Posted on 09/13/2006 10:03:11 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
MONROE -- A burglary suspect is dead after the homeowner opened fire. It happened Monday morning in Waxhaw.
Now, the district attorney is working to figure out if the homeowner was protecting his family or if he was protecting his property.
How the DA’s office answers that question will determine if the shooting was a legal case of self-defense.
Union County deputies arrived at the home on Locklyn Road around 12:30 a.m. Monday. John David Mobley, 38, had been shot. Paramedics tried to save his life, but were unable.
“It’s not worth a life,” said Mobley’s Aunt Mary Wheeler. “It’s like you see a dog and you don’t want him on your land and you shoot him.”
She and other family members are questioning why Mobley was killed.
Deputies said Mobley was breaking into some cars that were owned by homeowner Lonny Kirkley. Police said Kirkley grabbed a gun and went outside to investigate.
“At some point Mr. Mobley exited the truck, the homeowner fired one time, striking the subject," said Ben Bailey of the Union County Sheriff’s Department. “The suspect ran, fled the scene and was found about 40 yards away.”
Mobley had just been released from prison a few months ago. He had been arrested for drugs, drug paraphernalia and resisting an officer.
Friends of Mobley said he was no stranger to trouble, but he did often help the elderly with raking leaves and cleaning up around their yards.
While his family recognizes Mobley’s past, they think the homeowner should be prosecuted. Wheeler wants the homeowner to be charged.
“I’m 74-years-old and I want justice,” Wheeler said.
The Kirkley family was not available for comment, but deputies said they were completely cooperative in their investigation.
The DA is waiting on the medical examiner's report to see if Mobley was shot in the back while running away.
That determination is a key piece of evidence because the law does not consider a suspect who
Should not matter.
Priate ownesrhip is the foundation of all Western Civilization. When someone wishes to deprive you of that to which they have no legal or moral right, then it is incumbent on you to take any and all means to stop him, up to and including deadly force.
IMHO.
Our HOs differ.
Not quite, Auntie. Here, let me help you out:
“It’s not worth a life,” said Mobley’s Aunt Mary Wheeler. “It’s like you see a dog BREAKING INTO YOUR CARS and you don’t want him on your land and you shoot him.”
There, that's better.
That's why I'll never call the police if I have to do this...
Gotta get my a** to Texas.
Its not just black parents that make excuses for their meessed up kids.
I knew plenty of white middle class parents in the Sixties who"had no idea"their little darlings were using and selling drugs.
And got them good lawyers to get them off with slaps on the wrist.
Thats what makes them H.
When someone wishes to deprive you of that to which they have no legal or moral right, then it is incumbent on you to take any and all means to stop him, up to and including deadly force.
We may not agree on bikers, but we sure do agree on this.
Fair's fair.
And in that other thread I should have been clear it was only the truly bad bikers I was talking about.
I love and respect the good ones (many of whom are here).
Not even then if you've got the proper Federal paperwork for it.
That's called casing the joint.
------
That was my first thought as well.
Well, this guy wasn't in her house. However that wouldn't matter in Texas. She was using potentially deadly force to stop a burglary. That's justification enough.
From the the Texas Penal Code
§ 9.42. DEADLY[0] FORCE[0] TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly[0] force[0] against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly[0] force[0] is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly[0] force[0] to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
So? He was still a thief, and a trespasser. Now I don't know the law in NC, but in Texas that'd be enough justification (Actually, if he'd only committing "theft", it must be during the nighttime). However the story says "burglary suspect", and burglary is legal justification for use of deadly force, in Texas. So are robbery and armed robbery. The description makes it sound like more like robbery than burglary, but either way.
In San Antonio a kid was shot by a property owner for trying to steal his chickens. Grand Jury no billed. In Dallas a guy shot at several "youths" trying to steal his fancy rims. He used an SKS and shot into their vehicle. Again "No bill".
The real question is "Are they worth dying for?" Once that question gets fixed in the minds of would be car thieves, car theft tends to decline.
I agree with most of what your saying, but I think your reversing cause and effect. I think we have a generous welfare system because of the Northeast liberals, not vice-versa.
Doesn't sound like she used a handgun. The story doesn't say, unless I missed it. Generally, if you know you are going to need a gun, a handgun should only be along as backup. A rifle, unless it's an "ugly black gun" (or other military type semi or full auto) is much more PC, which will help at the civil trial when the perp's Mommy's case is being argued by her ACLU attorney.
You have my sympathies and an invitation to MTT. (Move To Texas).
Serious question: has there EVER been a story set up like this, where the family says, "We're really sorry ____ came to this end, but he chose a life of crime, and that tots up a heavy bill. Mostly, we're sorry for his would-be victim, and glad he's not hurt."
Ever? Seriously?
Second: is there any correlation-causation between those two facts?
but you can't argue the homeowner was protecting himself or his family or his property.
While I don't think I would shoot him on the run there is much we don't know. Was he armed and running to get his buddies? Had he just turned away after pointing a weapon at the homeowner? Did he have something that looked like a weapon on him? Had he threatened the homeowner previously?
But considering all the things most homeowners have to worry about defense of home and self is something that he shouldn't have to worry about, especially in a split second.
The bottom line is that most of us are fed up with the rights of criminals and have little sympathy for anything that happens to them. The DA should have much more to worry about than prosecuting a law abiding homeowner whose peaceful existence was invaded and altered by a scumbag having no respect for the laws of a civil society.
I for one don't give a hoot about this criminal and it wouldn't bother me in the least if the homeowner was given a lecture and let off the hook.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.