Posted on 09/05/2009 9:24:04 AM PDT by lqcincinnatus
A fatal San Marcos shooting may fall under the castle doctrine. Two Luling teens are dead, one is in the hospital and another is in jail.
Early Friday morning crime scene tape surrounded a home just a couple blocks away from Texas State University. Police say it's the result of a home invasion robbery carried out by four Luling teenagers.
"Three of the suspects were armed, one with a handgun, two with what we were later to find out were pellet guns, but very realistic looking,” San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams said.
San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams says the teens burst inside the home. There were three people inside; a college student, and two men, one of which was armed.
"He opened his bedroom door. When he did, one of the suspects in his living room pointed a weapon at him. He fired on the suspects in his house,” Williams said.
Two 16-year-olds died, another is now at Brackenridge Hospital with serious injuries. Williams says 17-year-old Frank Castro escaped uninjured, but is now in jail charged with aggravated robbery.
A roommate who was not home at the time and did not give his name says the men involved are taking it really hard.
"Physically they're okay mentally not so well,” he said.
Police will now see if this falls under the castle doctrine. It gives homeowners the right to defend themselves with deadly force. It's fairly new on the law books and not everyone agrees with it.
"I would be freaked out if someone came into my home and I don't know if they’re going to rape me shoot me, yeah. I can see where the homeowners are coming from,” Texas State student Kate Harris said.
"I'm sure it was in self-defense, but I'm very against that because they took two lives and who knows if this kid in the hospital is going to survive,” student Alejandro Salazar said.
Police say they do not anticipate filing any charges on the shooter. Castro is in jail with a $50,000 dollar bond.
Sonya Sotamayor.
I heard her say it myself in one of her interviews. She said the vicitms of a home invasion could "jump out the window and run away." I've forbgotten who was questioning her, but it was on the first day of her Senate confirmation hearing. The press barely mentioned it, but I heard her myself on C-Span. I was shocked to the soles of my feet.
Prayers for the young men involved. Although you are defending yourself, which no one I know would hesitate to do: taking a life is very hard for most people.
Thank the Lord for the people who supported the Castle Docrine Law so these men do not have to face prosecution in addition to the schock of the situation.
Hiding in a closet is totally unfair! If you do that, the robbers can’t pistol-whip you to force you to tell them where the good jewelry is. While cowering in the closet, you should have to announce, at 30 second intervals, exactly where you hid all the good stuff.
That’s a good line.
The idea that one must have attempted to retreat in order to claim self-defense and justifiable homicide is not a recent introduction of liberal lawmakers or judges, although it may have been misused by them.
It goes WAY back into the history of common law. Its purpose was to avoid the common situation, probably much more common at the time, where two men get into a confrontation, it escalates to violence and one kills the other. Without a requirement of an attempt to retreat, the winner of almost any deadly fight could claim justifiable homicide.
The purpose of the requirement to retreat was to make it clear which participant was the aggressor.
I don’t believe any such requirement ever applied to defense of a home, as an armed intruder was by definition the aggressor into a place he had no right to be.
That's true just about anywhere in the US. No. D.A. could or would prosecute a homeowner for using deadly force on an armed intruder brandishing a weapon.
S.B. No. 378
AN ACT relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
Horray for Texas !!!!!
“I’m sure it was in self-defense, but I’m very against that because they took two lives and who knows if this kid in the hospital is going to survive,” student Alejandro Salazar said.
____________________________________________________________
Someone should go over to Mr. Salazar’s house in the middle of the night and “tune him up.” See if that will change his mind. At the very least, it should alter his perspective.
The great thing about this bill is that you can carry in your vehicle.
"I'm sure it was in self-defense, but I'm very against that because they took two lives and who knows if this kid in the hospital is going to survive,” student Alejandro Salazar said.
I'll bet you even hard-core gun control libs groaned when they read that, realizing that it's so supremely stupid, most fence-sitters on the issue who may have been inclined to agree with them fell right into the pro-castle doctrine camp after pondering this dolt's twisted logic. LOL!
Duty-to-retreat
"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.[3] Therefore, any state that imposes a duty to retreat while in the home does not have a "Castle law": the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves
Would in Minnesota
You don’t live in Austin, Texas. The DA here prosecutes for laws broken before the law was passed.
I read somewhere that in England they have formal recommendations for victims of home invaders that include immediately entering a closet and waiting there until the invaders complete the invasion and leave the premises.That's a good idea because everyone knows home invaders/burglars never look in closets< /sarcasm >
How about if you retreat to the back of a walk-in closet then lay in wait with a shotgun?
I wonder when someone is this stupid if their head is numb
“I read somewhere that in England they have formal recommendations for victims of home invaders that include immediately entering a closet and waiting there until the invaders complete the invasion and leave the premises.”
I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘formal recommendations’ but there is no such requirement in English law.
Just in time I see.
The article doesn’t do a good job of explaining. The law went into effect back in Sept. 1, 2007. The poster didn’t provide a link.
I wouldn't expect anything different from a state that gave us Senator Franken.
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.