Man shoots neighbor's burglars in back: Pasadena

[Gan]

HOUSTON — A Houston-area man who killed two suspected burglars last month shot the men in the back, police said Friday.

Another new detail to emerge Friday about the Nov. 14 shooting was that a plainclothes Pasadena detective witnessed the shootings, police said. The unnamed detective pulled up in an unmarked car moments before Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn fired three shots from his 12-gauge shotgun, police said.

Horn, 61, killed Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30. Torres went by the alias Miguel Antonio DeJesus. The incident touched off protests from minority activists that were met by counter-protests from Horn's supporters.

In an e-mail to The Associated Press, Horn's attorney wrote that his client is awaiting the final autopsy report.

"The facts remain the same in this case as they were on November 14th," wrote Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright. "Joe Horn shot in defense of his life in his own yard."

Horn's attorney has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him. On the 911 call, Horn threatens to kill the men despite the dispatcher's urging that Horn stay inside his house.

On Sunday, Horn's supporters jeered protesters who called for Horn to be prosecuted. The supporters waved American flags and waved signs reading, "We love our neighbor for protecting our neighbors" and "Burglary is a risky business."

Horn has not been charged in the case. In a story posted on the Houston Chronicle's Web site Friday evening, Pasadena Police Department Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said he will turn the case over to the Harris County District Attorney's office in the next couple of weeks. The district attorney will then present the case to a grand jury to determine if charges should be filed.

The suspected burglars were illegal immigrants from Colombia, and one of them had been deported nearly 10 years ago, authorities said. They are investigating whether Ortiz and Torres were part of a crime ring linked to burglaries and fake immigration documents.

Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz, who they say has two aliases. Torres had identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic and had three aliases.

Police also found almost $2,000 in cash in a white bag the men allegedly took from the home of Horn's neighbor.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5361920.html

__________________________________________________ __

A few questions:

1. Should he have fired on both men?

2. Did he have the right to protect his neighbors property with deadly force?

3. Did he show intent when he told the 911 operator he was going to do it? (Premeditation)

4. Is this a case of someone just wanting to get away with shooting someone else or is it an example of a racist white guy wanting to shoot some minorities?

Discuss.

__________________________________________________ ______

Personally I think its a case of someone wanting to shoot someone else, and the guy would have fired on the thieves if they were white, black, yellow, etc. The guy is clearly wanting to get off on drawing down on someone.

I do subscribe protecting my property and my family from harm with a firearm, and I wont hesitate to use it. However, the only circumstance I can see justifying me to use deadly force off my property is if myself or someone I'm with is threatened and I'm carrying (which I dont carry anymore) or I see a neighbor being held up in their driveway (it happened last year but I wasnt home) by an assailant with a pistol.

Should he have fired on the men? The only one I can see a thin justification on is the one who ran towards him and consequently through his own yard, that would be self defense, but even then the guy veered off and was clearly past when Horn fired, since it hit the thief in the back. The other thief was running away and in the neighbors yard. Because of this, I cant see Texas law protecting Horn and justifying the shoot on either thief. Not to mention the neighbors life was not threatened (neighbor wasnt there at the time).

And now the minority groups (Quannel X included) have started protesting in front of Horn's house trying to influence the grand jury and the DA's office who are investigating the legality of the shoot. Why not let the facts of the case come out and then protest if it appears the shooting was racially motivated? Why does everything have to be about race now?

[Androidpk]

Because people are ALWAYS out to get the minorities....

[Sean of the Thread]

He's fucked for shooting them in the back alone.

[Fallen]

Hopefully the protesters in front of his house will wander a little too far onto his property. Rob someone else, expect to get shot. Whether from the neighbor or the house owner.

[Tsa`ah]

Watching CNN last night as they interviewed the police chief. There was a plain clothes officer responding as backup and his testimony is that both entered Horn's property appeared to approach him. When he lifted his shotgun and said "Move and you're dead", they turned and started back to the neighbor's property. Three shots? Both dead, one on his property, the other on his neighbor's.

From the police chief's statement, he won't file any former charges ... rather he's turning it over to the DA.

I really don't believe race had anything to do with it, rather a good 'ol Texas boy fulfilling his dream of playing the lone hero with a gun.

On that note, having lived in some bad neighborhoods and having lived in a good neighborhood gone bad ... I can't really say I blame the guy for trying to do something. The two men he dropped weren't model citizens and I'm willing to bet this wasn't their first robbery. Had they been successfull, do you think that would have been the last robbery in the neighborhood? Would the next have been an armed robbery? Would there have been victims?

I can't condone killing two people in this manner, then again this all would have been avoided if the two men decided to break into a Quick Stop after it closed instead of a home in Texas. Or better yet ... just decided that robbing isn't a good profession. In the end I really have no sympathy for anyone in this whole ordeal other than family that was robbed.

[landy]

Eh, I'm pretty sure Texas law is clear when it comes to shooting someone in the back, it's illegal.

[Gan]

Eh, I'm pretty sure Texas law is clear when it comes to shooting someone in the back, it's illegal.

Not always illegal. Trust me.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Eh, I'm pretty sure Texas law is clear when it comes to shooting someone in the back, it's illegal.

These 2 thieving scum get done robbing the neighbor's house, and approach him with a crowbar...and the guy with the shotgun should go to jail if they pull an about face?

Sounds like an adrenalin filled situation, with 2 of the people obviously in the wrong. I'd give the guy with the shotgun the benefit of the doubt, since he wasn't the one waking up in the morning with plans to break the law.

I don't see how race has anything to do with it. The 2 thieves were also here illegally, using aliases, and undoubtedly involved in other crimes.

I saw someone make this comment while reading up on the case...LOL.

Dammit, how many times have I said that these no-good illegal alien criminals are taking jobs away from decent, hardworking American criminals?

[Tsa`ah]

Eh, I'm pretty sure Texas law is clear when it comes to shooting someone in the back, it's illegal.

I'd like to see the law that describes a point of enty for a bullet or shot as illegal.

Thanks for the laugh. Thanks for the bigger laugh if you can quote me the law and source.

[Gan]

Here's 2 sections on the use of deadly force that will be considered by the grand jury.



§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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.
(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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.HTM), § 3, eff. September 1,
2007.


Here's the 1st person statute, not applicable in this instance.


§ 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.


Here's where the guy might actually be acting within the bounds of the law, based on interpretation.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

[Sean of the Thread]

It's going to be rough a go for him no doubt but I doubt they'll find a jury in Texas to convict him. He's really in the gray area when it comes to shooting someone in the back whilst fleeing.

I know a few of you know that I was charged with attempted murder once upon a time for not fulfilling my duty to flee when attacked which is a complet e crock of shit. Florida has recently changed the law to not require you to flee.

Texas and Florida got their shit together when it comes to this.

[Gan]

The story I just listened to on the radio news described the thieves that were shot as 'shooting victims'. Victims, LOL. Yea, they were victims...

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/dwg.jpg

[radamanthys]

He was obviously spooked, if you listen to the tape. He's freaked out, and his protection instinct kicked in- he's not all about 'killin me a couple'a wetbacks'. He was all, "You best come uphold the rights, or I'll uphold them". As far as that goes, the police should have responded sooner. Where everyone may have the right to have their life, liberty and property protected by the government... they also have the right to protect their own life, liberty and property, and that of their neighbors. When the government's ability to protect these rights fails, as it did, it's up to us as individuals to protect these rights for ourselves. We're already overpopulated... a couple of slimeballs isn't really the end of the world. Doesn't the national media have better things to worry about? Like the impending doom of our economy? Or some of the fucked up stuff going on around the world?

Rule of law stands, though. I don't care what color, nationality, or percentage of the population you are- robbing houses in Texas is just fucking stupid. Hell, it's dangerous in Upstate NY, too. One of my buddies almost shot his friend for coming into his house unannounced- the friend is a State Trooper, and my buddy is an Afghanistan first wave vet. That woulda made a stir, eh?

[radamanthys]

Victims... Fuck that shit. Fucking soft sacks of shit.

How's this situation... for anyone who doesn't think a person has a right to shoot another, no matter the circumstance: Someone is about to rape your wife/Kill your kid. There is a gun is on the floor in front of you, presumably the "potential victim's". Do you have a right to shoot them? I mean... they're not threatening you...

That's what I thought.

[Xaerve]

Radamanthys said it well, both times.

People that throw up the "race" card, more often than not, are too ignorant to deal with the reality at hand.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I think he had the right to shoot those two-- and I agree with Radamanthys, just because you may not be the one being immediately threatened doesn't mean you can't protect other people. That being said, how does anyone know those two didn't yell something at the guy about coming back later and fucking him up, etc? How do they know those guys didn't advance on the guy and then turn to run when they saw he had a GUN?

They were BURGLARS, who KNOWS what they would have done if the homeowner had walked in on those two or was home when they decided to rob his home.

The race card bullshit is retarded too.

[Parkbandit]

I think the guy was a little bit too gung ho about going out there and killing them... but let's be honest.. 2 dead scumbags is a good start.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

He was obviously spooked, if you listen to the tape. He's freaked out, and his protection instinct kicked in- he's not all about 'killin me a couple'a wetbacks'. He was all, "You best come uphold the rights, or I'll uphold them". As far as that goes, the police should have responded sooner. Where everyone may have the right to have their life, liberty and property protected by the government... they also have the right to protect their own life, liberty and property, and that of their neighbors. When the government's ability to protect these rights fails, as it did, it's up to us as individuals to protect these rights for ourselves. We're already overpopulated... a couple of slimeballs isn't really the end of the world. Doesn't the national media have better things to worry about? Like the impending doom of our economy? Or some of the fucked up stuff going on around the world?

Rule of law stands, though. I don't care what color, nationality, or percentage of the population you are- robbing houses in Texas is just fucking stupid. Hell, it's dangerous in Upstate NY, too. One of my buddies almost shot his friend for coming into his house unannounced- the friend is a State Trooper, and my buddy is an Afghanistan first wave vet. That woulda made a stir, eh?

My sister and her husband live in Texas but have not gotten permits to carry a gun, so they keep a baseball bat wrapped with barbed wire by their bed. One time their landlord came in without telling them he was coming over and his key got stuck in the door, so he was making quite a racket and he finally forced the door open. Brandon was on the stairs with the baseball bat and if the Landlord hadn't IMMEDIATELY turned to face him, he would have gotten pwned in the face and head hard with a barbed-wire wrapped baseball bat. Apparently the Landlord screamed like a little girl when he saw what was about to transpire, haha.

Needless to say, that guy always gives ample notice before coming over.

[Parkbandit]

My sister and her husband live in Texas but have not gotten permits to carry a gun, so they keep a baseball bat wrapped with barbed wire by their bed. One time their landlord came in without telling them he was coming over and his key got stuck in the door, so he was making quite a racket and he finally forced the door open. Brandon was on the stairs with the baseball bat and if the Landlord hadn't IMMEDIATELY turned to face him, he would have gotten pwned in the face and head hard with a barbed-wire wrapped baseball bat. Apparently the Landlord screamed like a little girl when he saw what was about to transpire, haha.

Needless to say, that guy always gives ample notice before coming over.

Do you really need to wrap a bat with barded wire for it to be effective? I carry around a thick pvc pipe in my truck about 2' long and about 1" in diameter. I capped both ends and filled it with cement. It hits like a lead pipe but half the weight.

[Sean of the Thread]

The barbed wire is a bit overkill.

[Skeeter]

barbed wire is cartoonish overkill

[Sean of the Thread]

it's just retarded.

You also don't need a permit to carry to keep a gun at the bed for fucks sake. Tell them to sack up and get rid of the Running Man gear.

[DeV]

Vigilante justice at its best and worst.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I think my brother-in-law found some and did it while he was bored -- it definitely is overkill but I still find it hilarious. As for the gun thing, I can't really tell them what to do in that regard and have them listen so I don't really say much. They criticize me for owning two guns so I don't think they're entirely intent on having any themselves even though they tell me they want to own one EVENTUALLY.

Hm. Maybe I should send them an airsoft gun for Christmas to piss her off :D

On another note, what I think is exceptionally retarded is at least here in Connecticut, when I have my toolboxes with me in my car, I have to keep them closed under locked padlocks until I am in my home or a licensed kitchen or else I'm breaking a law. A lot of my larger knives are considered deadly weapons which I guess they could be but I still find it dumb. Some cop was outside of the culinary school waiting for someone and came over to knock on my window after I'd put the boxes in my car and was getting ready to go home. He asked if I kept my knives and tools in my toolboxes and I told him yes so he looked at that... and then proceeded to lecture me for 15 minutes. He confiscated one of the toolboxes and I had to go pick it up from him at the police station after I purchased a padlock.

[Daniel]

(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.

Doesn't mean you can shoot someone in the back.

It means you don't have to retreat first before shooting, which is the law in some places (retarded imo).

[TheEschaton]

I agree that I don't think it's a race thing.

However, it does strike me as (a) vigilante justice as opposed to (b) self defense.

And vigilante justice on the part of individuals is simply not allowed. Tim McVeigh thought he was a vigilante. The Black Panthers were vigilantes. You cannot be a law unto yourself, and the part on the tape where he says, "You better come here to uphold the rights, or I'll uphold them myself!" is the most damning bit, if it actually happened (I didn't listen to the tape). No individual has the right to enforce laws, you only have the right to defend yourself from crimes being committed against yourself. You have a right to self-defense, you have a right to proportionate force, which can be deadly. You cannot argue that a person moving away from you with their back turned is presenting an "imminent danger".

Furthermore, Gan, under the "defense of third person's property" thing you posted, it seems like he would have needed the neighbor's explicit authority to protect their property. He'd have to argue he was defending his own property, and there are some states which do say that you don't have to believe the criminal's actions or words, but I've only heard it ever applied to cases where robbers say, "If you do everything I say, I won't hurt you" not dissipating the feeling of imminent danger.

That being said, I'm pretty disgusted that anyone would advocate the law being in individual's hands to mete out as they saw fit. Can't you see that that's fucked up? I think I heard someone's answer to Rad's hypo that I pretty much agreed with, and he said something like "Sure I'd want to kill him. I'd want to perform cruel and unusual punishment on him too. But that's why we have laws and the Constitution, because the natural instinct of human beings run counter to the idea of what it is to live in a civilized society of law and order." In other words: your personal hatred for someone/thing is not enough to justify you yourself committing murder for it.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Doesn't mean you can shoot someone in the back.

It means you don't have to retreat first before shooting, which is the law in some places (retarded imo).

Is this the law according to Daniel?

I can think of several examples where I would be totally legally justified to shoot someone in the back.

[Androidpk]

Unfortunately not everything is clear cut black and white, especially in this "civilized society of law and order".

[Gan]

I agree that I don't think it's a race thing.
Agreed


However, it does strike me as (a) vigilante justice as opposed to (b) self defense.
Agreed



No individual has the right to enforce laws, you only have the right to defend yourself from crimes being committed against yourself. You have a right to self-defense, you have a right to proportionate force, which can be deadly. You cannot argue that a person moving away from you with their back turned is presenting an "imminent danger".
I think the law disagrees with you here. I have the right to protect my family, that is not just myself. If I am in my house, and witness a strange man walking away from me down my hallway towards my room, or my child's room, I'm cutting him down. I dont need to warn him in advance so he can turn around for it to be justified. I'm totally within my legal right to do so with him moving away from me (back turned towards me).



Furthermore, Gan, under the "defense of third person's property" thing you posted, it seems like he would have needed the neighbor's explicit authority to protect their property. He'd have to argue he was defending his own property, and there are some states which do say that you don't have to believe the criminal's actions or words, but I've only heard it ever applied to cases where robbers say, "If you do everything I say, I won't hurt you" not dissipating the feeling of imminent danger.
You forgot part 1 of that section. Again, thats based on my interpretation. It will be interesting to see how the grand jury and the DA interperet it.


(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or




That being said, I'm pretty disgusted that anyone would advocate the law being in individual's hands to mete out as they saw fit. Can't you see that that's fucked up?
In most cases I agree, but not in the case of defending yourself or your family against immenent danger. That also includes perceived danger.

[Clove]

...You cannot argue that a person moving away from you with their back turned is presenting an "imminent danger"...


Can't you?

[landy]

My sister and her husband live in Texas but have not gotten permits to carry a gun, so they keep a baseball bat wrapped with barbed wire by their bed. One time their landlord came in without telling them he was coming over and his key got stuck in the door, so he was making quite a racket and he finally forced the door open. Brandon was on the stairs with the baseball bat and if the Landlord hadn't IMMEDIATELY turned to face him, he would have gotten pwned in the face and head hard with a barbed-wire wrapped baseball bat. Apparently the Landlord screamed like a little girl when he saw what was about to transpire, haha.

Needless to say, that guy always gives ample notice before coming over.

You don't need a permit to carry a gun in Texas, you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

[Gan]

You don't need a permit to carry a gun in Texas, you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Correct.

You dont need permits for concealed weapons in your home either.

There are city ordinances that prohibit you from driving around with a loaded rifle on your gun-rack.... but no laws that state you cant transport a fire arm from one location to another. The only time you get grief over it is if its loaded and in the main compartment of the vehicle. For transporting purposes, its best to have it unloaded and in the trunk, or if no trunk, unloaded with the shells in the glove box and the weapon in a seperate compartment/area.

Title 10. Chapter 46.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

[TheEschaton]

I think the law disagrees with you here. I have the right to protect my family, that is not just myself. If I am in my house, and witness a strange man walking away from me down my hallway towards my room, or my child's room, I'm cutting him down. I dont need to warn him in advance so he can turn around for it to be justified. I'm totally within my legal right to do so with him moving away from me (back turned towards me).

A) That's still self-defense. Legally, you, your family, your property, is part of self.

B) These guys were moving away from everything that could be considered "self" legally, and towards a neighbor's property.

[TheEschaton]

Oh, and read the whole thing:


§ 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.


You forgot the part before the three reqs. You need one of those reqs, AND justification of self-defense.

And, since you agreed that it's vigilante justice, and not self-defense....well then, this statute doesn't apply.

[Gan]

A) That's still self-defense. Legally, you, your family, your property, is part of self.

B) These guys were moving away from everything that could be considered "self" legally, and towards a neighbor's property.

According to the news story, one person was running towards his 'self'. Combine that with the clause of protecting 3rd person's property and he's got a narrowly defined legal shoot, providing there arent other factors involved as indicatd in the eye witness's testimony.

That being said.

I'm arguing point, not merit of the current case. I think the guy was over zealous in the situation. I would not have fired on the thieves if it were me * under the circumstances described in the news articles.

Lets see if the grand jury/DA agree.

[Gan]

Oh, and read the whole thing:



You forgot the part before the three reqs. You need one of those reqs, AND justification of self-defense.

And, since you agreed that it's vigilante justice, and not self-defense....well then, this statute doesn't apply.

Again, I'm arguing point. Not the merits of the case.

To add on merits: Who's to say his neighbor didnt give him permission to defend his property with force? I can bet you that I'll be visiting with both my neighbors about protecting my property as soon as I see them. ;)

There's a lot to this that has not yet been disclosed to the public. I'm betting that this specific section of the statute will be used by his defense lawyer should this go to trial.

[Atlanteax]

He should be given the Presidental Medal of Valor for defending his neighborhood.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You don't need a permit to carry a gun in Texas, you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

I did not know that.. never lived in Texas.

[Gelston]

This is Texas now. Repomen have been legally shot and killed there while repoing cars. I don't think this guy will have a problem.

[Daniel]

Can't you?

No.

There are several people serving life setences right now because they tried to.

You can call that the Law according of Daniel or the Law according to the U nited States of America. Whichever you prefer.

[AestheticDeath]

To the comments about not legally being able to argue a case for shooting someone in the back.

You can argue just about anything.

What if he is running towards a weapon?

What if he has a grenade in his hand, and is only running far enough away from you to use it without hurting himself?

What if he is running towards a vehicle, which can be used as a deadly weapon if he decides to? Just because hes running for his vehicle doesn't mean he is leaving.

And fuck if I wouldn't have shot the guys too. Let them get away to do it again?

How many of you have had robbers at your home? While you are trying to sleep? You hear footsteps, doors rattle, knobs turning, knocking/pushing on windows etc. That shit is crazy, your scared because you don't know what they are after, how many there are, or whether they will get in.

[Gan]

You can call that the Law according of Daniel or the Law according to the U nited States of America. Whichever you prefer.

Source please.

:lol:

[Sean of the Thread]

To the comments about not legally being able to argue a case for shooting someone in the back.

You can argue just about anything.

What if he is running towards a weapon?

What if he has a grenade in his hand, and is only running far enough away from you to use it without hurting himself?

What if he is running towards a vehicle, which can be used as a deadly weapon if he decides to? Just because hes running for his vehicle doesn't mean he is leaving.

And fuck if I wouldn't have shot the guys too. Let them get away to do it again?

How many of you have had robbers at your home? While you are trying to sleep? You hear footsteps, doors rattle, knobs turning, knocking/pushing on windows etc. That shit is crazy, your scared because you don't know what they are after, how many there are, or whether they will get in.

You forgot the last option. .. .what if they're robbers running for their life?

[Gan]

You forgot the last option. .. .what if they're robbers running for their life?

If they're inside my house, its too late for them. They should have thought about that before they entered without permission.

If they're in my yard, they better keep running away from me and away from my house.

[AestheticDeath]

You forgot the last option. .. .what if they're robbers running for their life?

I didn't forget it. That's the point the others were already trying to make and I was showing the other side.

[Bobmuhthol]

Nobody fucks with DeJesus.

[Sean of the Thread]

If they're inside my house, its too late for them. They should have thought about that before they entered without permission.

If they're in my yard, they better keep running away from me and away from my house.


Castle Doctrine ftw. They've still charged 80 year old women for shooting someone in the back climbing out of her window.

[Gan]

Castle Doctrine ftw. They've still charged 80 year old women for shooting someone in the back climbing out of her window.

Thats fucked up. She should have had a better attorney.

[Stanley Burrell]

The gun permit should especially not cover old people in addition to non-active military. I've worked with stage III dementia patients and if one of them got a pinkie on a damn arbalest, it'd be Armageddon.

People do prey upon the elderly though, plus, I secretly do kind of want to see some wheelchair-bound WWI veteran going to town with a musket. What a predicament.

[Stanley Burrell]

A gang of grandmas riding on Harleys toting M-16s would be the fly shit. With little purse dogs clenching sticks of dynamite ready to hone in on prey. Tell me that wouldn't be fucking awesome.



.



I need to speak to my therapist.

[Daniel]

Thats fucked up. She should have had a better attorney.

Or you can stop living in your fantasy world ;)

[landy]

Bleh, these laws are fucking cake compared to the ROE. Imagine if you had to let the burglars shoot at you before you could legally do anything.

[Sean of the Thread]

Bleh, these laws are fucking cake compared to the ROE. Imagine if you had to let the burglars shoot at you before you could legally do anything.


The Greedo shot first precident?

[Stanley Burrell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CStfT8gCrjM

[Tsa`ah]

I agree that I don't think it's a race thing.

However, it does strike me as (a) vigilante justice as opposed to (b) self defense.

I agree, this was vigilante justice ... however ... despite all the arguments about legality ... well real lawyers and real lawyers practicing law in texas have already cited exactly what Gan and about two more laws in addition.

He violated no law in Texas ... the state he would be charged in, the state he would face trial in. He won't face a grand jury in Illinois (where he'd probably have been handcuffed and processed) or any other state, nor will he be facing a federal grand jury.

This will go before a grand jury in Texas and that's where it will end.


A) That's still self-defense. Legally, you, your family, your property, is part of self.

B) These guys were moving away from everything that could be considered "self" legally, and towards a neighbor's property.

Again, you're assuming one law for one land. This isn't the case. Self defense in Texas allows for the defense of also a third party (neighbor or neighbor's property with agreement ... about the only loophole if his neighbor says an agreement of any type never existed) or any property.

One burglar was shot on his property, the other was shot on the neighbor's property. Both approached him according to the testimony of a plain clothes officer of the law. The law in Texas also accounts for people fleeing.

I think you're arguing to argue ... because there's not much to argue unless you plan on carpet bagging to Texas, gaining a congressional seat and changing the law. Even then, it will have no impact on this case due to ex post factos.


No.

There are several people serving life setences right now because they tried to.

You can call that the Law according of Daniel or the Law according to the U nited States of America. Whichever you prefer.

Unfortunately for your argument, this isn't the law according to the US of A, this is the law according to Texas.

Shooting someone has legal ramifications that vary from state to state. Shooting someone in the back has no more impact on charges applied than shooting someone in the face. It's the situation leading up to the shooting that is taken into account, not the point of entry.

As I said earlier, in Illinois this guy would have been cuffed and processed and would still be sitting in jail awaiting trial .... even if it were his own home and not his neighbor's. If he had just shot the guy with the crowbar, he'd be at home awaiting a grand jury verdict before trial.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I've got a really shady drug deal later today. I don't know the Columbians that well, but they are giving me a great price. Could I go ahead and get a police officer along to make sure nothing goes wrong during the deal?

Thanks.

[Daniel]

The problem is that he is on tape saying he is going to kill them, and one of them was shot in the back. It's going to be very hard for him to justifiably say that he feared for his life when he went out there to confront them, against the suggestion of the 911 operator.

[Sean of the Thread]

Like I said they'll never find a jury to convict him in all of TX.

[Gan]

Or you can stop living in your fantasy world ;)

You obviously have me mistaken for TheE.

[Tsa`ah]

It's also on tape that he gave warning and they ignored it (this is collaborated with police testimony).

He would have something to worry about if he stepped out of his door and just started shooting. 911 instruction is irrelevant since this guy is a civilian and still law abiding.

I could call 911 during a break in and they can "instruct" me to hide, they can't order me to do jack unless I'm breaking the law and they want to apply the cuffs.

What the 911 operator did was cover their liability and nothing more.