911 Call of Man that Shot and Killed 2 People

[legelegel]

Listen to the 911 call of a homeowner that shot and killed 2 people that were burglarizing the house next door. Do you think he has some legal problems over this shooting?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1195171937

[bigbadbob]

This guy is screwed. I kind of feel sorry for him, he was doing what he thought was right...but the operator was right, property is not worth killing someone over. If they were in his house or in a house with other people, then fine. But to go outside and confront them, is going to be a real close call.

[OSUFan]

[QUOTE=legelegel;612]Listen to the 911 call of a homeowner that shot and killed 2 people that were burglarizing the house next door. Do you think he has some legal problems over this shooting?

Yep, he's going to jail. What would he be charged with -- first degree manslaughter or first degree murder? I'm not sure I know the difference. It's evident he went out there with the intent to kill.

[jac1599]

Yup, he's gettin' locked up and rightfully so. That was messed up.

[jakeman]

I'm not a lawyer in TX, but I don't believe it's such an open and shut case there. I believe the law there says you can use deadly force to protect your or your neighbors "property".

The story I read said that regardless of what was said, the guy tried to stop them and they lunged for him, so he "defended" himself.

I do know this, I know of a case where a DA refused to press charges because in his county he didn't think he could seat 12 jurors to convict in similar case. We'll see. It ain't the old west, but I think most folks have had enough. JMHO

[jac1599]

Good point in deed. It is Texas and those Texans are crazy.

[legelegel]

Fleeing Felon Rule is limited to non-lethal force in most cases.

In the United States this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=471&page=1) (1985), which held that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Please note the use of the word "officer".

If these two felons were running away, the neighbor could not shoot them. He may have been able to justify shooting them when they were entering the neighbors home or while in the neighbors home. But that is not the case here. No civilian has the right to kill someone who has stolen person property and is running away.

[jakeman]

Fleeing Felon Rule is limited to non-lethal force in most cases.

In the United States this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=471&page=1) (1985), which held that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Please note the use of the word "officer".

If these two felons were running away, the neighbor could not shoot them. He may have been able to justify shooting them when they were entering the neighbors home or while in the neighbors home. But that is not the case here. No civilian has the right to kill someone who has stolen person property and is running away.

Does not apply. Not even close. Find the Texas State Statute.

[jakeman]

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

That allows him to protect his neighbor's house as if it were his own if he was asked to keep an eye on the place.

Plus the revisions made earlier this year...

Quote:
The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

I really like this part

(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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't cut and dry. Depending on where he is in Texas, he might be charged, but I don't think they could get a conviction. I'm telling ya, hard working, honest people have had "by God enough" of this kinda crap, and if they are in the right place you couldn't find 12 people in 4 counties that would convict. JMHO

[legelegel]

Does not apply. Not even close. Find the Texas State Statute.

I believe you are dead wrong. No pun intended. The Texas Deadly Force Self Defense Law is about using deadly force on an "intruder".

Texas Governor Rick Perry has signed a new state law that will allow Texans to use deadly force "without retreat" when defending themselves inside their homes, cars and workplaces. The law will go into effect on Sept. 1, 2007.

A law originally enacted in 1973 required Texans to attempt to retreat when criminally attacked. In 1995, the state legislature passed an exception to that law allowing the use of force without retreat when the intruder had illegally entered the victim's home. The law just signed by Gov. Perry extends the 1995 exception beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces. The law, SB 378 (http://http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00378F.pdf) , allows the reasonable use of deadly force without retreat when the intruder is:

- committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
- unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
- unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

The law provides both criminal and civil immunity for persons lawfully using deadly force in the above circumstances.

"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature," states Gov. Perry on his Web site.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2007/03/29/texas-to-enact-deadly-force-self-defense-law.htm (http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2007/03/29/texas-to-enact-deadly-force-self-defense-law.htm)

[jakeman]

I believe you are dead wrong. No pun intended. The Texas Deadly Force Self Defense Law is about using deadly force on an "intruder".


Again, I don't believe you have the applicable law there LE.

[legelegel]

Again, I don't believe you have the applicable law there LE.

I know of no other law.

Our Courts are not going to allow just anyone to execute capital punishment on a thief, who is in flight and who is not known to be potentially dangerous, when the Courts cannot do it.

[jakeman]

I know of no other law.

Our Courts are not going to allow just anyone to execute capital punishment on a thief, who is in flight and who is not known to be potentially dangerous, when the Courts cannot do it.


Did you read the Texas State statute that I posted above?

I believe it's very, very clear on the intent of the law. JMHO

[legelegel]

I have read your quote of Sec. 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property and it appears that we are talking about two different laws. Do you have a link to your quote?

I find the following part of the law troubling:

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment;

So if the thief is running down the street with a stolen loaf of bread, he is fair game now? I don't think so and never will our courts when it is tested. This recent shooting may just be that case. But someone from the criminals' family will probably be the ones to test it by bringing a wrongful death case if they can.

[legelegel]

jakeman, you need to read the rest of the Penal Code of Texas, Sections 9.41. and 9.42

http://www.texaspolicecentral.com/2007_-_2008_Penal_Code.pdf

It qualifies your quote of the law some what. :)

[jakeman]

I have read your quote of Sec. 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property and it appears that we are talking about two different laws. Do you have a link to your quote?

I find the following part of the law troubling:



So if the thief is running down the street with a stolen loaf of bread, he is fair game now? I don't think so and never will our courts when it is tested. This recent shooting may just be that case. But someone from the criminals' family will probably be the ones to test it by bringing a wrongful death case if they can.

I'm pretty sure the statute I quoted is the applicable statute. Your fleeing felon statute most certainly does not apply. This was not a commissioned police officer, and the standards are vastly different when it comes to the use of deadly force.

You can be troubled about it all you want. Move to Texas and talk to your new local lawmakers. But I will guarantee you, if someone criminally tries to remove me from any where and I have a way to end their life, they better have said their prayers. I believe this speaks directly to home invasions, carjackings, and kidnapping. I'm not a lawyer, I may have misinterpreted.

If you live in TX and he stole that loaf of bread from you or your neighbor that just happened to have said, "hey watch my place while I'm at work", yeah he might just be fair game. Again, I think honest, hard working victims have had enough of this $hit, and their lawmakers have listened and passed laws that discourage criminal activity. But, TJMHO.

The guy may very well be charged and do time over this, I couldn't know, but the law, I believe it's known as the "Castle Doctrine" in Texas, seems pretty clear. Did he meet all the criteria to be legal? Again I just couldn't know. But, it does not appear to be an open and shut case.

As with OJ, a civil case is not dependent on conviction in a related criminal case, but again, I'm not sure a Texas jury would award the relatives of a criminal killed in the act of a crime much in the way of damages. But, TJMHO.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I'll defer to the police investigation, the DA and a Grand Jury if it gets that far.

[jakeman]

jakeman, you need to read the rest of the Penal Code of Texas as it pertains to self-defense. It's under Chapter C, Protection of Persons, Sec. 9.31. Self-Defense.

http://www.texaspolicecentral.com/2007_-_2008_Penal_Code.pdf

I qualifies your quote of the law some what. :)


I read it, and first off I don't believe that is the latest revision of the law, and second I see nothing in 9.31 that prohibits the use of deadly force as it is deemed lawful " as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.", but that's just me.

[legelegel]

I'm pretty sure the statute I quoted is the applicable statute. Your fleeing felon statute most certainly does not apply. This was not a commissioned police officer, and the standards are vastly different when it comes to the use of deadly force.

You can be troubled about it all you want. Move to Texas and talk to your new local lawmakers. But I will guarantee you, if someone criminally tries to remove me from any where and I have a way to end their life, they better have said their prayers. I believe this speaks directly to home invasions, carjackings, and kidnapping. I'm not a lawyer, I may have misinterpreted.

If you live in TX and he stole that loaf of bread from you or your neighbor that just happened to have said, "hey watch my place while I'm at work", yeah he might just be fair game.

Again, I think honest, hard working victims have had enough of this $hit, and their lawmakers have listened and passed laws that discourage criminal activity. But, TJMHO.

The guy may very well be charged and do time over this, I couldn't know, but the law, I believe it's known as the "Castle Doctrine" in Texas, seems pretty clear. Did he meet all the criteria to be legal? Again I just couldn't know. But, it does not appear to be an open and shut case.

As with OJ, a civil case is not dependent on conviction in a related criminal case, but again, I'm not sure a Texas jury would award the relatives of a criminal killed in the act of a crime much in the way of damages. But, TJMHO.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I'll defer to the police investigation, the DA and a Grand Jury if it gets that far.

Are you saying that you would shoot a 12 year old in the back that just stole a loaf of bread from your home or place of work?

Maybe you will become more reasonable and compassionate as Christmas approaches. :)

[jakeman]

Are you saying that you would shoot someone in the back that just stole a loaf of bread from your home or place of work?

No, I'm not, and you damn well know it, so don't try and pull that crap with me okay? You didn't ask if "I" would shoot him, and I never said "I" would. If you can't debate this without resorting to that, then I'll be done with you, completely.

Evidently your reading comprehension ain't all that grand. Again, I never said I would do anything. Read the statute. I'll stand by the law. Again, people have had enough of being victims. Evidently the Texas lawmakers have had enough also.

I will tell you what I would do. If I caught a criminal robbing my place and I was armed, I would attempt to stop them. If they fled, they would most likely get away. If they made even one small hint of a move in my direction that I perceived as a threat, yeah, I'd kill them. Right where they stand. Without hesitation. The burden I carry as a citizen defending my life is vastly different than the burden I carried as a police officer. If I'm legal, and I'm defending my property on my property and I perceive a threat to my physical well being, and I'm capable of defending myself, I will. I will not allow my self to become unarmed due to being strong armed by a criminal if I'm armed. As a police officer, it would not have been legal to have shot an empty handed assailant. That isn't true as a citizen defending my life or a loved ones life on my property in this state. So, yeah, if I caught a burglar in my front yard with a loaf of bread he had taken from my kitchen and in attempting to stop him I perceived a threat to my life, I would kill him if I thought it would preserve my life.

[legelegel]

Please note the use of deadly force is limited to nighttime in the protection of property.



SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§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.

(Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff. 9/1/94.)

§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.

(Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff. 9/1/94.)

[jakeman]

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§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.

(Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff. 9/1/94.)

§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.

(Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff. 9/1/94.)


You are going to read it how you are reading it. And again, this isn't the statute that pertains to this case, it was a third persons property, and that's a different section, but.........

(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


Read it with the commas in the right place, and see if it doesn't read and mean something completely different that the words you highlighted in red out of context. The law does not exclude daytime criminal activity. It explicitly includes specific "nighttime" criminal activity.


How about the portion you were so troubled about before? You still find it troubling that someone would be lawfully able to prevent themselves from being carjacked? You don't believe that someone has the right to prevent a carjacking or home invasion if they have the means? I find that VERY troubling.

[legelegel]

You are going to read it how you are reading it. And again, this isn't the statute that pertains to this case, it was a third persons property, and that's a different section, but.........

(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


Read it with the commas in the right place, and see if it doesn't read and mean something completely different that the words you highlighted in red out of context. The law does not exclude daytime criminal activity. It explicitly includes specific "nighttime" criminal activity.


How about the portion you were so troubled about before? You still find it troubling that someone would be lawfully able to prevent themselves from being carjacked? You don't believe that someone has the right to prevent a carjacking or home invasion if they have the means? I find that VERY troubling.

Sec. 9.43 makes reference to Sec. 9.41 and 9.42 and makes them a part of 9.43.

I never said anything about a carjacking or a home invasion being at issue. Where did I said that?

If those two criminal acts where taking place, I would say kill the bastards on the spot. I was writing about the case at hand and the thief of property and the thief is fleeing.

You still did not answer my question about the fleeing load of bread and what you would do to get it back.

[jakeman]

I never said that. Where did I said that?



I find the following part of the law troubling:

Quote:
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment;Post #14 in this thread. Did you not say that? I think you did.

I just find it troubling that you would find it troubling.

[legelegel]

Post #14 in this thread. Did you not say that? I think you did.

I just find it troubling that you would find it troubling.


What is it that you think that I find troubling with this part of the law?

Are you reading all my replies?

Shooting a fleeing felon, with stuff in his hand, in the back is the only thing I find a bit troubling.

[jakeman]

Sec. 9.43 makes reference to Sec. 9.41 and 9.42 and makes them a part of 9.43.

But the portions you highlighted in red and took out of context don't apply.

I never said anything about a carjacking or a home invasion being at issue. Where did I said that?

Yes you did. I think you just misinterpreted the statute, like you continue to do.


You still did not answer my question about the fleeing load of bread and what you would do to get it back.

Your reading comprehension is really bad. Yes, I did. But you keep going back and substantially editing what you said. We changed from a fleeing thief, to a fleeing 12 year old, and now it's just the loaf of bread that's fleeing. So, I really think I'm done with this argument with you.

[jakeman]

What is it that you think that I find troubling with this part of the law?

I don't really know. You said you were troubled by it. Why don't you explain to me why you are troubled by a victim preventing himself from being criminally removed from his home, car or place of business.

Are you reading all my replies?

I'd really ask you the same question.

[legelegel]

But the portions you highlighted in red and took out of context don't apply.



Yes you did. I think you just misinterpreted the statute, like you continue to do.




Your reading comprehension is really bad. Yes, I did. But you keep going back and substantially editing what you said. We changed from a fleeing thief, to a fleeing 12 year old, and now it's just the loaf of bread that's fleeing. So, I really think I'm done with this argument with you.

Does the age really matter? I was trying to make it easier for you to say you would not shoot a child who was a fleeing felon.

[jakeman]

Shooting a fleeing felon, with stuff in his hand, in the back is the only thing I find a bit troubling.


Where in the hell did anyone either (a) shoot a fleeing felon or (b) even say that they would? Good grief man. This statute or specific case has nothing to do with a fleeing felon law. That pertains to law enforcement, and in particular to DOC officers. The force I was on had a specific, detailed policy about not shooting a fleeing felon and "warning shots" because a fleeing felon got shot when he didn't have to get shot. The shoot, by the way was found to be a good shoot, and no action was taken against the officer, but it did precipitate a policy change, because the dude really didn't need to die. The DOC officers that we worked with in the event of an escaped convict operated under a very different set of rules. This case and this statue has to do with the use of deadly force by a "citizen" to protect his or a third parties property if so authorized to do so by the third party, or as specifically noted in the statute.

[legelegel]

§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.

(Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff. 9/1/94.)

[jakeman]

Does the age really matter? I was trying to make it easier for you to say you would not shoot a child who was a fleeing felon.

You are really something aren't you? If it didn't matter, why did you go back and change it??

Could you cite me the jurisdiction and applicable statute that makes the shoplifting of a 99 cent loaf of bread a felony? If he stole if off someone's counter while they were at home, that would probably constitute a felony, but shooting him in the back as he ran home down the block isn't really the same thing as being confronted (or confronting if you prefer) in your front or side yard a crowbar wielding burglar.

And I'll also tell you that under the right circumstances a fleeing felon, regardless of his age, would get shot if he was an imminent danger to a citizen or a police officer. Easy or not. Your example of a loaf of bread just makes you look like your grasping.

[jakeman]

§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.

(Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff. 9/1/94.)

Do you have a point in there somewhere?

You gonna tell me why you are so troubled about someone preventing a home invasion, carjacking or kidnapping by the use of deadly force?

[legelegel]

You are really something aren't you? If it didn't matter, why did you go back and change it??

Could you cite me the jurisdiction and applicable statute that makes the shoplifting of a 99 cent loaf of bread a felony? If he stole if off someone's counter while they were at home, that would probably constitute a felony, but shooting him in the back as he ran home down the block isn't really the same thing as being confronted (or confronting if you prefer) in your front or side yard a crowbar wielding burglar.

And I'll also tell you that under the right circumstances a fleeing felon, regardless of his age, would get shot if he was an imminent danger to a citizen or a police officer. Easy or not. Your example of a loaf of bread just makes you look like your grasping.

Now that I have unintentionally and successfully upset you please help me with this part of the law:


(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

[legelegel]

§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.

(Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff. 9/1/94.)

[jakeman]

Now that I have unintentionally and successfully upset you please help me with this part of the law:



You're pretty big on answering questions with questions, aren't you? What portion of that don't you understand? You keep snipping pieces of the statute, when I would think you being a lawyer would know that you can't really do that. They unlawfully dispossessed his neighbor of his rightful property. I don't think they dropped the bag and he recovered the property until after he shot them. It wasn't his property, according to the statute it didn't have to be. According to him, he confronted them, and they weren't "fleeing". They, according to the "actor", made an offensive move toward them, and he felt his life was imminently threatened, so he defended himself. Again, if you've got problems with the law as written, take it up with the Texas legislature.

Are you ever gonna tell me what you find troubling about someone defending themselves against a home invasion, carjacking or kidnapping from their place of business or employment? If you wanna just go ahead and admit that you horribly misinterpreted what the law said, I'll be okay with that, and I'll just further discount your entire argument here, but I'm not sure I could discount it anymore than I already do.

[legelegel]

§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.

(Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff. 9/1/94.)

http://www.texaspolicecentral.com/2007_-_2008_Penal_Code.pdf

[legelegel]

You're pretty big on answering questions with questions, aren't you? What portion of that don't you understand? You keep snipping pieces of the statute, when I would think you being a lawyer would know that you can't really do that. They unlawfully dispossessed his neighbor of his rightful property. I don't think they dropped the bag and he recovered the property until after he shot them. It wasn't his property, according to the statute it didn't have to be. According to him, he confronted them, and they weren't "fleeing". They, according to the "actor", made an offensive move toward them, and he felt his life was imminently threatened, so he defended himself. Again, if you've got problems with the law as written, take it up with the Texas legislature.
Are you ever gonna tell me what you find troubling about someone defending themselves against a home invasion, carjacking or kidnapping from their place of business or employment? If you wanna just go ahead and admit that you horribly misinterpreted what the law said, I'll be okay with that, and I'll just further discount your entire argument here, but I'm not sure I could discount it anymore than I already do.

You brought up home invasion, carjacking or kidnapping. I did not. I never said I had an issue with deadly force involving these types of crimes.

I have a problem only with a citizen being able to use deadly force in his attempt to recover his personal property or the personal property of others when the thief is running away. The Texas Law appears exclude this from being a criminal act.

Please read my post #35 and tell me were I am wrong.

[jakeman]

§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.

(Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff. 9/1/94.)


Really, please show me where what you highlighted in blue doesn't apply here. Show me where he broke the letter of the law. Look, the guy might be indicted, but it just isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it, not according to the statute.

To address your blue highlights.

He used deadly force. I'll submit the two dead guys as evidence of that.

He was justified under 9.41 as I read the statute. Correctly me specifically if you think I'm wrong. Make an argument, but don't just repost a snippet of the statute. Please???

They were gonna flee, they didn't get a chance, but there is not a doubt in my mind, or his probably, that they intended to leave and escape with the stolen goods in the pillowcase.

Whether or not he reasonably believed the stolen goods, (it happened to be cash in this case, a pillow sack full of cash), could be recovered later or by talking them out of it I just couldn't know. Maybe they were just gonna borrow it for a while to invest in Boone's hedge fund and then return all the cash and most of the profits. Maybe it was reasonable to believe they would just hand it over, but apparently they didn't or they wouldn't be dead. According to the account I read they didn't drop the sack until after they were shot. I'm gonna guess they were shot after he threatened them with being shot. I'd say if you didn't drop the goods and made an offensive move toward a redneck in Texas holding a shotgun you didn't plan on giving up the ill gotten booty. I'd also say you weren't real bright.

What's your point?

I'm still not sure he won't be indicted. I've said it before, I'll defer to the investigators, the DA and a Grand Jury. If he is he is. I probably wouldn't have gone outside, but once he did, he crossed a line that you can't easily retreat from. If they had taken the shotgun away from him and killed him, even though he had a legal right to be there, in his own yard, exercising his 2nd amendment right, would this have made the news? Was he stupid? Probably. Was what he did criminal? Maybe. Should he have feared for his life? Can't say. It might have been reasonable to do so. Should he be punished for being stupid by having his own firearm taken away from him by a criminal and having his life snuffed out by his own gun? I don't think so. Is robbing houses in broad daylight in Texas a hazardous way to make a living? In this particular case, I'd say yeah, it certainly seems that way.

[mejake007]

just you two wait until JD finds this thread...both ya'll are in for it!

[jakeman]

You brought up home invasion, carjacking or kidnapping. I did not. I never said I had an issue with deadly force involving these types of crimes.

Yes you did. Clearly. You said it troubled you. Post #14. Go back and read it and see if that isn't what you said. That's the portion of the law that addresses those types of crimes and a victim's right to use deadly force to defend himself, and you said you "found it troubling". Is that not what you said, or just not what you meant? Please clarify.

I have a problem only with a citizen being able to use deadly force in his attempt to recover his personal property or the personal property of others when the thief is running away. The Texas Law appears exclude this from being a criminal act.

Again, take it up with the Texas legislature. I don't think since you can vote for or against them, they really care what you have a problem with. I could be wrong, maybe they are deeply concerned with what troubles you, but I doubt it.

Please read my post #35 and tell me were I am wrong.

You didn't make a post in #35. You did the same thing you've done since this started. You refuse to make an argument, and just keep posting snippets from the statute and highlighting portions of it hoping it will be taken out of context.

[legelegel]

Really, please show me where what you highlighted in blue doesn't apply here. Show me where he broke the letter of the law. Look, the guy might be indicted, but it just isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it, not according to the statute.

To address your blue highlights.

He used deadly force. I'll submit the two dead guys as evidence of that.

He was justified under 9.41 as I read the statute. Correctly me specifically if you think I'm wrong. Make an argument, but don't just repost a snippet of the statute. Please???

They were gonna flee, they didn't get a chance, but there is not a doubt in my mind, or his probably, that they intended to leave and escape with the stolen goods in the pillowcase.

Whether or not he reasonably believed the stolen goods, (it happened to be cash in this case, a pillow sack full of cash), could be recovered later or by talking them out of it I just couldn't know. Maybe they were just gonna borrow it for a while to invest in Boone's hedge fund and then return all the cash and most of the profits. Maybe it was reasonable to believe they would just hand it over, but apparently they didn't or they wouldn't be dead. According to the account I read they didn't drop the sack until after they were shot. I'm gonna guess they were shot after he threatened them with being shot. I'd say if you didn't drop the goods and made an offensive move toward a redneck in Texas holding a shotgun you didn't plan on giving up the ill gotten booty. I'd also say you weren't real bright.

What's your point?

I'm still not sure he won't be indicted. I've said it before, I'll defer to the investigators, the DA and a Grand Jury. If he is he is. I probably wouldn't have gone outside, but once he did, he crossed a line that you can't easily retreat from. If they had taken the shotgun away from him and killed him, even though he had a legal right to be there, in his own yard, exercising his 2nd amendment right, would this have made the news? Was he stupid? Probably. Was what he did criminal? Maybe. Should he have feared for his life? Can't say. It might have been reasonable to do so. Should he be punished for being stupid by having his own firearm taken away from him by a criminal and having his life snuffed out by his own gun? I don't think so. Is robbing houses in broad daylight in Texas a hazardous way to make a living? In this particular case, I'd say yeah, it certainly seems that way.

Please let me correct your possible typo. He would be justified to use deadly force under Sec. 9.42 and not under Sec. 9.41.

You asked, "Was what he did criminal?"

The answer is certainly subjective under the law and it appears to me if his thoughts were correct he could have shot these two as they were running away from him under Texas Law. That decision to shoot or not shoot should be made only by a trained law enforcement officer and not by a citizen.

[jakeman]

just you two wait until JD finds this thread...both ya'll are in for it!

I'd love to hear JD's take on it. At least he would make an argument I could understand. I've seen the statute about 20 times now. In blue and in red. I think I got it, but I'd like to hear JD's interpretation of the statute.

I'm not for vigilante justice, by the way, but I do think folks have had enough of standing by while their neighborhoods become playgrounds for robbers and thieves. Home invasions scare the crap out of me. Badly.

[legelegel]

I'd love to hear JD's take on it. At least he would make an argument I could understand. I've seen the statute about 20 times now. In blue and in red. I think I got it, but I'd like to hear JD's interpretation of the statute.

I'm not for vigilante justice, by the way, but I do think folks have had enough of standing by while their neighborhoods become playgrounds for robbers and thieves. Home invasions scare the crap out of me. Badly.

Me too.................

I apologize for any misunderstanding and for possibly not being more clear. But we got off to a bad start on a some subjective laws. I was also trying to review the Texas law as I tried to answer your replies, which was a mistake.

You never did answer whether you thought a citizen of Texas can shoot a fleeing theft under Sec. 9.42. :)

[jakeman]

That decision to shoot or not shoot should be made only by a trained law enforcement officer and not by a citizen.


The State of Texas' legislature disagrees with you. I'm certain most of it's residents do also.

[legelegel]

The State of Texas' legislature disagrees with you. I'm certain most of it's residents do also.

I did not say citizens should not be able to protect themselves, if that is what you are trying to say in your previous reply.

Again, the only issue that I was making, was the on the apparent legalized shooting of a fleeing thief by a citizen.

I hope that is clear now, if it wasn't earlier.

[mejake007]

chaps threads are less painful

[jakeman]

Me too.................

I apologize for any misunderstanding and for possibly not being more clear. But we got off to a bad start on a some subjective laws. I was also trying to review the Texas law as I tried to answer your replies, which was a mistake.

You never did answer whether you thought a citizen of Texas can shoot a fleeing theft under Sec. 9.42. :)

You're a lawyer, I'm not, but I think the law is rather clear.I'm still waiting on the obvious question as it would relate to this case. My answer will be " I don't know", but I think most of the crux of the case lies in the answer to that question, and it will relate the guy's relationship with the neighbor. They might be best friends, and they may have never spoken to each other. I just don't know, but an investigator will know in very short order.

[legelegel]

chaps threads are less painful

Now there's an understatement. :)

[osupsycho]

Wow I can't believe it! We have the first real argument, and BBB and JD aren't involved!!

Not only that but this thread is currently way longer than the chaps thread...:eek:

[bleedorange]

legel, you have continually tried to portray this as the intentional heinous shooting in the back of a couple of harmless punks running down the street with a $2 bag of trinkets.

That really WOULD be an unfortunate story. Thankfully, it sounds nothing like what happened here.

What I gathered from the story:

1. 2 men looted the neighbors house
2. When fleeing and confronted, they made offensive actions towards do-gooder.
3. Do-gooder felt threatened and shot thieves.

I'm not losing too much sleep over this. The thieves had the opportunity to remain alive by not stealing. It is their actions that have caused them to be less than alive. Tough.

One thing's for certain, they are not going to rob anyone else's house, and that's fine by me.

[Verb]

chaps threads are less painful

I dunno about that...

Have YOU ever worn chaps?

[legelegel]

legel, you have continually tried to portray this as the intentional heinous shooting in the back of a couple of harmless punks running down the street with a $2 bag of trinkets.

That really WOULD be an unfortunate story. Thankfully, it sounds nothing like what happened here.

What I gathered from the story:

1. 2 men looted the neighbors house
2. When fleeing and confronted, they made offensive actions towards do-gooder.
3. Do-gooder felt threatened and shot thieves.

I'm not losing too much sleep over this. The thieves had the opportunity to remain alive by not stealing. It is their actions that have caused them to be less than alive. Tough.

One thing's for certain, they are not going to rob anyone else's house, and that's fine by me.

I was not trying portray this particular case into an intentional heinous shooting in the back.

I was trying to discuss and determine whether under Texas law this man could have shot these two if they where running away from him.

I agree that it appears everything else you have said is correct.

[bleedorange]

“He may have been able to justify shooting them when they were entering the neighbors home or while in the neighbors home. But that is not the case here. No civilian has the right to kill someone who has stolen person property and is running away.”

“Our Courts are not going to allow just anyone to execute capital punishment on a thief, who is in flight and who is not known to be potentially dangerous, when the Courts cannot do it.”

“So if the thief is running down the street with a stolen loaf of bread, he is fair game now? I don't think so and never will our courts when it is tested. This recent shooting may just be that case.”

“Shooting a fleeing felon, with stuff in his hand, in the back is the only thing I find a bit troubling.”

“I have a problem only with a citizen being able to use deadly force in his attempt to recover his personal property or the personal property of others when the thief is running away.”

“That decision to shoot or not shoot should be made only by a trained law enforcement officer and not by a citizen.”

“Again, the only issue that I was making, was the on the apparent legalized shooting of a fleeing thief by a citizen.”

ALL of your quotes are addressing shooting a thief in the back, while running away.

In the event that you quoted, it appears that is not the case. If you wanted to argue about whether or not a citizen can shoot a fleeing suspect in the back, perhaps you should have provided a more appropriate 911 call as an example.

Hopefully you can get the jest of this without all the fancy colors.

[CowboyJD]

I'd love to hear JD's take on it. At least he would make an argument I could understand. I've seen the statute about 20 times now. In blue and in red. I think I got it, but I'd like to hear JD's interpretation of the statute.

I'm not for vigilante justice, by the way, but I do think folks have had enough of standing by while their neighborhoods become playgrounds for robbers and thieves. Home invasions scare the crap out of me. Badly.

Here you go. We're going to have to make a couple assumptions to keep this somewhat short. Otherwise, we'd be exploring the issues for a long, long time.

I'm going to assume this guy thought there was a burglary going on, and that he shot them to protect "the land", "homestead", or "whatever" rather than upon observing them remove "moveable property". The odd thing about 9.43 is that you have to have been asked to protect, have a duty to protect, or be related as in the statute in order to use force to protect land, but if it's moveable property you don't. If it's moveable property you only have to reasonably believe "constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property".

In order to be able to use DEADLY force to protect the LAND of another, you're going to have to meet the qualifications of 9.41 and 9.42 (which would mean you could use deadly force to protect your own land) AND meet the second qualification in 9.43 (asked to protect, duty to protect, statutory connection).

So now on to 9.41 and 9.42. Merging the qualifications in those two statutes, he would be allowed to use deadly force in protection of his own land IF:

-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 (from 9.41)

AND

-to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery,
aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime

-and he reasonably believes that the land cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or 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.

So if he shoots them during the imminent commission of or fleeing from the commission of any of those crimes (burglary is what we're talking about here), then he would be pretty safe shooting them if it was on his own property AND he's going to be pretty safe shooting them on his neighbors property IF he's been asked to look after the place, has a duty to do so, or the place belongs to someone with one of those connections to him in the statute.

I agree with Jakeman and disagree with legelegel that the references to nighttime DO NOT require that the burglary be performed at night, but are rather referring to a specific crime of "theft during the nighttime", etc.

This guy has some pretty viable defenses, although they will be pretty fact intensive. They will turn on what crime he reasonably believed was being committed by the now dead guys, whether he had been asked to protect the property by the neighbor (including how explicit that has to be to justify deadly force), etc.

Oh yeah....the Fleeing Felon Rule has NO application here. That is a constitutional law standard for use of deadly force by state actors. We're talking about private individuals here.

The shocking thing to me in reading these statutes (assuming they are correct...I didn't do the research myself) is that they indicate individuals can use deadly force against a nighttime car thief....even if he's fleeing the scene. That means that arguably, a private citizen would have authority and justification to use deadly force in a situation where a law enforcement officer WOULD NOT....because of the fleeing felon rule.

I'm not sure how the courts would view that particular fact.

Short enough for you?:D

[legelegel]

ALL of your quotes are addressing shooting a thief in the back, while running away.

In the event that you quoted, it appears that is not the case. If you wanted to argue about whether or not a citizen can shoot a fleeing suspect in the back, perhaps you should have provided a more appropriate 911 call as an example.

Hopefully you can get the jest of this without all the fancy colors.

I think this is a very appropriate case, because I believe this man was going to shoot these thieves even if they had not confronted him.

I'll try to cut down on the color emphasis just for you. I know you have expressed dismay with it before. :)

[CowboyJD]

I think this is a very appropriate case, because I believe this man was going to shoot these thieves even if they had not confronted him.

I'll try to cut down on the color emphasis just for you. I know you have expressed dismay with it before. :)

I don't think that's an appropriate case at all, because we're discussing and dealing with what he actually may have done....not what he would have done had the facts been different.

[CowboyJD]

Me too.................

I apologize for any misunderstanding and for possibly not being more clear. But we got off to a bad start on a some subjective laws. I was also trying to review the Texas law as I tried to answer your replies, which was a mistake.

You never did answer whether you thought a citizen of Texas can shoot a fleeing theft under Sec. 9.42. :)

I think the law, as written, WOULD allow an individual to exercise deadly force against a fleeing nighttime thief IF he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; OR the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

As I said before, I'm not sure how the court would view the constitutionality of that application, but the FIRST guy that used the statute to do it would be in pretty good shape from a criminal defense viewpoint.

[bigbadbob]

I'll agree that his defenses are pretty fact intensive. However, taken in context of his 911 call, he actually did have the intent to kill them when he walked out of the house, he said he was going to and did...so his claims that "they came after me" and he "had no choice" are going to be viewed in that light. Also, I am not sure with whether he "reasonably" did anything-bu that will be for the DA then jury to decide.

I am not sure how many states have similar rules to TX, but I would guess that this is one of the most property protectant statutes there is.

Another fact to consider is that in Oklahoma this would be Burglary II, HOWEVER, the traditional common law definition of Burglary is a breaking and Entering of a dwelling in the nighttime with the intent o commit a felony therein. I don't know what the burglary statute in TX is, but if it was the common law definition, then they wouldn't have been burglarizing the home (I thought I read that it ws in the daytime), so I don't know which of the crimes that are protected he would have been committing.

As for whether it is morally right, I don't believe citizens should be going outside, armed, when they know it is a property crime. Thats just asking for trouble, and all over a TV or some jewelry.

I also think it is unfortunate that it took the police several minutes to arrive. In my community, they would be there in much less time with a crime in progress, but I don't knwo anything about the size of the community, what else was going on, or any other things.

[legelegel]

Here you go. We're going to have to make a couple assumptions to keep this somewhat short. Otherwise, we'd be exploring the issues for a long, long time.

I'm going to assume this guy thought there was a burglary going on, and that he shot them to protect "the land", "homestead", or "whatever" rather than upon observing them remove "moveable property". The odd thing about 9.43 is that you have to have been asked to protect, have a duty to protect, or be related as in the statute in order to use force to protect land, but if it's moveable property you don't. If it's moveable property you only have to reasonably believe "constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property".

In order to be able to use DEADLY force to protect the LAND of another, you're going to have to meet the qualifications of 9.41 and 9.42 (which would mean you could use deadly force to protect your own land) AND meet the second qualification in 9.43 (asked to protect, duty to protect, statutory connection).

So now on to 9.41 and 9.42. Merging the qualifications in those two statutes, he would be allowed to use deadly force in protection of his own land IF:

-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 (from 9.41)

AND

-to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery,
aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime

-and he reasonably believes that the land cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or 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.

So if he shoots them during the imminent commission of or fleeing from the commission of any of those crimes (burglary is what we're talking about here), then he would be pretty safe shooting them if it was on his own property AND he's going to be pretty safe shooting them on his neighbors property IF he's been asked to look after the place, has a duty to do so, or the place belongs to someone with one of those connections to him in the statute.

I agree with Jakeman and disagree with legelegel that the references to nighttime DO NOT require that the burglary be performed at night, but are rather referring to a specific crime of "theft during the nighttime", etc.

This guy has some pretty viable defenses, although they will be pretty fact intensive. They will turn on what crime he reasonably believed was being committed by the now dead guys, whether he had been asked to protect the property by the neighbor (including how explicit that has to be to justify deadly force), etc.

Oh yeah....the Fleeing Felon Rule has NO application here. That is a constitutional law standard for use of deadly force by state actors. We're talking about private individuals here.

The shocking thing to me in reading these statutes (assuming they are correct...I didn't do the research myself) is that they indicate individuals can use deadly force against a nighttime car thief....even if he's fleeing the scene. That means that arguably, a private citizen would have authority and justification to use deadly force in a situation where a law enforcement officer WOULD NOT....because of the fleeing felon rule.

I'm not sure how the courts would view that particular fact.

Short enough for you?:D

I had come to the same conclusions about the "thief fleeing during the nighttime" limitations earlier this morning.

I too was having trouble with the fact that an ordinary citizen has more authority to use deadly force than a police officer.

Without looking at the case law in Texas, it appears that a citizen can shoot a burglar, robber, aggravated robber at any time of day when he is running away and you don't have to pull him back into your house, and your neighbor can do the same if certain criteria are met. In the case of the neighbor, he is just guessing that what is in the sack is worth killing someone.

[legelegel]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5766452

Pasadena man says shooting suspected burglars 'weighs heavy' on him

(11/16/07 - PASADENA, TX) A 61-year-old Pasadena man, who shot and killed two men he believed were burglarizing a neighbor's home, said Friday the shooting would "weigh heavily" on him.

But the tape of Joe Horn's call to 911 reveals his determination to stop the men he saw leaving a neighbor's house against the dispatcher's clear warnings to stay inside.

Horn, in a written statement issued by his lawyers, also expressed sympathy for the families of the two burglary suspects, Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30.

"Any loss of life casts permanent devastation over the lives of everyone involved," Horn said. "The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life. My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased."

Horn fatally shot the two men Wednesday afternoon with a 12-gauge shotgun after he saw them breaking into a neighbor's house. He confronted DeJesus and Ortiz as they were leaving the home through a gate leading to the front yard.

Horn called 911 first, and told a police dispatcher that he planned to kill the two men -- just moments before he opened fire. "I'm not going to let them go. I'm not going to let them get away with this," Joe Horn tells the dispatcher.

Moments later, Horn tells the operator: "I'm gonna shoot. I'm gonna shoot."
"Stay inside the house and don't go out there," the dispatcher tells Horn in a calm, measured voice. "I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting someone over this."

The neighbors, who Horn told the dispatcher he did not know well, were not at home.

During the 911 call, which runs about six minutes, the dispatcher repeatedly tells Horn not to go outside or use his shotgun.

"Mr. Horn, I want you to listen to me carefully, OK? I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house and I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when the officers are poking around out there."

But Horn, who tells the operator that he is upset by a robbery happening in daylight, seems to brush those instructions aside, telling the dispatcher:
"I have a right to protect myself. And a shotgun is a legal weapon. It's not an illegal weapon."

Under state law, Texans are allowed to defend themselves with deadly force to protect their own property. The person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings.
However, it is unclear whether that law extends to using deadly force to protect a neighbor's property.

After Horn spotted the men coming out of the neighbor's house, he tells the dispatcher: "I ain't going to let them get away with this. They stole something. They got a bag. I'm doing this."

"Don't go out the house," the dispatcher cautions. "Don't be shooting nobody."

A few moments later, the click of a shotgun can be heard, then a warning barked by Horn: "Move. You're dead."

Three shotgun blasts follow.

After shooting the suspects, Horn again called police:

"Get the law over here quick. I had no choice," a frantic-sounding Horn says. "They came in the front yard with me. I had no choice."

A Harris County grand jury will decide whether charges will be filed against Horn, said Pasadena Police Capt. A.H. Corbett. As of Friday, no charges had been filed and Horn was not in custody.

[legelegel]

Shooting of burglars in Texas draws debate

Critics condemn him as a vigilante bent on meting out murderous justice. Admirers praise him as a courageous hero whom any law abider would love to have next door.

"Why is he still a free man?" Linda E. Edwards wrote in a letter to The Houston Chronicle.

"Joe Horn gets a Texas 'attaboy' from me," countered John E. Meagher in the next letter on the page, adding: "Justice was served, law or not."

As the debate rages on talk radio and cable news shows, Horn remains free.

However, according to his attorney, he is so overwrought with grief and overwhelmed by the media glare that he's left his home in this blue-collar Houston suburb, best known as the former home of Gilley's, the honky-tonk bar immortalized in the movie "Urban Cowboy."

"Joe has never been anything but a gentle person. He's not the type of monster that they are making him out to be," attorney Tom Lambright said in an interview with Houston radio host Michael Berry, who was playing a spoof of Bob Marley's "I Shot the Sheriff" called "I Shot the Burglar."

Lambright did not return requests for comment.

Authorities are still investigating what happened Nov. 14, but they plan to let a Harris County grand jury decide whether Horn, a former computer consultant, should be charged with any crimes.

"This is not an individual who stepped outside and gunned down two pedestrians on the sidewalk," said Pasadena police Captain A.H. "Bud" Corbett. "In a situation where there is some uncertainty about which side of the law someone was on, the best thing to do is assemble all the information and present it to the grand jury."

Noting Texans' prevailing populist views on guns and self-defense - and the sharply mixed reaction to what Horn did - legal analysts differ over whether a jury of his peers would ever indict him. They also differ on whether one should, given a Texas law known as the "castle doctrine" that permits citizens to use deadly force to defend their homes and cars.

Tommy LaFon, a Houston defense attorney and former prosecutor who has argued about 50 disputed shooting cases before grand juries, said Horn's lawyers may be able to assert that his actions were legal because he was acting as the de facto defender of his neighbor's property.

"He's not drunk at a bar somewhere, he's a guy who intercedes in a situation next door," LaFon said. "If a jury believes he was standing in the shoes of the owner, that might affect their decision."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/27/shooting_of_burglars_in_texas_draws_debate/

[CowboyJD]

I'll agree that his defenses are pretty fact intensive. However, taken in context of his 911 call, he actually did have the intent to kill them when he walked out of the house, he said he was going to and did...so his claims that "they came after me" and he "had no choice" are going to be viewed in that light. Also, I am not sure with whether he "reasonably" did anything-bu that will be for the DA then jury to decide.

I am not sure how many states have similar rules to TX, but I would guess that this is one of the most property protectant statutes there is.

Another fact to consider is that in Oklahoma this would be Burglary II, HOWEVER, the traditional common law definition of Burglary is a breaking and Entering of a dwelling in the nighttime with the intent o commit a felony therein. I don't know what the burglary statute in TX is, but if it was the common law definition, then they wouldn't have been burglarizing the home (I thought I read that it ws in the daytime), so I don't know which of the crimes that are protected he would have been committing.

As for whether it is morally right, I don't believe citizens should be going outside, armed, when they know it is a property crime. Thats just asking for trouble, and all over a TV or some jewelry.

I also think it is unfortunate that it took the police several minutes to arrive. In my community, they would be there in much less time with a crime in progress, but I don't knwo anything about the size of the community, what else was going on, or any other things.

Very good point about the common law definition of burglary. I was definitely thinking of burglary as defined by Oklahoma statutes.

And here's a shocker for everyone....I actually agree with EVERYTHING HE SAID.......EVERYTHING HE SAID in this post.:eek::p:D

[bigbadbob]

Very good point about the common law definition of burglary. I was definitely thinking of burglary as defined by Oklahoma statutes.

And here's a shocker for everyone....I actually agree with EVERYTHING HE SAID.......EVERYTHING HE SAID in this post.:eek::p:D

Holy crap its getting cold down in norman!

[mejake007]

I dunno about that...

Have YOU ever worn chaps?

LOL...umm...no comment

[jakeman]

Here you go. We're going to have to make a couple assumptions to keep this somewhat short. Otherwise, we'd be exploring the issues for a long, long time.

I'm going to assume this guy thought there was a burglary going on, and that he shot them to protect "the land", "homestead", or "whatever" rather than upon observing them remove "moveable property". The odd thing about 9.43 is that you have to have been asked to protect, have a duty to protect, or be related as in the statute in order to use force to protect land, but if it's moveable property you don't. If it's moveable property you only have to reasonably believe "constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property".

In order to be able to use DEADLY force to protect the LAND of another, you're going to have to meet the qualifications of 9.41 and 9.42 (which would mean you could use deadly force to protect your own land) AND meet the second qualification in 9.43 (asked to protect, duty to protect, statutory connection).

So now on to 9.41 and 9.42. Merging the qualifications in those two statutes, he would be allowed to use deadly force in protection of his own land IF:

-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 (from 9.41)

AND

-to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery,
aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime

-and he reasonably believes that the land cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or 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.

So if he shoots them during the imminent commission of or fleeing from the commission of any of those crimes (burglary is what we're talking about here), then he would be pretty safe shooting them if it was on his own property AND he's going to be pretty safe shooting them on his neighbors property IF he's been asked to look after the place, has a duty to do so, or the place belongs to someone with one of those connections to him in the statute.

I agree with Jakeman and disagree with legelegel that the references to nighttime DO NOT require that the burglary be performed at night, but are rather referring to a specific crime of "theft during the nighttime", etc.

This guy has some pretty viable defenses, although they will be pretty fact intensive. They will turn on what crime he reasonably believed was being committed by the now dead guys, whether he had been asked to protect the property by the neighbor (including how explicit that has to be to justify deadly force), etc.

Oh yeah....the Fleeing Felon Rule has NO application here. That is a constitutional law standard for use of deadly force by state actors. We're talking about private individuals here.

The shocking thing to me in reading these statutes (assuming they are correct...I didn't do the research myself) is that they indicate individuals can use deadly force against a nighttime car thief....even if he's fleeing the scene. That means that arguably, a private citizen would have authority and justification to use deadly force in a situation where a law enforcement officer WOULD NOT....because of the fleeing felon rule.

I'm not sure how the courts would view that particular fact.

Short enough for you?:D

I really liked the part where you said I was right! :)

[CowboyJD]

Don't get used to it. :D

[WyomingOSUAlum]

I dunno about that...

Have YOU ever worn chaps?




Still waiting on those photos, Verb!


Geez, I can't believe I didn't see this thread until just now!

[Erick]

I don't think he will be convicted. He told the operator that he was going to stop them, and that he was going to bring his shotgun, for protection. He told the men "stop or your dead" then waited two seconds then shot. Right after, he told the operator that he had no choice, they were coming on his property and he felt threatened. As long as the evidence shows that he shot from his yard and the bad guy was also in his yard, he will walk. I agree with the guy, but dang, there are other ways to go about stopping them than that. There is a moral to this story. When an old man with a scatter-gun tells you to stop, you stop!

[legelegel]

Joe Horn's shooting prompted death threats, a new demonstration law and challenges to the new law.

The two burglars who he killed were illegal aliens. Both were convicted criminals from Columbia and members of an organized burglary ring in Houston. They were breaking into the home of an Vietnamese-American neighbor.

Listen (http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou071210_tnt_joehorndeaththreat.302e7df.html) to the "death threat call" into the District Attorney's Integrity Division.

Horn was not arrested and I see no current update on this case on the Internet.

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou071210_tnt_joehorndeaththreat.302e7df.html

[legelegel]

The shooter and the two dead Hispanics. At least they won't be breaking into anyone else's home and putting someone else's life at risk.


http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/391/joehorn2dp1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[FloridaPoke]

Florida was the first in the nation to enact very tough "make my day" laws and property protection laws that dovetail into the make my day laws.

Most people think of Florida as the 3 mile radius around the beaches, but if you go inland any at all, we are more redneck than Alabama, Georgia or Mississippi.

I, for one, am in favor of these laws, even if there will be some abuse. Criminals ultimately will think twice....or three times.

[MajorMike]

:food-smiley-007:

[Erick]

The shooter and the two dead Hispanics. At least they won't be breaking into anyone else's home and putting someone else's life at risk.


http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/391/joehorn2dp1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I don't know how to break this to you, but mexican, they aint.

[CowboyJD]

Not all hispanics are tan.

They're columbian, btw.

[orangeblood]

This guy wont be charged. This happened in Pasadena months ago and no charges have been filed. This will just be a long drawn out debate and the guy will get off.
I for one am glad he did it! Two less criminals to worry about!

[bleedorange]

Benny Hill killed someone?

[BigBadBen]

I think we need to start putting down more criminals. Maybe that will help the crime rate. It sure will help reduce the tax burden.

If they are dead, no need to jail them, feed them, educate them, etc.

If they are dead, they wont draw food stamps, or other government funding.

If they are dead, they wont be a repeat offender.

If the last person they robbed would have smoked them, this guy would have no issues!

We need to start executing more death row inmates & more folks need to buy firearms to legally protect themself. The criminals already have the weapons, they just dont register them.

I guarantee, somone comes on my property looking to do harm to me or my family, or steal my stuff, they are leaving in a body bag.

[OrangeAggie21]

I think we need to start putting down more criminals. Maybe that will help the crime rate. It sure will help reduce the tax burden.

If they are dead, no need to jail them, feed them, educate them, etc.

If they are dead, they wont draw food stamps, or other government funding.

If they are dead, they wont be a repeat offender.

If the last person they robbed would have smoked them, this guy would have no issues!

We need to start executing more death row inmates & more folks need to buy firearms to legally protect themself. The criminals already have the weapons, they just dont register them.

I guarantee, somone comes on my property looking to do harm to me or my family, or steal my stuff, they are leaving in a body bag.

Amen.

Would I have shot those guys if I were in this man's situation? Probably not. But, if I were a juror would I convict him? Hell no.

[jakeman]

I'm just gonna say no to getting involved in this thread again.

I don't think my blood pressure could handle it.

[jakeman]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/texan-cleared-in-controversial-shooting/20080701063609990001

[TheLoveDoctor]

I had always believed that if someone is willing to enter another's home unlawfully then they are prepared to do you harm if you are present or show up during the unlawful entry. Everyone knows that folks in these parts (TX and OK) have guns in their house and we have laws like this that allow us to defend ourselves. If someone enters the home under those circumstances (knowing deadly force will be used) then they are prepared for that possibility and accept it. To me it is a decision no different from going on the offensive when actually confronted with a weapon instead of fleeing.

In other words, if you don't want to be shot, don't confront people who have guns. And if you are not sure if they have guns, err on the side of caution. And if you don't care and do it anyway, and you get shot, you made a bad decision but it was your decision to make.

[snuffy]

I had always believed that if someone is willing to enter another's home unlawfully then they are prepared to do you harm if you are present or show up during the unlawful entry. Everyone knows that folks in these parts (TX and OK) have guns in their house and we have laws like this that allow us to defend ourselves. If someone enters the home under those circumstances (knowing deadly force will be used) then they are prepared for that possibility and accept it. To me it is a decision no different from going on the offensive when actually confronted with a weapon instead of fleeing.

In other words, if you don't want to be shot, don't confront people who have guns. And if you are not sure if they have guns, err on the side of caution. And if you don't care and do it anyway, and you get shot, you made a bad decision but it was your decision to make.


I believe the issue is a little more gray because the two men were entering his neighbors house, not his, and he knew that the house was unoccupied. The man that shot them was not confronted by thew two men, instead he confronted them.

[Roman Craig]

I believe the issue is a little more gray because the two men were entering his neighbors house, not his, and he knew that the house was unoccupied. The man that shot them was not confronted by thew two men, instead he confronted them.

Which is legal in Texas.

[TheLoveDoctor]

I was just throwing out some thoughts on thieves in general and not specifically to this case. My house was robbed a couple of years ago and my wife's 13 year old daughter came home to the mess. It makes you wonder what could have happened if they were still there. And you never get over the fact that someone was in your house.

In response to this case, if I saw someone robbing my neighbor and knowing that the police do exactly jack sh*t about situations like that, I probably would have gone over there to see if I could detain them and take action if I had too. Again, if you don't want to get shot, stay in your own damn house.

[FWPoke]

In response to this case, if I saw someone robbing my neighbor and knowing that the police do exactly jack sh*t about situations like that, I probably would have gone over there to see if I could detain them and take action if I had too. Again, if you don't want to get shot, stay in your own damn house.

So, are you prepared to die for your neighbor's DVD player, then?

[OrangeCat]

So, are you prepared to die for your neighbor's DVD player, then?

No, I'm not....but I don't have any problem with a thief dieing for my neighbor's DVD player.