I love texas.


PDA






beerslurpy
May 29, 2005, 07:19 PM
Man is at work.
Neighbors call "someone's breaking into your house."
Man drives back.
Bang bang bang.
News ensues.

http://www.kcentv.com/news/c-article.php?cid=1&nid=7118

I'm of the opinion that he did us all a favor. Shame he didnt get the other one.

If you enjoyed reading about "I love texas." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
thorn726
May 29, 2005, 07:32 PM
or you're protecting your property at night.

wow that's kinda odd- you can shoot at night, but not in daytime?

CentralTexas
May 29, 2005, 08:45 PM
the law gives you the benefit of the doubt about them being armed etc. In broad daylight you can see what's in their hands....
CT

HighVelocity
May 29, 2005, 08:55 PM
This article is a few days old and there's a pretty long thread about it at www.texaschlforum.com

Whatching the news video made me want to spit. Everyone interviewed including the police chief referred to the wounded burglers as "the victims". :banghead: :fire:

I want to know how somebody that's running away gets shot in the chest. Must have been those evil boomerang bullets. :mad:

Vernal45
May 29, 2005, 08:57 PM
He, the homeowner, will most likely be charged. Which is not what should happen.

The Rabbi
May 29, 2005, 08:59 PM
I think the Texas Criminal Code reads
"'He needed killing' is a valid defense in self-defense situations."

LawDog
May 29, 2005, 09:26 PM
There is a state law allowing you to shoot burglars under limited circumstances.

Waco Police Sgt. Ryan Holt says, "To use deadly force, even in Texas, you have to feel like you're in imminent fear of bodily injury or death or you're protecting your property at night."

When in doubt, read the ***-****** law.

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.

Does that look like "limited circumstances"? Does anyone else see "bodily injury or death" in that law? And does anyone else notice that "during the nighttime" only applies to theft and criminal mischief? Neither one of which is burglary.

You send them to the sodding Academy, you re-train them every two years and what happens? They chew the bloody covers off the books.

LawDog

The Rabbi
May 29, 2005, 09:50 PM
My oft-repeated refrain is that cops arent lawyers.

LawDog
May 29, 2005, 10:02 PM
Codswallop on that excuse.

If I can keep abreast of the Penal Code updates and the Code of Criminal Procedure updates and various Federal laws and everything else, then Sgt Holt of the Waco-by-God Police Dept ought to be able to keep the part of the Texas Penal Code which doesn't change straight.

LawDog

The Rabbi
May 29, 2005, 10:07 PM
Not an excuse. An observation. I have seen too many LEOs without the slightest clue of criminal law or procedure. Maybe they're good at being LEOs, I dunno. But we have heard many many stories here where citizen went to the police to ask about gun laws and got total Bravo Sierra instead.

Standing Wolf
May 29, 2005, 11:07 PM
Codswallop on that excuse.

Whew! I was afraid for a moment you were going to cry, "Balderdash!"

Seriously: it seems to me people who aren't familiar with the law oughtn't try to enforce it.

Fly320s
May 29, 2005, 11:18 PM
Good for the homeowner. Hope he doesn't lose his shirt.

As an aside, does "ignorance of the law is no excuse" apply to cops?

dolanp
May 29, 2005, 11:34 PM
That's why the cops investigate and the DA decides to charge.

Vernal45
May 29, 2005, 11:37 PM
Seriously: it seems to me people who aren't familiar with the law oughtn't try to enforce it.


+1

beerslurpy
May 30, 2005, 12:13 AM
The problem isnt that we have merely average people enforcing the law, its that we have laws that deviate too far from common sense.

If someone is stealing your ????, you should be allowed to shoot them even if they attempt to flee.

Fortunately, Texas laws converge nicely with common sense, even if the cops arent aware of it. I'm sure this guy will walk (or simply not be charged).

gc70
May 30, 2005, 12:25 AM
I like the TV station's stock gun photo.

http://www.kcentv.com/images/gun.jpg

Tasteful - but only in Texas...

Byron Quick
May 30, 2005, 11:01 AM
He, the homeowner, will most likely be charged. Which is not what should happen.

Maybe where you live. I seriously doubt that will happen in Texas. They don't coddle burglars there. As reported, it appears to be a shooting that is legal under Texas law.

Art Eatman
May 30, 2005, 12:31 PM
There are many times when I'm in total accord with Molly Ivins about our Texas Legislature. The mis-writing/interpretation of our state Constitution has them meeting for 140 days every two years, instead of vice-versa. Generally, no man's property or billfold is safe when they're in session.

But I gotta give them credit for the specificity included when they re-wrote the Criminal Code some years back. And, for all that it's now city-dominated, we've done fairly well for farmer/rancher landowner rights...

:), Art

Spreadfire Arms
May 30, 2005, 01:26 PM
and as usual on THR this has turned into a cop bashing thread. :rolleyes:

The Rabbi
May 30, 2005, 01:29 PM
and as usual on THR this has turned into a cop bashing thread.

Only a ninny could tease that meaning out of this thread. I dont think it is asking a lot that cops have at least some knowledge of the laws they are called on to enforce. In the article cited it was obvious that the officer quoted didnt have a clue. I wish that was an isolated incident, but it isnt. Am I bashing cops for making this observation? If so then maybe you're right. But I dont think so.

LawDog
May 30, 2005, 01:45 PM
I am a cop.

Sgt. Holt was directly quoted making a statement about Texas law which is patently untrue.

Now, I posted the relevant law, because Sgt Holt either doesn't know the law which he was trying to quote -- which is, quite frankly inexcusable -- or he knows the law and deliberately misquoted it, which is worse.

We have more than our fair share of cop-bashing threads on THR, this is true. Trust me, I probably know this better than anyone. However, we should not let that fact blind us when a cop does pooch the statutes in the Media.

LawDog

Robb
May 31, 2005, 04:55 PM
Quote:
He, the homeowner, will most likely be charged. Which is not what should happen.


Maybe where you live. I seriously doubt that will happen in Texas. They don't coddle burglars there. As reported, it appears to be a shooting that is legal under Texas law.

Actually, The homeowner probably WILL be arrested, then No-Billed. This is done as a protection to the homeowner because then he can't be re-charged with the crime because of Double-Jeopardy laws. Happens all the time in Texas. (Of course he'll never spend a minute in jail...)

Of course that brings up the VPC's BS about arrests in Texas of CHL holders... If you use your gun in self defense, you'll still be ARRESTED. But the VPC doesn't wnt you to know that's a formality... Of course I'm preaching to the choir here... ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "I love texas." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!