Homeowner could faces charges in shooting

WCNC-TV (North Carolina) ^ | 9/12/06 | Glenn Counts

[El Gato]

Come to TX, here if they are in your house nothing is said unless your weapon is crew serve or belt fed.

Well, this guy wasn't in her house. However that wouldn't matter in Texas. She was using potentially deadly force to stop a robbery or aggravated robbery. That's justification enough.

From the the Texas Penal Code

§ 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.

[El Gato]

If the homeowner shot the departed in the back,

The article doesn't say anything about about where the departed was shot. It says:"“At some point Mr. Mobley exited the truck, the homeowner fired one time, striking the subject," said Ben Bailey of the Union County Sheriff’s Department. “The suspect ran, fled the scene and was found about 40 yards away.” "

[El Gato]

Basically, unless the perp was armed or was physically threatening the shooter in some way, this guy is going to be charged with a crime. If the perp had been in his house that would have been another matter.

It's a matter of state law, and varies greatly from state to state.

[El Gato]

Make that one of only *two* states.

Illinois and Wisconsin. Even Wisconsin is moving in the right direction, but they needed two more votes in the lower house to override the governor's veto of a carry law. In January, the Wisconsin Senate voted 23-10 to override Gov. Jim Doyle’s (D) veto of RTC, but the Assembly fell two votes short, voting to override by 64-34.

There are 40 RTC states: 36 have “shall issue” laws, which require that carry permits be issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature. Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa have fairly-administered “discretionary-issue” carry permit systems. Alaska and Vermont respect the right to carry without a permit. (Alaska adopted a no-permit-required law in 2003, but has a shall-issue provision for purposes of permit-reciprocity with other states.) Of the 10 non-RTC states, eight have restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems; two prohibit carrying altogether.

[El Gato]

Doesn't sound like she used a handgun.

Oops, HE. But that shouldn't matter either. OTOH, it would be better for him at trial, if there is a trial, if HE were a SHE.

[Thunder90]

No, we will just dump Doyle. Then there should be no problem getting concealed carry through.

[Shooter 2.5]

Two states, not four.

[Graybeard58]

Your map's bigger than the one in #124.

[Graybeard58]

Texas will issue to other states residents, Illinois included.

I travel a lot and tried to get one when I was in Texas for 6 weeks last year. Texas' permit is recognized by a lot of other states.

I didn't think to bring my birth certificate with me and it's one of the many pieces of id that's required to get a Texas id., which is required before getting a carry permit.

[Shooter 2.5]

And it was created by a Freeper.

[SauronOfMordor]

Neither my Ford nor my Toyota are worth killing over.

I'm glad you are so affluent that losing a vehicle will have minimal effect on your life. Make your choices accordingly

For other people, losing a vehicle is a significant impact. Being in an environment where vehicles are stolen frequently can be crippling to one's quality of life

While you're at it, tell the next woman you meet that being raped is not worth killing to prevent, since she'll only be inconvenienced for a few minutes

[El Gato]

No, we will just dump Doyle.

Sounds like a plan, but a good Plan B, or backup, would be to get rid of several of the members of the Assembly who voted against the override. Maybe 1 or 2 in the Senate as well. Belt and suspenders sort of thing.

[308MBR]

I shoot dogs I don't want on my land....so what's the problem here?

[stuartcr]

I think the real question lies in the hands of the person with the weapon.

[stuartcr]

No, I'm not that affluent, but losing my vehicle will have less of an impact on my life, than dying would have on the thiefs life.

I fail to see the similarity between auto theft/vandalism and rape. Please explain.

[FreePaul]

I’m 74-years-old and I want justice

Would "justice" be served if she got her share of the loot?

[Gone GF]

"If I reasonabley have cause to think you are stealing of vandalising my property under TX law You are fair game."

Then I have to disagree with Texas law. As you know, Virginia isn't afraid to execute a murderer, but we don't kill people for stealing something.

[Hydroshock]

To quote an esteemed and honored TX Judge by the name of Roy Bean, "We will have a fair and honest trial followed by a right nice hanging."

[Osage Orange]

GMTA........

[Old Student]

"Neither my Ford nor my Toyota are worth killing over."

Maybe not, but then again, I spent time working that I could have spent with my kids getting the money to buy that stuff. Anyone who is taking it is taking stuff from my kids. And making me work all over again to replace it, if I can. They are stealing my life, in other words...