Vernal45
member
deleted
Last edited:
Homeowner chases down two would-be robbers, killing one
- Thread starter MechAg94
- Start date
- Status
beerslurpy
member
Oooh I am suddenly filled with ideas to improve florida's castle doctrine.
I have always been an admirer of Texas' burglar shooting and nighttime trespasser shooting laws. I like how you can shoot the burglar if he is absconding with your property but already off your property.
I have always been an admirer of Texas' burglar shooting and nighttime trespasser shooting laws. I like how you can shoot the burglar if he is absconding with your property but already off your property.
Ryder
Member
This sounds pretty hard core even to me (I know, hard to believe) but I have little doubt the 4 figured they had the strength in numbers to do anything they wanted and caused him fear with their stated intentions. Criminals will do that more often than not. I've seen it time and again.
The article said he was protecting his family. IF that is true then all I can say is good job!
The article said he was protecting his family. IF that is true then all I can say is good job!
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Of course, by that logic, it should be pretty easy to shoot at one unarmed guy who's trapped in an SUV and completely surrounded. How many times was Winston Hayes hit again? Out of 120 rounds fired?
Same logic applies to Diallo. One guy standing in a doorway retrieving his wallet to show his "papers". Another unarmed guy standing still and "not shooting back".
But those shoots were justified, right?
See my reference to Diallo above. Wasn't that shooting ruled OK because the police thought he may have done something? (With no knowledge or proof of this). Or was it OK because they thought his wallet might've been a gun?
Double-standard much?
Personally, I think that the homeowner in question should be given a medal and a parade should be held in his honor. The entire event should be celebrated and locally televised with as much positive press coverage as possible.
Consider the 'deterrent' effect on crime.
Steve in PA
Member
§ 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.
*Note this is use of force not deadly force*
§ 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.
Please show me where in the law that is says it is ok (legal) to use deadly force to prevent trespassing? Don't pick and choose little bits of sections to support your claim. READ THE SECTIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
He is entitled to use force against trespass.
He is entitled to use deadly force if it is immediately necessary to prevent "imminent commission" (even though there seems to be no definition of this anywhere) of arson, burglary.
So, for all we know these persons could have been cutting through his property. They did no act which showed their intentions other than trespassing. So your saying under your definition of "imminent commission" you can use deadly force just because someone is on your property? I don't think so. You still need to prove that there was some sort of attempt by them to do the act (arson, burglary, etc). Because if you can't then they are nothing more than trespassers and you can not use deadly force against someone for just trespassing.
Also, make sure you read this;
§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
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.
*Note this is use of force not deadly force*
§ 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.
Please show me where in the law that is says it is ok (legal) to use deadly force to prevent trespassing? Don't pick and choose little bits of sections to support your claim. READ THE SECTIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
He is entitled to use force against trespass.
He is entitled to use deadly force if it is immediately necessary to prevent "imminent commission" (even though there seems to be no definition of this anywhere) of arson, burglary.
So, for all we know these persons could have been cutting through his property. They did no act which showed their intentions other than trespassing. So your saying under your definition of "imminent commission" you can use deadly force just because someone is on your property? I don't think so. You still need to prove that there was some sort of attempt by them to do the act (arson, burglary, etc). Because if you can't then they are nothing more than trespassers and you can not use deadly force against someone for just trespassing.
Also, make sure you read this;
§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
Last edited:
Steve in PA
Member
"You'd think so, wouldn't you? Of course, by that logic, it should be pretty easy to shoot at one unarmed guy who's trapped in an SUV and completely surrounded. How many times was Winston Hayes hit again? Out of 120 rounds fired?"
Have you seen pics of the vehicle? There were bullet holes in and around each of the tires, there were bullet holes in the hood of the vehicle. So its pretty safe to say that more than one of those officers were attempting to disable the vehicle, not shoot the driver.
And in the Dialo case, you can read about it here Dissecting the Diallo Shooting: Four Seconds to Hell
As McMellon approached with his shield hanging in front of him from a neck chain, he said to Mr. Diallo "Police Department, City of New York. We’d like to have a word with you." (It is important to note at this time that this author has spoken with several officers who have worked with McMellon and all say that these words were a custom with him and he used the same phrases each time he made a stop.) Carroll then added something to the effect of "This will only take a minute sir." At this point Mr. Diallo started to back into the vestibule and the two officers then added the commands "Stay where you are," and "Keep your hands where we can see them." (These are likely not exact quotes.) Instead Mr. Diallo ran into the vestibule while reaching his right hand into his right front pocket causing the officers to repeat "Keep your hands where we can see them!" As Mr. Diallo reached the door he shook on the doorknob and then started to turn toward the officers while pulling a black object out of his pocket and going into what appeared to be shooting stance, bringing his hands toward each other. As McMellon, who was now in the vestibule within a few feet of Diallo yelled, "What are you doing?" Carroll yelled, "Gun!" McMellon and Carroll fired first. As McMellon tried to retreat past Carroll, who was now at the top step, he fell backward clearing all five steps and landing on his coccyx at the bottom. At this point Carroll, Murphy and Boss all thought McMellon had been shot. As Carroll also stumbled off the steps, eventually winding up kneeling at the bottom, Murphy quickly fired four rounds and dodged to his right. Boss, who was the last out of the car, headed straight for McMellon and seeing Diallo still standing in what appeared to him to be a "crouched" position, fired five quick rounds and dodged to his left trying to find out where McMellon was hit.
And if you read my prior posts, I said if the men in the yard made those types of movements then he would have been justified in defending himself. However, the article does not say this, and for all we know it may be true. However, the fact that he had time to run into the house, arm himself and run back out does not weigh in his favor.
Have you seen pics of the vehicle? There were bullet holes in and around each of the tires, there were bullet holes in the hood of the vehicle. So its pretty safe to say that more than one of those officers were attempting to disable the vehicle, not shoot the driver.
And in the Dialo case, you can read about it here Dissecting the Diallo Shooting: Four Seconds to Hell
As McMellon approached with his shield hanging in front of him from a neck chain, he said to Mr. Diallo "Police Department, City of New York. We’d like to have a word with you." (It is important to note at this time that this author has spoken with several officers who have worked with McMellon and all say that these words were a custom with him and he used the same phrases each time he made a stop.) Carroll then added something to the effect of "This will only take a minute sir." At this point Mr. Diallo started to back into the vestibule and the two officers then added the commands "Stay where you are," and "Keep your hands where we can see them." (These are likely not exact quotes.) Instead Mr. Diallo ran into the vestibule while reaching his right hand into his right front pocket causing the officers to repeat "Keep your hands where we can see them!" As Mr. Diallo reached the door he shook on the doorknob and then started to turn toward the officers while pulling a black object out of his pocket and going into what appeared to be shooting stance, bringing his hands toward each other. As McMellon, who was now in the vestibule within a few feet of Diallo yelled, "What are you doing?" Carroll yelled, "Gun!" McMellon and Carroll fired first. As McMellon tried to retreat past Carroll, who was now at the top step, he fell backward clearing all five steps and landing on his coccyx at the bottom. At this point Carroll, Murphy and Boss all thought McMellon had been shot. As Carroll also stumbled off the steps, eventually winding up kneeling at the bottom, Murphy quickly fired four rounds and dodged to his right. Boss, who was the last out of the car, headed straight for McMellon and seeing Diallo still standing in what appeared to him to be a "crouched" position, fired five quick rounds and dodged to his left trying to find out where McMellon was hit.
And if you read my prior posts, I said if the men in the yard made those types of movements then he would have been justified in defending himself. However, the article does not say this, and for all we know it may be true. However, the fact that he had time to run into the house, arm himself and run back out does not weigh in his favor.
ravinraven
Member
And the final chapter of the story.
City council wrecking crew, with the support of the US Supreme Court, removed said house and replaced it with a Mini-Mart.
Did anyone shoot at these particular invaders?
rr
City council wrecking crew, with the support of the US Supreme Court, removed said house and replaced it with a Mini-Mart.
Did anyone shoot at these particular invaders?
rr
peacefuljeffrey
member
To some of us, it sounds like a few miscreants are out of the picture and won't be screwing with the safety and security of law-abiding people on their own property.
*** were these guys doing on this guy's property? It's not fair to judge the guy's actions without knowing what it appeared, to him, the trespassers were up to. Were they saying anything, shouting about how they were gonna "get him"? Maybe they were holding objects he could not make out? Maybe they were throwing things, or appeared to be headed for entrances to the house?
I'm not as quick as you all are to say it wasn't a "good shoot." For starters, one way to avoid getting shot is to not be trespassing on someone's property at night.
-Jeffrey
peacefuljeffrey
member
I am wondering what keeps a person who sees things so easily the way the antis see them from actually just being an anti... If it quacks like a duck...
You decry this as being what makes getting Florida's presumption laws enacted difficult, indicating that you support them, but this kind of ad hoc, heat-of-the-moment decisionmaking is exactly what those laws are for. Why complain about the difficulty in passing the laws if you are opposed to what they empower us to do?
Like it or not, Texas law supports shooting someone over an issue of theft of property. I personally agree with it. I don't value the life of a criminal thief scumbag, and I don't care if you think I'm inhuman for it. I know, quietly and calmly to myself, that it is the criminal thief scumbag who is the inhuman one. He can easily keep from getting shot by a defender, by not being the kind of person that defenders need to defend against!
You overqualified your statement: It is true that the right to be secure in one's PERSON does not entitle you to shoot someone "failing a reasonable threat to your own physical well being," but the right to be secure in one's PROPERTY, according to Texas law, does.
-Jeffrey
beerslurpy
member
Difficult in your dreams. Both Florida deadly force bills passed both houses unanimously and were immediately signed into law.
Even the dumb hag from Miami-Dade who keeps proposing assault weapon bans voted in favor of these bills.
i love texas...
In this situation i would have not shot at the people. But i really do like the idea that if something more severe had happed that resulted in a shooting I probably wouldn’t be going to jail. I currently live in VA, and I think that if I was involved in a shooting I would be going to jail for at least three days, i would also probably be forced to loan all of my firearms to the local police for a couple months...
I love Texas.
When i was 12 and lived in MN i knew about Texas' shoot first ask questions later policy. I was told that it was legal to shoot people that were sneaking around on your property or what not at night. I think its pretty much common knowledge to everyone over 10 that lives in Texas that you don't screw around with others people's stuff/property at night because you might get shot. Im willing to guess that at least one out of those 4 people knew that there actions put them at risk. The people knew the risks, they got shot, thier fault, they should have never put them selves into that situation. Would i have shot them, no. But keep in mind i was raised in very liberal areas compared to texas. Texas is a long ways away from anywhere i have ever lived, the shoot first mind set may be extremely prevalent in that area of the country. And when in Roman...
In this situation i would have not shot at the people. But i really do like the idea that if something more severe had happed that resulted in a shooting I probably wouldn’t be going to jail. I currently live in VA, and I think that if I was involved in a shooting I would be going to jail for at least three days, i would also probably be forced to loan all of my firearms to the local police for a couple months...
I love Texas.
When i was 12 and lived in MN i knew about Texas' shoot first ask questions later policy. I was told that it was legal to shoot people that were sneaking around on your property or what not at night. I think its pretty much common knowledge to everyone over 10 that lives in Texas that you don't screw around with others people's stuff/property at night because you might get shot. Im willing to guess that at least one out of those 4 people knew that there actions put them at risk. The people knew the risks, they got shot, thier fault, they should have never put them selves into that situation. Would i have shot them, no. But keep in mind i was raised in very liberal areas compared to texas. Texas is a long ways away from anywhere i have ever lived, the shoot first mind set may be extremely prevalent in that area of the country. And when in Roman...
Deavis
Member
haha, hey steve, quit picking and choosing parts of the law (as you suggest we are doing). Here I pick this part now...
There are a number of reasons that he could have been justified in using deadly force. Quit focusing only on the burglary aspect. Criminal mischief is a very broad thing. You don't know what they were doing in his lawn and neither do we. So quit making assumptions about what they could have been doing. I keep pointing out that depending on the circumstances he could be justified in shooting them based on Texas law.
Doesn't matter. If he was justified, then he was justified. The law makes no mention of arming yourself to respond. At the civil trial, I'm sure they'll take that into account. We all get it, you don't like the fact that a man can use deadly force to remove trespassers from his land if they meet certain criteria. That is great. In Texas, we don't feel that way, especially at night. Besides the fact, we haven't even discussed his ability to try and justify using deadly force under the other Texas Statutes. A 4 on 1 fight can be reason to use deadly force based on the laws.
Once again, I'll say it again since you just aren't getting it.
You don't know enough about the situation to know if he was justified or not, yet!
There are a number of reasons that he could have been justified in using deadly force. Quit focusing only on the burglary aspect. Criminal mischief is a very broad thing. You don't know what they were doing in his lawn and neither do we. So quit making assumptions about what they could have been doing. I keep pointing out that depending on the circumstances he could be justified in shooting them based on Texas law.
Doesn't matter. If he was justified, then he was justified. The law makes no mention of arming yourself to respond. At the civil trial, I'm sure they'll take that into account. We all get it, you don't like the fact that a man can use deadly force to remove trespassers from his land if they meet certain criteria. That is great. In Texas, we don't feel that way, especially at night. Besides the fact, we haven't even discussed his ability to try and justify using deadly force under the other Texas Statutes. A 4 on 1 fight can be reason to use deadly force based on the laws.
Once again, I'll say it again since you just aren't getting it.
You don't know enough about the situation to know if he was justified or not, yet!
Steve in PA
Member
There still has to be a defintion for "imminent commission"
Where was he justified in using deadly force to stop the "imminent commission" of the crimes listed........if they left???? There is no longer any imminent commision!! DUH!!
You can't be charged or shot for imminent commision of arson, if you don't have a can of gas, a pack of matches, or even two sticks to rub together, etc!!! DUH!!!!!
You can't be charged with imminent commision of burglary, robbery, etc....if you there is no act thereof or even proof that was there intent!!! DUH!!!
So what if he didn't shoot them, and held them for police, what charge, other than trespassing would they be charged with? Imminent commission of arson?? On what basis? Burglary, robbery, criminal mischief, theft??? Why not charge them with trying to kill the President while your at it.
Get off your high horse and read the laws you profess to know. Read the entire law. I spent 10 minutes reading it and I already know more than you do about it. References to other sections and "and" are very important in understanding laws. I'm sorry you can't seem to fathom this concept.
And you don't know enough about the situation to say I was wrong! This whole thread is based on what was published in the article, so that what I am basing everything I say on.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Where was he justified in using deadly force to stop the "imminent commission" of the crimes listed........if they left???? There is no longer any imminent commision!! DUH!!
You can't be charged or shot for imminent commision of arson, if you don't have a can of gas, a pack of matches, or even two sticks to rub together, etc!!! DUH!!!!!
You can't be charged with imminent commision of burglary, robbery, etc....if you there is no act thereof or even proof that was there intent!!! DUH!!!
So what if he didn't shoot them, and held them for police, what charge, other than trespassing would they be charged with? Imminent commission of arson?? On what basis? Burglary, robbery, criminal mischief, theft??? Why not charge them with trying to kill the President while your at it.
Get off your high horse and read the laws you profess to know. Read the entire law. I spent 10 minutes reading it and I already know more than you do about it. References to other sections and "and" are very important in understanding laws. I'm sorry you can't seem to fathom this concept.
And you don't know enough about the situation to say I was wrong! This whole thread is based on what was published in the article, so that what I am basing everything I say on.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Steve in PA
Member
There is no law in Texas that says you can use deadly force against a trespasser. :banghead:
Unless the guy had good insurance there wont be a civil case. If he lived in that area then he had no money. No lawyer will take the case. The arguments here amuse me. It is always funny when people base arguments off of facts that arent complete and that neither know anything about the missing ones. There could be so much missing info here that is critical. Based ONLY on the article the guy didnt have provocation. Of course the article is about as much a reflection on reality as a cartoon is. The race, size, clothing, actions and such of everyone involved are key issues that are unknown.
What are the facts: Texas gives more reasons to use deadly force to protect property at night than most places. That is about it.
What are the facts: Texas gives more reasons to use deadly force to protect property at night than most places. That is about it.
I'm a Houston police officer. I worked the 5th Ward area for the better part of 10 years and I can tell you that its a really bad area. I have no doubts that the four were up to no good.
To Steve in Pa:
You can shoot someone in Texas for tresspass. I have made scenes where it has happened and the shoot was found to be justified.
Several years ago a fellow from Scotland was visiting Houston and was killed.
Seems he got drunk and went into a man's backyard and started walking toward the owner's door. The owner thought that the guy was going to break into his home and he killed him. D.A. Holmes said that it was a good shoot. He said thats what we call a "crying shame" in Texas.
That being said, I do not advocate shooting everyone that steps onto your property. Killing a man is a hard thing to live with sometimes.
Buford
To Steve in Pa:
You can shoot someone in Texas for tresspass. I have made scenes where it has happened and the shoot was found to be justified.
Several years ago a fellow from Scotland was visiting Houston and was killed.
Seems he got drunk and went into a man's backyard and started walking toward the owner's door. The owner thought that the guy was going to break into his home and he killed him. D.A. Holmes said that it was a good shoot. He said thats what we call a "crying shame" in Texas.
That being said, I do not advocate shooting everyone that steps onto your property. Killing a man is a hard thing to live with sometimes.
Buford
Steve, I live in Texas, and you are spitting in the wind here. I have seen how the law is interpreted by D.A.'s and judges, and what people are telling you here is the truth.
Another example -- a gentleman was looking out a second floor window of his house. He saw someone on his property, rummaging around his parked car. The homeowner shot and killed him. Turns out the man was a homeless bum looking through the garbage cans, but the homeowner was not prosecuted -- because the bum was trespassing, it was night, etc.
So, as strange as it may sound to you, this is what can happen here.
But if it will make you feel better, the VAST majority of Texans would NOT, and do NOT, shoot in these situations, because like me, they really, really, don't want to shoot anyone under almost any circustances if they can avoid it. Thus these situations are fairly rare -- that is why they make it into the newpapers.
Another example -- a gentleman was looking out a second floor window of his house. He saw someone on his property, rummaging around his parked car. The homeowner shot and killed him. Turns out the man was a homeless bum looking through the garbage cans, but the homeowner was not prosecuted -- because the bum was trespassing, it was night, etc.
So, as strange as it may sound to you, this is what can happen here.
But if it will make you feel better, the VAST majority of Texans would NOT, and do NOT, shoot in these situations, because like me, they really, really, don't want to shoot anyone under almost any circustances if they can avoid it. Thus these situations are fairly rare -- that is why they make it into the newpapers.
A Grand Jury in Texas will seldom indict for shooting a criminal trespasser at night.
[highlight]However, if people keep getting shot under these circumstances, the Texas Legislature will remove our ability to do so.[/highlight]
The guy from Scotland, the Hallowe'ener on the front porch and one or two other incidents of people getting killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time are causing the Texas Legislature to look at re-doing the Deadly Force laws of Texas.
Knowing the Texas Legislature, when they re-visit these laws, we're liable to wind up with something that looks like it came directly out of Sacremento.
Use some common-sense here, folks!
Check the Criminal Trespass laws here:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm
They're under 30.05.
Since the critters were running when Lerma shot them, I doubt that the Criminal Trespass laws apply, but I don't have all the information yet, so I'll with-hold judgement until I do.
LawDog
[highlight]However, if people keep getting shot under these circumstances, the Texas Legislature will remove our ability to do so.[/highlight]
The guy from Scotland, the Hallowe'ener on the front porch and one or two other incidents of people getting killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time are causing the Texas Legislature to look at re-doing the Deadly Force laws of Texas.
Knowing the Texas Legislature, when they re-visit these laws, we're liable to wind up with something that looks like it came directly out of Sacremento.
Use some common-sense here, folks!
Check the Criminal Trespass laws here:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm
They're under 30.05.
Since the critters were running when Lerma shot them, I doubt that the Criminal Trespass laws apply, but I don't have all the information yet, so I'll with-hold judgement until I do.
LawDog
Last edited:
Steve in PA
Member
Where in Texas law does it state you can use deadly force to stop trespassing??
§ 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:
What the above says is that you can shoot someone to protect your land(that would be tresspassing) if you are also justified in using force other than deadly force when the property owner feels that it is necessary right then and there.
I don't know how it could be any more plain.
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:
What the above says is that you can shoot someone to protect your land(that would be tresspassing) if you are also justified in using force other than deadly force when the property owner feels that it is necessary right then and there.
I don't know how it could be any more plain.
Last edited:
Incorrect, Buford.
You must include everything after the colon in order to able to use Deadly Force.
In simpler language all three sections of 9.42 must be met before you can use Deadly Force.
You've got to have Section (1), plus either Section (2)(A) or (2)(B), plus either Section (3)(A) or (3)(B).
You've got to be justified in using Force under 9.41, plus the critter has to have done some other things, before you can go from Force to Deadly Force.
LawDog
You must include everything after the colon in order to able to use Deadly Force.
In simpler language all three sections of 9.42 must be met before you can use Deadly Force.
You've got to have Section (1), plus either Section (2)(A) or (2)(B), plus either Section (3)(A) or (3)(B).
You've got to be justified in using Force under 9.41, plus the critter has to have done some other things, before you can go from Force to Deadly Force.
LawDog
You are right. I stand corrected.
I suppose that in the Scotland drunk case the homeowner was acting under threat to life rather than defense of property.
I do, however, distinctly remember D.A. Holmes invoking the "theft during the nighttime" statute.
While you may not use deadly force on a trespasser, the reality of the matter here in Texas is this:
Homeowner hears noise in yard, sees intruder poking around where he has no business being and homeowner challenges intruder. Intruder says F you or maybe nothing at all. Homeowner smokechecks intruder. There is not a grand jury in Texas that would indict the homeowner.
God bless Texas!
I suppose that in the Scotland drunk case the homeowner was acting under threat to life rather than defense of property.
I do, however, distinctly remember D.A. Holmes invoking the "theft during the nighttime" statute.
While you may not use deadly force on a trespasser, the reality of the matter here in Texas is this:
Homeowner hears noise in yard, sees intruder poking around where he has no business being and homeowner challenges intruder. Intruder says F you or maybe nothing at all. Homeowner smokechecks intruder. There is not a grand jury in Texas that would indict the homeowner.
God bless Texas!
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Just what do you think vigilantism is? If protecting one's self, property, or whatever within the confines of the law, against a crime, is not vigilantism. Self defense is not vigilantism.
Vigilantism is when a person is illegally precluded from due-process. The classic example is where lynch mobs killed people they perceived as being criminals without the supposed criminals getting a chance to go through the whole legal process and the people were lynched at some point in time AFTER said crime had been committed.
If the property owner shot the suspect during the commission of a crime, it isn't vigilantism.
The problem in Texas is that we have a lot of moron criminals who don't realize they can be shot for doing what they do and the property owner be fully justified in doing so. Stupidity is expensive.
Joey101
Member
I will put it to you guys this way. I live in Texas, I used to live in Maryland. Things are definitely different here in Texas as far as crime goes. I guess it depends where you live. But I used to be a repo man and did alot of work in some of the worst parts of Dallas. It ain't so bad. Baltimore City is soo much worse.
However, it still stands that if you come into my house in the middle of the night or in the daytime. Trying to rob me or whatever. I will shoot to kill. Plain and simple. I don't play around, I am far to protective over my family. It is either you or me. And it ain't going to be me!
However, it still stands that if you come into my house in the middle of the night or in the daytime. Trying to rob me or whatever. I will shoot to kill. Plain and simple. I don't play around, I am far to protective over my family. It is either you or me. And it ain't going to be me!
Last edited:
Steve in PA
Member
"However, it still stands that if you come into my house in the middle of the night or in the daytime. Trying to rob me or whatever. I will shoot to kill. Plain and simple. I don't play around, I am far to protective over my family. It is either you or me. And it ain't going to be me!"
Someone coming into your home is a whole lot different than someone outside your home, as in the case which this thread is based on. If someone is inside your home, is a significant act towards the commission of burglary, robbery.
Someone coming into your home is a whole lot different than someone outside your home, as in the case which this thread is based on. If someone is inside your home, is a significant act towards the commission of burglary, robbery.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked