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."
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.