Posted on 11/16/2007 4:59:15 PM PST by Daffynition
In light of current law, you’re probably right.
However...
In light of what law should be, this was a clean kill.
More power (law changes) to you, old man!
thanks for putting that up. I hope he is not prosecuted.
In most places, but not necessarily in Texas.
But it will probably go a jury§ 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. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. § 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. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. § 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. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Today he has to worry about being prosecuted
Wow. That’s Texas!
The man is going down for murder probably. Shooting has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.
That's why this guy is going to have some difficulty with his defese (whatever it might be) in court.
The two were already shot, it is an after the fact statement.
Gee, what a friggin surprise. Illegals with criminal records.
“No sir, you can’t shoot them. You have to let them get away, and then come back and try to rob your house becuase they think the neighborhood is easy to steal from before you can protect yourself.”
In the past the guy would’ve been a neighborhood hero. Looking out for your neighbor’s well-being. What if they had broken in and killed the neighbor and he got them as they were trying to leave? That could have easily happened.
Friggin PC nutjobs. If I was him, I’d be thinking it could have easily been me (or I’d be next) if I didn’t stop them now.
Shoot them all. They’re taking over all towns, counties and states. Enough is enough. The government has already proved they won’t defend us so we must defend ourselves. Imagine how the crime rate would drop if these criminals knew they’d get their butts shot if they chose to commit such crimes. I hope this defender gets off scott free, with a pat on the back.
And that's how we get brazen criminals who think, "Ain't no reason to stay home and watch TV."
Here's a guy who's willing to defend his neighbor's property as if it were his own. He's done more to reduce crime than a thousand do-gooders spouting good-for-nothing platitudes.
He should throw the PC vocab right back at them and say, "I have a strict zero-tolerance policy. You understand."
Damn right you’d be next. Us doing nothing only encourages them to continue. You’re correct....friggin PC nutjobs!
As multiple posts show, in Texas you can use deadly force to defend someone else’s property. That law predated the “castle doctrine”, which addressed a different problem.
Yes, I realize they were both shot at that point(although it sounds from the words that one is still running down the street, probably after being shot) but he is saying why he shot them.
The perps may have run toward him, and once they were in his yard(his claim) he may have thought his life was in danger and defended himself.
Whether he is telling the truth or not, others will decide.
Just curious, why didn’t your neighbor call the local police dept., advise them what he needed to do and have a uniform come out, that way no one would suspect any hanky panky? Especially law enforcement.
***The legislator who authored the “castle doctrine” bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor’s property. ***
Then what good is a Neighborhood Watch?
What was he supposed to do? Tell the scum to wait a minute while he called 911 to let them know they have now stepped onto his property so now he will shoot them? Unless I’m understanding differently than you.....The way I see it, he went out there w/ his shotgun, yelled something at them and they came towards him, onto his property and he went bang bang. He then called 911 back.
Not in Florida maybe. Deadly force to protect private property is allowed in Texas. It applies to your nieghbors property if he asked you to watch it for him. Don't assume all state laws are the same.
Interesting. Under that law, it looks like you could go to the mall and shoot shoplifters.
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.