Did not see a thread on the Tony Earls case and was looking for what the board opinion was on this case.

https://abc13.com/robbery-victim-tony-earls-no-billed-arlene-alvarez-death/12061282/

Short description:
An investigation determined Earls and his wife were targeted by a robber near a Chase Bank ATM in the Gulfgate area. Earls then got out and shot at the fleeing suspect and a pickup truck that he thought the person was getting into, police said.

But the pickup was not the suspect's getaway car. Instead, Arlene and her family were inside. The 9 year old girl died from the gun shot.


What is your opinion on this case?

Ags4DaWin said:

---

The suspect was fleeing.

He was in no immediate danger and decided to pursue then fired recklessly resulting in someone's death.

At a minimum have gone for reckless endangerment and/or manslaughter would have been the charges I would have liked to have seen.

---

This

Seems like he acted recklessly shooting at the vehicle. Though I'd still assign blame for the death of the child on the criminal POS that instigated the whole incident. Also blame the useless Harris county justice system that is allowing Houston to turn into Chicago v2.0.

Kim Ogg is a ****ing disaster. I'm not saying it's murder but the guy definitely should have been charged with reckless endangerment or manslaughter.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

The suspect was fleeing.

He was in no immediate danger and decided to pursue then fired recklessly resulting in someone's death.

At a minimum have gone for reckless endangerment and/or manslaughter would have been the charges I would have liked to have seen.

---

This. He should be prosecuted. Even if he's legally justified in using lethal force against the robbery suspect, he has to be held accountable for the consequences of his decision to do so if he's not in immediate physical danger. It's a simple test:

Are you in immediate mortal peril?
Yes: You are not accountable for the consequences of your actions in defense of your person.
No: You have no immediate and pressing need to share in deadly force, and you are accountable for your actions.

He has a right to defend his property, but that right does not extend to recklessness and endangering the lives of others. His right to property is secondary to their right to life.

You are responsible for every bullet that leaves the pointy end of your weapon. He should be prosecuted.

I thought the criminal in this case would legally be at fault. Not the same, but similar to if a group of people rob someone's house and the homeowner kills one of them, the rest of the group gets charged with murder.

You shouldn't be shooting at someone running away and actively posing no harm to you. That's pretty cowardly. I'd charge him.

blakegrimez said:

---

I thought the criminal in this case would legally be at fault. Not the same, but similar to if a group of people rob someone's house and the homeowner kills one of them, the rest of the group gets charged with murder.

You shouldn't be shooting at someone running away and actively posing no harm to you. That's pretty cowardly. I'd charge him.

---

They should both be charged. The robber should be charged.Because he started the whole thing, and Earls should be charged because he recklessly continued it. The robber's but for causation does not absolve Earls of his responsibility to discharge his weapon judiciously.

The reminds me of having to explain to people why a warning shot is (rightfully) illegal. If you feel safe enough to still try and deter someone, then you shouldn't be brandishing a firearm.

Either be willing to shoot with the intention to kill, or don't carry.

HTownAg98 said:

---

You are responsible for every bullet that leaves the pointy end of your weapon. He should be prosecuted.

---

What kind of gun has a "pointy end"?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

blakegrimez said:

---

I thought the criminal in this case would legally be at fault. Not the same, but similar to if a group of people rob someone's house and the homeowner kills one of them, the rest of the group gets charged with murder.

You shouldn't be shooting at someone running away and actively posing no harm to you. That's pretty cowardly. I'd charge him.

---

They should both be charged. The robber should be charged.Because he started the whole thing, and Earls should be charged because he recklessly continued it. The robber's but for causation does not absolve Earls of his responsibility to discharge his weapon judiciously.

---

This is how I feel