Thumper
Member
www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html
Texas' Deadly Force laws leave room to protect a third person's property. This was a pretty extreme test of that defense, but the Grand Jury held with Mr. Horn in spite of influence from Quanell X and others.
The statute is fairly clear.
Emphasis mine. Many here simply overlook the word "or."
What do you think?
Texas' Deadly Force laws leave room to protect a third person's property. This was a pretty extreme test of that defense, but the Grand Jury held with Mr. Horn in spite of influence from Quanell X and others.
The statute is fairly clear.
§ 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.
Emphasis mine. Many here simply overlook the word "or."
What do you think?