Posted on 11/16/2007 4:59:15 PM PST by Daffynition
HOUSTON (CBS) ― It will be up to a Texas grand jury to decide whether a man who fatally shot two men he thought were robbing his neighbor's home acted within the state's self-defense laws.
The man, who is in his 70s, shot the two suspected burglars Wednesday afternoon in a quiet subdivision of the Houston suburb of Pasadena. He confronted the men as they were leaving through a gate leading to the front yard of his neighbor's home.
No identities have been released.
Police say that just before the shootings, the man called 911 to say he heard glass breaking and saw two men entering the home through a window.
911: "Pasadena 911. What is your emergency?"
Caller: "Burglars breaking into a house next door."
A police spokesman says the man told the dispatcher that he was going to get his gun and stop the break-in.
Caller: "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"
911: "Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"
The dispatcher repeatedly urged the man to stay calm and stay in his own home, reports CBS News correspondent Hari Sreenivasan.
911: "I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."
Caller: "I understand that, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself."
A Texas law strengthening a citizen's right to self-defense, the so-called "castle doctrine," went into effect on Sept. 1. It gives Texans a stronger legal right to use deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.
The telephone line then went dead, but the man called police again and told a dispatcher what he was doing.
Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.
He shot one suspect in the chest and the other in the side.
Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said a legal expert.
If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in the shooter's favor, defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor, told the Houston Chronicle. "That could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role."
The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property.
It "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth told the newspaper. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."
Not true. That's an "OR" provision of 9.43 where it says you can use deadly force to defend someone else's property if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or(2) the actor reasonably believes that: (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property
Oh thank you!!!!
That's a good enough reason to take cover.
Kind of wonder what you would do.
Still, taking a life should be considered to be serious business ~
If anyone has a link to the tape transcript please post it.
Ummm, I didn’t say it never happened. The possibility of it happening is soooooooo next to not. If it did happen, even once or twice, you know them gun hating socialist pigs would be spewing about it every second they had a little air time, but......not a peep.
In Florida, I'd get a license plate number, or provoke them into shooting at me. In Texas I'd shoot them.
Easy call.
5.56mm
The "at nighttime" provision applies to theft or criminal mischief -- which must occur at night in order to allow use of deadly force. Burglary has no such "at nighttime" qualifier.
... to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime
Yes, and most of them start in their 70’s, lmao!!!
Good point, I missed that paragraph.
However, a 9.43 defense still needs justification under 9.41 or 9.42, if only property is involved.
Not relevant to burglary. See my post #128.
Holy cra*!!! Nothing like a real 911 call to send shivers up your spine!
Around here we have the right to shoot back.
~~~
There’s the first mistake
~~~
just the best way to manage a potential firefight.
~~~
That’s two,,,
Don’t shoot back,,,Shoot First,,,No firefights,,,
No Quarter...
9.41 only requires that the property being defended not be stolen and the of it ownership not be disputed. 9.42 allows the use of deadly force to defend property. 9.43 extends this to a third person's property. Where's the probem?
Also, just to get thoughts on the tone of the caller, Nervous? Angry? Coherent?
9.42 requires a reasonable belief that there’s no alternative to deadly force to stop the escape. If cops had been descending on the scene for several minutes from every direction, I’d be a little hard pressed to say there was no alternative. He had a very solid description of one of the perps, and was an eyewitness to the break-in.
I’d say he was all three - nervous, angry, and coherent.
I must admit...after hearing his 911 call, I cannot be objective. I felt fear for him, he is in his 70’s and seemed to me he was afraid they might come to his home next. He is in his 70’s, a man of this age usually DOES NOT express fear they way I would. Instead, it comes off as bravado. I heard fear, I felt fear. I am glad the scum are dead and if he has to have a defense fund raiser, I would be more than happy to contribute.
Hey!! I’m from the North and am highly offended!!! Perhaps I belong in Texas ;-)
~~~
Howdy,,,I’m sure you would fit rite in,,,;0)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.