• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Man facing murder charge for pursuing, killing car thief

Kopis

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
674
Location
Nashville, TN
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ges-after-pursuing-killing-alleged-car-thief/

Discuss...... on a side note, why do people say such silly things in 911 calls?


Man Faces Murder Charges After Pursuing, Killing Alleged Car Thief
Aug. 12, 2014 4:35pm Zach Noble
43
SHARES
Share ThisTweet This
It could have been a classic tale of a man defending his family, but instead, for reasons that remain unclear, it turned into a tragedy in which two families could lose fathers: one to jail, and the other to a fatal gunshot wound.

James Keck, 24, was fueling up in Big Spring, Texas, when his truck was stolen, KOSA-TV reported.

As the thief took off, Keck jumped in another family vehicle and pursued, KOSA reported.

The chase would end with Keck telling police, “The other guy is dead.”

Image via KOSA-TV
James Keck. (Image via KOSA-TV)
Now Keck faces murder charges, according to KOSA, in large part because the incident didn’t qualify as a carjacking.

“At no point was any force used to take this vehicle,” said Howard County Sheriff Stan Parker. “The deceased never fired a shot; he was not armed at any time during the incident.”

The thief merely hopped into an unattended vehicle, rather than violently forcing his way into a car.

Parker continued: “Keck made the decision to use deadly force when deadly force was not justified.”

The deceased alleged thief was 42-year-old Bobby Bricker.

According to Keck and his family, Keck pursued Bricker because he thought his 4-year-old daughter, Braylynn, was in the stolen truck, and he shot Bricker after Bricker shot at him.

But as Parker claimed, Bricker was never armed.

Image via KOSA-TV
Bobby Bricker. (Image via KOSA-TV)
“I’m gonna blow your f****** head off!” Keck could be heard yelling during the incident, according to the transcript of his 911 call. “This is your last warning!”

According to the transcript, Keck did not mention that he thought his daughter was in the stolen truck.

Once both cars stopped, Keck could allegedly be heard exiting his truck.

Then, according to the 911 transcript, two gunshots rang out, followed by Keck proclaiming, “I shot him. He’s dead.”

Image via KOSA-TV
Keck and his family. (Image via KOSA-TV)
Keck’s family has launched a GoFundMe page to raise money to pay for legal fees as they fight Keck’s murder charge.

“My brother has been charged with murder for defending his own,” the page description states. “Please help if you believe in justice for James.”
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
In some states, chasing a felon and using lethal force to stop him from escaping is OK for a citizen.

I don't see the relevance in that the thief was armed or not myself ... he had control of a deadly object w/o concern for its condition.

I hope that the court rules that it was OK.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
Lying may be what does him in, if he did. When you lie to make it look better, you lose much of what little sympathy a jury/prosecutor might have for you, if found out.

I've no sympathy for a dead car thief. There is a reason horse thieves were traditionally hung. Your primary transportation is your livelihood.

If you like to talk, you'd best be making sure you are also exhausting better-looking alternatives first.
 

XD40sc

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
402
Location
NC
In most states you cannot use deadly force to protect property. It is "just stuff", and that's what insurance is for.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
IF he truly believed his daughter was in the stolen truck then WHY is there no mention of this per the report of the 911 call?

IF it were me in that situation and I truly believed a young child was in a vehicle just stolen I am VERY certain that I'd make mention of this! Also, I'd be calling the name of the child as I approached the vehicle. This defendant per the reports did neither. Casts much doubt in my mind upon his claim. Hence, he shot the vehicle thief OVER PROPERTY, in my opinion!

Based upon this NEWS REPORT assuming the same information/data/evidence is presented by the prosecution and not EFFECTIVELY discredited by the defense, he will be glad that I am not on his jury.
 
Last edited:

mustangkiller

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
300
Location
, ,
Subsection D
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force 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 force 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 force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Drop the charges and lets move on. This was burglary of a vehicle and UMV. It qualifies imho but ianal
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Subsection D
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force 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 force 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 force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Drop the charges and lets move on. This was burglary of a vehicle and UMV. It qualifies imho but ianal

Your quoted statute ONLY allows use of deadly force during NIGHT TIME HOURS provided it also is justified per Section 9.41
 

Lord Sega

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Warrenton, Oregon
Your quoted statute ONLY allows use of deadly force during NIGHT TIME HOURS provided it also is justified per Section 9.41

Correct me if I'm wrong, Theft is taking something of value, Robbery is that plus force (or threat of force).

So, under 9.42 he first has to meet 9.41

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

9.42 (1) Sounds like he's ok.
And note, it's his reasonable belief, not "what a reasonable person would believe", minor but important legal distinction I think (IANAL).

CBS7 News called it "Saturday night's carjacking", and then updated to quote "Howard County Sheriff Stan Parker wanted to clarify this incident. This was not a "carjacking" as originally reported. Parker said no force was used to take the vehicle, because it was left at the truck stop running with the keys in the ignition."

Ok, so the Sheriff says no force involved - not a carjacking, that would make it a theft not a robbery.

9.42 (2) (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

So... was it night time? CBS7 News called it "Saturday night's carjacking".
I haven't found a news article with the exact time the theft took place, and what's the legal definition for "night time"???

For Big Spring, TX Aug. 13, 2014
Rise Set
Actual Time 7:08 AM CDT 8:32 PM CDT
Civil Twilight 6:42 AM CDT 8:57 PM CDT
Nautical Twilight 6:11 AM CDT 9:28 PM CDT
Astronomical Twilight 5:39 AM CDT 10:01 PM CDT
*** Subtract 3-4 minutes from each for Saturday 9 August 2014

9.42 (2) (B) depends on time of the theft and what is legally "night time".

Last part, 9.42 (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 force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Again note, it's his reasonable belief, not "what a reasonable person would believe".
(B) won't apply unless the thief attacked / had a weapon, i.e. normal self-defense.
9.24 (3) (A) I would say applies, recovery of stolen vehicles is a very low percentage in the US.

IANAL !!!, But it looks to me (based on news articles info, so grain of salt) he would be within the letter of the law IF the theft happened at or after 8:30pm.

EDIT: just found a different article from CBS7 News, says "around 8pm" as the time of the theft. Close, but not close enough, or does dusk count as night time?
 
Last edited:

mustangkiller

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
300
Location
, ,
The way I read it, the "night time" qualifier applied to the criminal mischief only. The rest are felonies. The only misdemeanor that can get you killed needs to be done at night. But again, ianal.
 

XD40sc

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
402
Location
NC
If he thought his daughter was in the truck he would have been frantic, and that is all the dispatcher would have heard, "he's got my daughter, he's got my daughter".

He lost his cool over a truck, once referred to as his mothers truck, once as his truck.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
In most states you cannot use deadly force to protect property. It is "just stuff", and that's what insurance is for.

An argument could be made he was not protecting property .. just trying to stop a felon.

Of course, his statements made can and will (if its helpful to the prosecution) be used against him.

Only time will tell to expose the full facts.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Lying may be what does him in, if he did. When you lie to make it look better, you lose much of what little sympathy a jury/prosecutor might have for you, if found out.

I've no sympathy for a dead car thief. There is a reason horse thieves were traditionally hung. Your primary transportation is your livelihood.

If you like to talk, you'd best be making sure you are also exhausting better-looking alternatives first.

Anyone with brains, after killing someone would zip it, right?
 

XD40sc

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
402
Location
NC
An argument could be made he was not protecting property .. just trying to stop a felon.

Of course, his statements made can and will (if its helpful to the prosecution) be used against him.

Only time will tell to expose the full facts.

Many states do not allow the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon. LEO's must believe there is a imminent danger to others before they can use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon.
 
Top