Here's what happens with your Castle Doctrine

[forestal]

Actually the law was to protect people not property, and this man wasn't in any danger. He'll probably die in prison for cold blooded murder. He shouldn't have disobeyed the police.

The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property.

It "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth told the newspaper. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."
​

Whoops! Looks like pre-meditated murder!!

"Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house. You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun," the dispatcher told Horn at one point.
"You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."
​

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.

 

[MMDad]

Actually the law was to protect people not property, and this man wasn't in any danger.

Did you read the law? Of course not. It's much easier to just regurgitate what you are fed, isn't it?

What the law really does say:

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person

Note the word "property." If they meant "person" it would say person. But the law says "property" doesn't it?

It kind of leads me to believe that they meant "property" and the doofus who says "that's not what we meant" is trying to cover his azz in case it costs him re-election.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeahbutt...

Did you read the law? Of course not. It's much easier to just regurgitate what you are fed, isn't it?

What the law really does say:

Note the word "property." If they meant "person" it would say person. But the law says "property" doesn't it?

It kind of leads me to believe that they meant "property" and the doofus who says "that's not what we meant" is trying to cover his azz in case it costs him re-election.

...he says that the guy says that what he meant isn't what he, or anyone else, says about what needs to be said in terms of saying who is wrong; robbers or those willing to confront them.



forestal, you are on the side of the robbers, correct? What say you?

 

[Novus Collectus]

Whoops....

Actually the law was to protect people not property, and this man wasn't in any danger. He'll probably die in prison for cold blooded murder. He shouldn't have disobeyed the police.

The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property.

​

....actually, the rest of Texas law does:
§ 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;


Looks like the legislature was just talking about the recent Caslte Doctrine law. You see, the protection of another person's property with lethal force has been Texas law for decades.

He didn't disobey the police, he only ignored the advice of a 911 operator and even so it would not have made a difference. He did not murder anyone and he legally shot two violent criminals. This man will most likely not even be charged.​

 

[forestal]

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. Maybe in Iran, but not here.

Steeling is wrong, killing someone for stealing is also wrong.

Hey, under Castle Doctrine, would a former Enron employee be justifiable in killing Ken Lay (if he hadn't died) for stealing their retirement money?

...he says that the guy says that what he meant isn't what he, or anyone else, says about what needs to be said in terms of saying who is wrong; robbers or those willing to confront them.



forestal, you are on the side of the robbers, correct? What say you?

 

[Novus Collectus]

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. Maybe in Iran, but not here.

Steeling is wrong, killing someone for stealing is also wrong.

Hey, under Castle Doctrine, would a former Enron employee be justifiable in killing Ken Lay (if he hadn't died) for stealing their retirement money?

A violent crime must be stopped. Texas has ruled that a violent criminal in the act can be stopped by whatever means at hand by a citizen. The onus is on the criminal in Texas. They knew their actions could be stopped by deadly force and when they continue their crime they put their own lives in danger. They are responsible for their own deaths.

 

[MMDad]

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. Maybe in Iran, but not here.

It is in Texas. Hmmmm.... Where did this happen? Oh, that's right, Texas.

Tell me, rocket surgeon, if these criminals had decided not to commit the crime, would they be alive today?

 

[PsyOps]

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. Maybe in Iran, but not here.

Steeling is wrong, killing someone for stealing is also wrong.

Look at it this way Forest... These guys had criminal records. They will never steal or commit crimes again. EVER!

If this sort of action was put more in the hands of property owners instead of having to wait for the police and depend on an inept legal system (that obviously let these guys out time and time again) you can be sure the crime rate would go down.

 

[hvp05]

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. Maybe in Iran, but not here. Steeling is wrong, killing someone for stealing is also wrong.

This case is not a couple dumb teenagers lifting some CDs from a store; it's about two criminals breaking and entering into a private residence. I suppose you would not be afraid at all if you saw that happening next to your place. You would not for one moment fear that they may come after you next - maybe for your stuff, maybe because you saw them, maybe both reasons.

You're right, forestal: the two thieves were not posing a threat to the man at that moment. But how much longer should he have waited to react? Until they were approaching him? Inside his house? Putting a weapon to his head?

This world will be a scary place if/once people believe they no longer have the right to defend themselves.

 

[forestal]

Jesus Christ you morons have the great ability to read only the parts that support your argument. You left out section 9.42 which also have to be satisfied..

#2 isn't satisfied because the police specifically told him NOT to shoot.

2.(A) and (B) aren't satisfied because it took place during the DAY not the NIGHT.

3(A) isn't satisfied because the property CAN be recovered by other means.

and 3(B) isn't satisfied because again, he wasn't in any danger as long as he remained inside, as TOLD to him stay inside....


Sec. 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.
</pre>

....actually, the rest of Texas law does:
§ 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;


Looks like the legislature was just talking about the recent Caslte Doctrine law. You see, the protection of another person's property with lethal force has been Texas law for decades.

He didn't disobey the police, he only ignored the advice of a 911 operator and even so it would not have made a difference. He did not murder anyone and he legally shot two violent criminals. This man will most likely not even be charged.

 

[Novus Collectus]

This case is not a couple dumb teenagers lifting some CDs from a store; it's about two criminals breaking and entering into a private residence. ...

I am in agreement with this part, but I have to add to this statement for further clarification.....breaking and entering into a private residence armed.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Jesus Christ you morons have the great ability to read only the parts that support your argument. You left out section 9.42 which also have to be satisfied..

#2 isn't satisfied because the police specifically told him NOT to shoot.

2.(A) and (B) aren't satisfied because it took place during the DAY not the NIGHT.

3(A) isn't satisfied because the property CAN be recovered by other means.

and 3(B) isn't satisfied because again, he wasn't in any danger as long as he remained inside, as TOLD to him stay inside....


Sec. 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.
</pre>

You are an idiot. The reason I left that out is because it is a DIFFERENT section.
The defense of property of a third person does not have to be at nightime.
You left out 9.41 that does not mention nightime....moron.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable
property is justified in using force against another when and to
the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the
land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other
when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property
if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after
the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force,
threat, or fraud against the actor.

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

The stand your ground rewriting of the code about self defense allows the use of deadly force after confronting violent criminals in the act if the person has a lawful reason to be where they are. He was allowed to confront the thieves in the defense of a third person's property in the defense of the third person's property by Texas law under 9.41 and to defend himself. He murdered no one and he committed no crime. He is most likely not going to be charged and he would not be convicted if he was.

 

[spike2763]

Jesus Christ you morons have the great ability to read only the parts that support your argument. You left out section 9.42 which also have to be satisfied..

#2 isn't satisfied because the police specifically told him NOT to shoot.

2.(A) and (B) aren't satisfied because it took place during the DAY not the NIGHT.

3(A) isn't satisfied because the property CAN be recovered by other means.

and 3(B) isn't satisfied because again, he wasn't in any danger as long as he remained inside, as TOLD to him stay inside....


Sec. 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.
</pre>

Glad I'm not your neighbor

 

[forestal]

Glad you're not my lawyer...

§ 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:

You are an idiot. The reason I left that out is because it is a DIFFERENT section.
The defense of property of a third person does not have to be at nightime.
You left out 9.41 that does not mention nightime....moron.
The stand your ground rewriting of the code about self defense allows the use of deadly force after confronting violent criminals in the act if the person has a lawful reason to be where they are. He was allowed to confront the thieves in the defense of a third person's property in the defense of the third person's property by Texas law under 9.41 and to defend himself. He murdered no one and he committed no crime. He is most likely not going to be charged and he would not be convicted if he was.

 

[Bruzilla]

I kinda see Forrestal's point in regards to his reading of the law. What I find very interesting is the "property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" comment. Property is supposed to be protected by the police and civil government, who are supposed to take care of all these fellons wandering the streets. And, anyone been robbed recently? I had some property stolen a couple of years ago. Anyone ever get your stuff back? I know I didn't. Cars are about the only stolen merchandise that's ever recovered, and even then the odds aren't good. Also, in regards to the nighttime thing, there's an "or" before those specifications, so they may or may not apply to a given case. So based on the recovery track record of most police departments, if you don't take action to recovery stuff, how else are you going to get it back?

But I think the biggest determiner for this guy is how in the World are you going to get a jury, who all have homes, and have probably had something stolen over the years, to convict the guy? That'll never happen.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Glad you're not my lawyer...

§ 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:

Ow, my head hurts! Too much lawyering going on here. If some armed clown was breaking into my next door neighbors house, I'm gonna watch very carefully, call the cops so they can call the coroner, and get me my best two buddies, Smith & Wesson. I worked too hard my entire life to support the crack habit of some professional, lifelong criminal.

 

[forestal]

They weren't armed, and nobody was home at the house. It's simple stealing.

BTW, even if he gets off on the "Castle Doctrine" law, he faces other laws.

These thieves may have had families, and they can now sue him in court, maybe take away all of his assets. Or he could face federal charges, and that would trump state's laws.

bye bye house.

Ow, my head hurts! Too much lawyering going on here. If some armed clown was breaking into my next door neighbors house, I'm gonna watch very carefully, call the cops so they can call the coroner, and get me my best two buddies, Smith & Wesson. I worked too hard my entire life to support the crack habit of some professional, lifelong criminal.

 

[Bruzilla]

No, it's not simple stealing. Simple stealing is when your kid leaves their bike out in the street and someone takes it. These guys came onto the neighbor's property (criminal tresspass), made forced entry into the residence (breaking and entering), took his property (theft), then tried to leave (burglary). Once you're on the hook for B&E you go automatically to a presumed threat as you probably used some sort of device to gain entry to the residence, and that same device could be used as a weapon. In the end it doesn't really matter what the facts of the criminal's situations are, and it doesn't matter that they weren't armed. The law applies to what the shooter thought, and it's 100% reasonable for someone who sees two criminals committing a very bold and aggressive burglary in broad daylight to assume they are armed.

I guess the Feds could try to bring some BS civil rights law, but that would put them in the unenviable position of trying to defend the civil rights of two criminals with records, who were shot while committing numerous fellonies... and do this right before a big election year. I would put the odds of a case being brought right up there with the odds of me winning the Brad Pitt lookalike contest.

I agree that families coult also try to sue, but they would face the same challenges and the local and Fed prosecutors. From what I've read, there's not one redeeming quality for either of these guys. They're established criminals, they were commiting multiple violent felonies in broad daylight, and refused to stop when challeneged. There's no way the families would win.

 

[Novus Collectus]

They weren't armed, and nobody was home at the house. It's simple stealing.

Wow, glad you are not my lawyer. It was not simple theft, but even if it was then that too was in the statute:

§ 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

§ 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion
of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a
felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony,
theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or
attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other
than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a
habitation.

CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS - Texas Penal Code - Texas Code :: Justia


They were also armed. They had a crowbar.

BTW, even if he gets off on the "Castle Doctrine" law, he faces other laws.

He was justified under the defense of third person's property statute to confront the burglars. Under the stand your ground bill that took effect in Sptember, he had no duty to retreat. In Texas he had a justifiable self defense:
Note the parts in itallics are the parts of law removed and/or replaced.

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and ]
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used
[requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor
who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of
force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of
the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

80(R) SB 378 - Enrolled version - Bill Text

These thieves may have had families, and they can now sue him in court, maybe take away all of his assets. Or he could face federal charges, and that would trump state's laws.

bye bye house.

No, they cannot sue him and the only way the feds could get involved in a state crime is if there is a federal crime like a hate crime. This was not a hate crime.

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force ordeadly force that
is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from
the defendant's use of
force or deadly force, as applicable.

 

[forestal]

Don't try and put Texas laws ahead of federal ones. Federal ones trump them, that issue was settled during the civil war when the United States of America beat the South into submission. Quite simply he can be brought up on federal charges for denying these men their civil rights (yes even thieves have civil rights) by killing them. He cannot say he was protecting himself because he wasn't. He was defending an empty house that was not his own. He actively sought to confront these men and shot them, most eagerly at that. Honestly, I cannot believe you people. The value of human life gets cheaper by the day. Killing someone for stealing is not acceptable.

Wow, glad you are not my lawyer. It was not simple theft, but even if it was then that too was in the statute:

CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS - Texas Penal Code - Texas Code :: Justia


They were also armed. They had a crowbar.
He was justified under the defense of third person's property statute to confront the burglars. Under the stand your ground bill that took effect in Sptember, he had no duty to retreat. In Texas he had a justifiable self defense:
Note the parts in itallics are the parts of law removed and/or replaced.
80(R) SB 378 - Enrolled version - Bill Text

No, they cannot sue him and the only way the feds could get involved in a state crime is if there is a federal crime like a hate crime. This was not a hate crime.