Posted on 11/16/2007 4:59:15 PM PST by Daffynition
“Nothing like a real 911 call to send shivers up your spine!”
I know! I knew the whole time what was going to happen but when I heard the two shots I still said “wow”.
Nervous and fearful. From reading the bit of transcript, I thought he sounded kinda “cowboyish” (I was supportive of this). After hearing it, I felt fear.
Oh, please let me know what your friend thought of the tape. I am going to pass that to some friends as well and get their take on it...good call!
I agree.
I was yelling at my computer....”where the hell are the cops”, “what’s taking them so long”!!!!! Felt like an eternity!
We had a neighbor a long while ago when our garage was being broken into he yelled at the would be burglars and chased them off. If he would have shot them, I wouldn’t have blamed him, but instead, thanked him for protecting our garage.
Will do :)
bbl
Tell me what you think of this 911 call...
http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/PublicNGZ/?action=view¤t=math911.flv
If I were on the jury, I would recommend giving the man a medal and paying him a bounty.
Sounds like “Move you’re dead to me.” Then shots.
Also, wouldn’t make any sense to say ‘Boom you’re dead’ before shooting.
When he was about 80 years of age he was arrested for hauling cocaine.
So, yeah, 70s as good an age as any.
The law doesn't require him to retreat, but he left his protective barricade and his cover to go confront these guys.
Once you've got the cops on the way seems to me you'd want to stay behind the barricade and stay covered. That would minimize the chance of the cops shooting you too.
My grandmother was about that age (70) when she and grandpa were confronted by a would-be robber while they were waiting on a bus. She threw her hands up in the air while screaming and knocked the gun out of his hand into the air. Grandpa caught the gun on the way down and held the guy at gunpoint.
They didn't go looking for trouble.
Sounds like “Move you’re dead to me.” Then shots.
Sounds like “Move you’re dead," to me. Then shots.
Damn grammar nazis.
5.56mm
Nothing do with the Castle Doctrine. This clearly falls under "protection of property, third party.
Texas Penal Code § 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. 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.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(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;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
The only thing really in question would be if a reasonable person, a reasonable Texan that is, would believe they had a legal duty to protect their neighbor's property. I'd think it would not be hard to convince a grand jury of that. Or given the known sympathies of the county DA, a petit jury.
Especially if their are any members of the Houston Area Texans affilate of FR on the jury. :)
Somebody ought to give this dispatcher's address to the friends of the recently departed. See if thinks the same way if it's *his* property being carted off.
Besides, the right way to say that is "Ain't no property worth *getting yourself" shot over.
A Harris country grand jury *might*, but no Harris country trial jury would convict him. The grand jury is just too easy for the DA to manipulate, and the Harris county DA doesn't think much of armed private citizens.
BTW, no one has asked the relevant question yet, so I will...
What sort of load was he using? Buckshot, birdshot, or slugs?
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.