The Stirman case -- not so high quality father and son time

Early this week morning newspaper readers were stunned to learn about William Earl Stirman shooting and killing his 18 year old son. Link.

There were two probable cause affidavits on display at the Reporter Telegram site. Here is a key sentence from the 7/5/11 affidavit:

Suspect stated that he commented to the victim that suspect would ca [sic] victim's probation officer and when the victim approached the suspect with the knife in hand in a threatening manner from the far side of the victim's bedroom the suspect produced a .22 caliber pistol and shot the victim in the forehead one time.

However, the affidavit from two days earlier, 7/3/11, had the same sentence but with one more clause, see bold:

Suspect stated that he commented to the victim that suspect would ca [sic] victim's probation officer and when the victim approached the suspect with the knife in hand in a threatening manner from the far side of the victim's bedroom the suspect produced a .22 caliber pistol and shot the victim in the forehead one time, instead of backing away .

Apparently, the investigator who signed both affidavits originally thought Texas law required a threatened person to retreat. Wrong -- see Penal Code §9.31:

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

No matter. They charged Stirman with murder anyway. Maybe the not-guilty verdict on Casey Anthony had an influence. Or maybe the threat to call the victim's probation officer was considered to be provocation.

But the whole thing leaves us wondering, if under the exact same circumstances the shooter standing across the room from the knife wielding 18 year old had been a deputy sheriff, would he/she be sitting in a jail cell right now under a million dollar bond? Not very likely.

-------

Disclaimer -- I'm just a curious blogger, so don't take anything I say on these pages as legal advice. If you need legal help call your lawyer.

Updated 3/2/12: The murder trial of William Earl Stirman ended with a guilty verdict. See Greenwood dad sentenced to 50 years for son's murder.

Comments

[Irritated]

Regardless of anything sir Eric had a knife and Bill had a gun...he should have shot to disarm not to MURDER!!!!

[Irritated]

OH and another point would be since you would like to defend Bill...Eric was a residence of that home as well and had EVERY RIGHT TO BE THERE...so Penal Code §9.31 protects him as well....meaning that Bill had no right to pull a gun on him in the first place...so next time before you decide to put your two cents in on a subject that you have NO IDEA about,cross your Ts and dot your Is and make sure you dont make yourself sound ignorant and nosey

[John Doe]

Irritated: You obviously can't read. I don't know enough about the circumstances to say who was in the right here. I do know Bill and although it's out of character, anyone who knows their gun rights, is capable of using said rights on ANYONE at ANYTIME to defend themselves. The Penal Code says absolutely nothing about whether or not Eric had a right to be in the house. It only specifies that the person using force (Bill) isn't required to retreat first (before using force) as long as he has a right to be where the force is used, has not provoked the victin (Eric) and is not engaged in criminal activity when the force is used. This provides ABSOLUTELY no protection for Eric and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Eric's part in the scenario. I would say that you probably need to learn about crossing T's and dotting I's before you make comments. At the very least, learn to read. The only question at hand at this point (utilizing this particular penal code as a reference) is whether or not Bill telling Eric that he was going to call his probation officer constitutes a provocation. We don't have enought information to answer that question, but it will surely be battled out in court anyway.

[fed up]

Yea well that is my little brother and my piece of shit "father" so I know enough that u need to mind ur own business and quit fucking blogging about our tragedy for your own sick entertainment

[Geo]

This was a tragic incident, and the family must be terribly upset about it. They have my sympathy.

I don't believe anyone finds this tragedy the least bit entertaining.

However, there are some legal issues raised, and many people are interested in how they get resolved.

[John Doe]

Fed Up: If you really are Heather, you need to calm down. There is a difference between information and entertainment. Informing the public and making comment about specific aspects is how our society holds together. It has nothing to do with your feelings on the matter. Having known your father, I believe he would want someone to see his side of the episode - right or wrong. According to the statute pointed out here by the blogger, he definitely has a case - not necessarily morally, but legally.

[C Pitzer]

GUILTY! Only took 30 minutes. Mistake? I don't think so! Now...go back to whatever hole you crawled out of!

[Megan Rose]

Since I am just now seeing this, I want to set the record straight on a fact that the public does not know. Upon seeing the crime scene photos during the trial, we discovered that the "knife" that photographed at the crime scene was in fact, Bill Stirman's knife. This was the knife that he carried on his own person 24/7, a knife that I personally purchased for him many years ago when I was still married to him. There is absolutely no way that Eric was in possession of that knife. Mr. Stirman is a liar, and that is a FACT!

[Geo]

Thanks for setting us straight on that, Megan.