Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Man facing murder charge for pursuing, killing car thief

  1. #1
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727

    Man facing murder charge for pursuing, killing car thief

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...ged-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.”

  2. #2
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Justice? He's a rage-o-holic moron.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    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.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    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.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    425
    In most states you cannot use deadly force to protect property. It is "just stuff", and that's what insurance is for.

  6. #6
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    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 by JoeSparky; 08-13-2014 at 08:12 PM.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    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

  8. #8
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    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
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    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 by Lord Sega; 08-13-2014 at 11:46 PM.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    425
    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.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40sc View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    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?

  14. #14
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member independence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    339
    Um, I thought in Texas the law allowed you to use deadly force to keep something from being stolen?

    http://www.ketknbc.com/news/etx-man-...an-zandt-count
    Open means open...

  16. #16
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    note to self: don't steal people's vehicles, sounds dangerous.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    note to self: don't steal people's vehicles, sounds dangerous.
    It's perfectly safe in some areas, as long as you don't select a thug's car. He will be armed.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    note to self: don't steal people's vehicles, sounds dangerous.
    hmmmm good point.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    "Man facing murder charge for pursuing, killing car thief "

    ...he shouldn't be, but rather get a Public Service medal and a box of whatever ammo he uses.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 08-15-2014 at 01:17 PM.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    "Man facing murder charge for pursuing, killing car thief "

    ...he shouldn't be, but rather get a Public Service medal and a box of whatever ammo he uses.
    That should be feasible, as I doubt he was using .22LR.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    ...well, maybe an "IOU for ammo" issued to him then -- to be redeemed later, IF ammo supplies ever get back to normal out there, that is.

    Or, perhaps ask Homeland Security for a box from ITS hoarded stash!

    The latter probably wouldn't work, however, as the paper trail covering such a transfer of one box of ammo from Homeland Security to a local Police/Sheriff Department, and then to a public-service-service-minded citizen would be too overwhelming to undertake.

    There'd probably be much less paperwork involved getting a MRAP vehicle from Homeland Security instead of measly 50-rd box ammo! ;-)
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 08-16-2014 at 02:55 PM.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  22. #22
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    I know of one LEO from here who has consistently encouraged LAC to get involved and chase criminals, including using deadly force. Wonder what he has to say on this matter.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  23. #23
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769
    Whether the law allows it or not, I would not use deadly force because of a vehicle being stolen. I can always replace the vehicle. I cannot restore another human being's life to them.

    That is, of course, provided I am not in the vehicle at the time and provided the thief did not threaten to use force against me.

    This is where we leave the realm of law and enter the realm of ethics and morals. While it might be legal, the question is whether it is ethical and moral.

    By the way, I think this guy's alligator mouth overloaded his mockingbird rear end. He said entirely too much on the phone with 911, especially after the shooting.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  24. #24
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    While I have no sympathy for the POS thief, that's why you have insurance.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    So should we send a collection plate around to all the thieves to pay for our insurance and deductibles, plus hassle time and loss of livelihood? Or can we just plug a thief and keep our property and livelihood?

    I offer no answer, just pose the question. But I say again, there is a reason horse thieves were hung, and the reason is still a valid one.

    Want life? Don't try to take another man's livelihood. He might just not know or care that he's not supposed to try to keep it.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •