to be armed he made a threat of deadly force against the residents. They responded to his threat.

Time and energy invested in obtaining that "stuff". Sometimes at great personal cost and cost to others (that 20+ years military thing...). When a thief steals my "stuff", s/he is stealing parts of my life that I can not get back, even if I could get full replacement value through insurance (hahahahahaha...).

I will try not to shoot a thief, but if I have to use force to stop them, I will use the most efficient means possible with the least risk to myself that I can arrange. If that means the thief gets injured or killed, then they chose... poorly.

There is a vast difference between the UCMJ on the battlefield and civilian law in the home (I've currently got 20+ years USAF), and the military situations you refer to would additionally be covered under local ROE's that vary considerably.

Under civilian criminal law, if a criminal claims to be armed ("I've got a gun, Mr./Mrs. Resident") while in the commission of illegal acts, that is legally a threat of deadly force and may be responded to as such.

Under the UCMJ/ROE's, if an enemy combatant claimed to be armed and refused to surrender, you'd also be justified in shooting, unless the specific ROE's instructed otherwise.

If, in the process of committing a felony, one of the criminals is killed by police, citizen or even by accident, the other criminals involved are held responsible for the death. The logic is that no death would have occured if there had been no crime, and since all involved participated, all are responsible for the death.

File this one under "Crooks are stupid" or "don't brings a smart mouth to a gun fight".

The original intent of the felony-murder laws was to charge the criminals with murder of the victim or bystanders due to their direct or indirect actions on the grounds that had the felony not been attempted then the victim or bystander would not have died.

Fairly quickly, the prosecutors started using the laws for the deaths of the criminals during the felony against the surviving criminals. While the laws as written do not usually prohibit that, the logic used in this application can be debated.

morally/ethically is another matter

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

While I agree with the general concept, this type of application is wrong. Munoz is not dead because Lopez tried to steal the boat. Munoz is dead because Munoz tried to steal the boat.

Munoz and Lopez tried to steal the boat. They were co-conspirators in a criminal act & as such they are responsible for any deaths which occur as a result of that criminal act(s).

Perhaps when she gets out of jail for the death of her accomplice, Ms. Lopez will select her boyfriends - and the activities with which they like to entertain themselves - more carefully. Or perhaps not....some people are slow learners. As my grandfather used to tell me, "you don't hardly learn nothing, the second time you let a horse kick you in the head."

She was there too. Did you miss this part?

Police say Lopez and boyfriend Reynaldo Munoz were trying to steal the watercraft from the North Bayshore Drive home of attorney Jeffrey Davis around 2:30 p.m. Saturday.

Both were trying to steal the boat. Had both survived, both should be punished.

However, Munoz is not dead because Lopez tried to steal the boat. Munoz is dead because Munoz tried to steal the boat. Had the boat's owner died, then it could easily be claimed that the owner died due to Lopez' criminal actions even if her actions were not directly causing his death.

... with indirect involvement in a death.

Why are you so hung up on the fact that the "wrong" person was killed?

No matter which way you slice it, Lopez decided to embark on dangerous activities that could (and did) result in really bad things happening. Now she has to pay the piper.

You say: "Munoz is dead because Munoz tried to steal the boat."

That's factually incorrect. Munoz is dead because Munoz AND LOPEZ tried to steal the boat.

That said, I'm less enthusiastic about the application of the felony murder statutes when the criminal is killed AND the attempted crime was property crime without the expectation of violence - like this case - unless it can be shown guns or physical violence or the threat of guns/physical violence were intended by EITHER perpetrator.

..."What is your weapon?

Your weapon, man. Your weapon.

What keeps you alive and makes the other guy die?

What is your weapon?

It's your brain, Mr. Pike.

Your noggin. Your noodle. Your smarts. Your gray matter.

Your poise under fire.

Your wits, when all about you are losing theirs.

I think you came to this party unarmed, Mr. Pike."

but I can't place that one.

Hint?

The winner is...
YOU, Bold.


I seem to have a bit of a movie habit.