Here's what happens with your Castle Doctrine

[forestal]

This really wasn't necessary, and this guy could end up charged with murder.

The Raw Story | Texan kills burglars next door, citing 'castle doctrine'

A so-called "castle doctrine" law recently passed in Texas allows people to use deadly force to protect their homes and property. However, a case in which a Houston-area man in his 70's killed two apparent burglars he observed breaking into his neighbor's house has raised new questions about how far that doctrine might extend. <!-- END BURST CODE -->
The man called an emergency dispatcher when he first saw the alleged burglars, saying "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"
"Nope, don't do that," replied the dispatcher. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, ok? ... I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."
"I understand that," the caller replied, "but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the 1st, and you know it and I know it."
After five minutes, the dispatcher was no longer able to restrain the caller, who stepped outside and shot both men, reporting, "Here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going. ... Boom, you're dead. ... I had no choice."
A grand jury will decide whether the man can be charged with a crime. He will probably be found to have acted legally if it is determined that the neighbor whose house was broken into had asked him to protect his property, but not otherwise.
The Texas state senator who wrote the law said it was not meant to apply to anyone's property but your own and "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action."
Similar laws are on the books in other states and have already given rise to a number of controversial incidents.
The following video is from CBS's Early Show, broadcast on November 15, 2007.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by forestal

This really wasn't necessary, and this guy could end up charged with murder.

You're right this wasn't necessary. These idiots could have chosen not to break into that house. I guess they won't be breaking into any more houses now, will they? And the next guy might think twice before breaking in, right?

Thank you for this heart warming story, forest.

[kwillia (Premo)]

Originally Posted by MMDad

You're right this wasn't necessary. These idiots could have chosen not to break into that house. I guess they won't be breaking into any more houses now, will they? And the next guy might think twice before breaking in, right?

Thank you for this heart warming story, forest.

[Sonsie]

I'm ready to have a parade for this guy, complete with a marching band and shriners.

[AndyMarquisLIVE (Premo)]

Originally Posted by forestal

This really wasn't necessary, and this guy could end up charged with murder.


The Raw Story | Texan kills burglars next door, citing 'castle doctrine'

A so-called "castle doctrine" law recently passed in Texas allows people to use deadly force to protect their homes and property. However, a case in which a Houston-area man in his 70's killed two apparent burglars he observed breaking into his neighbor's house has raised new questions about how far that doctrine might extend. <!-- END BURST CODE -->

The man called an emergency dispatcher when he first saw the alleged burglars, saying "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," replied the dispatcher. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, ok? ... I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."

"I understand that," the caller replied, "but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the 1st, and you know it and I know it."

After five minutes, the dispatcher was no longer able to restrain the caller, who stepped outside and shot both men, reporting, "Here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going. ... Boom, you're dead. ... I had no choice."

A grand jury will decide whether the man can be charged with a crime. He will probably be found to have acted legally if it is determined that the neighbor whose house was broken into had asked him to protect his property, but not otherwise.

The Texas state senator who wrote the law said it was not meant to apply to anyone's property but your own and "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action."

Similar laws are on the books in other states and have already given rise to a number of controversial incidents.

The following video is from CBS's Early Show, broadcast on November 15, 2007.

Bahahahahahahahaha!!!

Yeah, and those burgulars could've gone in and cut his throat. Nope, still don't want to raise a gun. Man, if we had people like you in office, we'd all be dead.

Have you ever had somebody break into your home? Here's a clue: You want that gun then.

There's a poll in News & Current Events that requires your urgent attention. Might be on page 2 now.

Lots more people think we're winning the war now. I've heard so much good news from Iraq that it's impossible to hear about 400 people dying in bombings. Got any news?

[AndyMarquisLIVE (Premo)]

Here ya go, Frosty.

Just want everyone's take on it. Because, it looks to me like the surge is working, so ... Go Bush.

Our castle law does cover the property of others. :)

[ImnoMensa]

The law seemed to have worked. Two theives are shot while in the act.

Perhaps the law needs a little tuning up since there is a chance the man who shot them could be prosecuted. They need to write the law so that he dosnt have to face that chance.

[Novus Collectus]

Originally Posted by forestal

This really wasn't necessary, and this guy could end up charged with murder.

...

"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."
Self Defense Laws Of Texas
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...tml#pe015.9.43

The people of the state of Texas a long time ago if you are stealing property from someone's house in the middle of the night, a law abiding citizen (in the past it was just the owner) can use force to stop you. It is their law and they are cool with it. The burglars took it upon themselves to risk their lives in their crime in a state where this law was well known. For thieves to take such risk knowingly it is even more indication they are a risk to public well being.
You say it was unneccessary, but out in the big country in Texas cops can take a long time to arrive and that is why they wrote into the law there that you can use deadly force preventing other people's property from being taken. Their state, their laws and their determination of what is neccessary.

This guy has a legal defense and is most likely not going to be charged with murder.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...take the side of the criminals?

Wonderful.