Replies

Not illegal in Texas? Can you please point me to the Texas self-defense statute that says you can shoot to kill someone who has fled your house, who you have subsequently wounded and who is on the ground without a weapon posing no threat to you?

This is not a self-defense case and we diminish our fight for rightful self-defense by applauding vengence here.

fled your house, who you have subsequently wounded and who is on the ground without a weapon posing no threat to you?

Is that what he did? I didn't read anything about him shooting her while she was on the ground.

/johnny

I was referring to the ability to pursue a burglar outside the home.

Also, I saw nothing indicating that she was on the ground presenting no threat in any of the coverage to date, only that he pursued her and shot her as she attempted to flee. Which is legal in Texas.

Here is the Texas penal code cite:

Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 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.

This is not a self-defense case and we diminish our fight for rightful self-defense by applauding vengence here.

Absolutely, true, Counselor. Bad shoot for sure!

But he's not a cop and didn't volunteer for duty. If I were on the jury, the only possible outcomes would be Not Guilty or Hung Jury!