Molon Labe !
Posted on 10/12/2002 12:33:42 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
No, Mr. Schwin is lucky the safety was on. While I applaud his tenacity, I'm afraid he might well get himself in trouble for lying in wait for burglars. Rightly or wrongly, courts tend to frown upon such actions.
You should know this before you pull the trigger.
Also, he missed with a shotgun! At what range?
Unfortunately, you are right. I kept reading, to see where they had arrested the home owner for defending his property with a little too much zeal. He was not, but I am sure the criminals will sue him, and win. They will own his house later, so he may as well let them steal whatever they want now. What a world we live in, where a criminal can take a victim to court, and win. Kind of sucks, doesn't it?
Molon Labe !
Not in TEXAS they don't!
WAY TO GO, Mr. Schwin! Now, if we could just get the REST of the country on board.....
There would probably be about six or seven more people alive in the D.C. area if "Good Guys" were able to DEFEND THEMSELVES against "Bad Guys" like the CRIMINAL-TERRORIST-SNIPER.
With respect, I strenuously disagree with your point. Even in Communist California, they have the "Homeowners' Protection Act." I'm reasonably certain Texas has a similar law, allowing a citizen to use deadly force when protecting himself inside the place he sleeps at night- whether that is a converted garage, a motor-home on jackstands or his own bedroom.
As well, the old saying is still true: "better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six."
FReegards
No way. No jury in Texas would indict, much less convict a homeowner for 'lying in wait' in his own home.
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.
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.
When the police show up (call them after you are sure the perp is dead), you simply say the magic words "I thought he was gonna kill me... I thought he was gonna kill me..." but otherwise say nothing and ask for a lawyer.
They may frown, but a conviction wouldn't hold up if the perp was fleeing with property the homeowner 'reasonably believes cannot be recovered by any other means'. Given that virtually nothing burglarized is ever recovered, I think shooting someone while fleeing a burglary or robbery (i.e., a burglary while someone is home) is entirely supported by Texas law.
I agree. I hate the gomers myself. I just do not trust the courts, though, as one poster said, better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6.
Sue him? Where's the damage? What harm have they suffered? They have no basis for any claim whatsoever.
Injury to their self esteem? Post tramatic burglary apprehension stress disorder?
My TV is worth more to me than a criminal's life. His life may be valuable to him or to his mother - but his disappearance from the planet won't hurt me at all. So it makes some sense that I can act to protect what is valuable to me - at the expense of his life.
That said, one's life is made much easier if one can articulate a perceived bodily threat from the perp. Which is why you always say "I thought he was gonna kill me..." and leave the rest to your lawyer.
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.