Texas Lawmaker Shoots Would-be Thief (Voted against "castle doctrine" bill)

WOAI ^ | 9 july 2007 | staff

[TailspinJim]

NRA home page, that is.

[El Gato]

So does that mean that he faces the possibility of being charged under the old law (that he would have applied to everyone else if he had had his way), rather than gaining the benefit of the new law?

It would, but he didn't violate the old either. Man was on his property, very likely trying to steal something. That's "theft during the nighttime", which is one of the justifications for use of deadly force under Texas law, old or new.

The relevant section of (the old) Texas law is:

§ 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.

Of course you can also use deadly force to protect yourself or another from death or injury, of course with a "reasonable man" standard as to the perception of the potential for death or great bodily harm.

[El Gato]

Since this was a construction site, does this truly qualify under the "castle doctrine?"

Yep, although it doesn't really matter, it was his property, he was on it, and defended it (and himself). The new Castle doctrine doesn't change that. Even his possession of a CHL is irrelevant when on your own property or property you control.

[NonValueAdded]

Indict him for murder and then see how he feels about the castle doctrine law.

[philman_36]

The castle law in TX essentially says that your “Car” is an extention of your home and you have the right to carry in you car and defend yourself from your car
Then by extension shouldn't a warrant be required before a roadside search of an automobile can be conducted?

[Baladas]

He should have waited until September 1 to shoot the thief, but that’s just my opinion.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

stupid criminal. brought a pocket knife to a gunfight....

Note to self: If I ever shoot someone, the first thing I will do is not call the cops, but change my party affiliation to Democrat. Then I am guaranteed not to be charged...

[HonestConservative]

Kewl

A friend was a cop in the city of Philadelphia. He was off duty and a big guy jumped in his passenger seet and said, “Im going to North Broad Street”.

The gun under the seat came was out in a flash and the friend said “Your goin’ to Hell and your goin’ now”.

Of course the fool jumped out.

[TalonDJ]

The gun under the seat came was out in a flash and the friend said “Your goin’ to Hell and your goin’ now”.
Of course the fool jumped out.

Now if he had been doing less taking and more shooting there would be one less badguy out there.

[VRWCmember]

Perfectly executed - throw a knife and get a leg wound.

He's just lucky he wasn't going up against this guy:

[VRWCmember]

brought a pocket knife to a gunfight....

Only James Coburn could get away with that.

[HonestConservative]

He’d also probably be out of a job. The guy was unarmed.

[GladesGuru]

“The Houston DA Chuck Rosenthal said in recent years that he’d still prosecute legal gun owners in Houston as felons despite changes in law from the state legislature.”

Does any FReeper know if DA Rosenthal is a Democrap, has made other such comments, and lastly, if he is a Jew, is his synagogue orthodox, conservative or reform?

He sounds like many in the synagogues I once attended - until I learned about their tendencies towards socialism.

IMHO, that DA should be subjected to a mandamus action requiring him to carry out the duties of the office, rather than his personal Liberal/socialist agenda, or vacate the office.

[dangus]

Its between Mexico and the rest of the US?

(I know, I know, Houston is on the gulf.)

[eastforker]

Old chucky boy had to resign do to erasing sexual harrasment e mails on his computer. HA-HA LOL.

[billakay]

Unless the officer has immediate probably cause, isn’t a warrant required? I was under the impression that it was. An officer can enter your home without a warrant if there is immediate probably cause as well.

[billakay]

*probable x 2

[philman_36]

Unless the officer has immediate probably cause, isn’t a warrant required?
Well, I'm not a lawyer so I may not be the best person to ask.
My opinion is that a warrant, outside of probable cause, should most definitely be required.
That being said, IMO again, simply refusing to allow a search of your vehicle could probably be considered probable cause thus justifying the search.

An aside...My what an old thread to resurrect, and in what a manner...(read up a few comments and view the dates)

[billakay]

Ah, I didn’t pay attention to the age of the thread. As far as refusing a search though, I believe there was a landmark case a few years ago that said that refusal to provide consent is NOT a reason for probable cause. I don’t remember the name or date of the case, but I will look it up.

[philman_36]

I don’t remember the name or date of the case, but I will look it up.
If there is such a case I'd sure like to read up on it and would appreciate a reference/link.