Why You Must Know Your Target... Even In Texas
- Thread starter Fred Fuller
- Start date
- Status
Flintknapper
Member
Roadwild17 wrote:
Castle Doctrine Bill SB 378
Please read this link:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00378F.pdf
The "Castle Doctrine" basically did three things:
1. Removed the duty to retreat anywhere you legally have a right to be… when using deadly force (some limitations)
2. Created a presumption that you reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary, when dealing with your home, business, or car, or when attempting to prevent certain violent felonies (some limitations)
3. Created immunity from civil liability, as your use of deadly force was justified under TPC Chp. 9. (this does not mean you can not be sued, it just means you will win).
If you have other questions concerning the use of deadly force, penal codes, etc....please join us here:
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/index.php
Hard to say...but certainly the sign will not prove helpful in this situation.
That was Joe Horn and you have grossly oversimplified the event. He was well within the law with respect to his actions.... even we don't agree with them.
Yes Texas has a Castle Doctrine and here is "specifically" what it says (please read):
Castle Doctrine Bill SB 378
Please read this link:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00378F.pdf
The "Castle Doctrine" basically did three things:
1. Removed the duty to retreat anywhere you legally have a right to be… when using deadly force (some limitations)
2. Created a presumption that you reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary, when dealing with your home, business, or car, or when attempting to prevent certain violent felonies (some limitations)
3. Created immunity from civil liability, as your use of deadly force was justified under TPC Chp. 9. (this does not mean you can not be sued, it just means you will win).
At this point we have no way of knowing what they were thinking. But Texas law does permit the actions they took either under the Castle Doctrine or Trespass laws unless the event took place at night (mischief at night) and the person(s) absolutely knew the intruders were on their property (not just close).
Absolutely! I see no reasonable defense on their part, and I fully expect to see them charged and convicted on several counts.
If you have other questions concerning the use of deadly force, penal codes, etc....please join us here:
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/index.php
Last edited:
Nightrunner
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 8
Very tragic and very stupid.
And very unjust for the parents of those kids if the charges are not upgraded.
Sadly, I know folks who fire blindly at strangers who wander unannounced onto their property. They proudly defend this practice by quoting everything from the 2nd Amendment to "shoot first, ask questions later." Asking questions of the dead is far more trouble than anyone wants.
And very unjust for the parents of those kids if the charges are not upgraded.
Sadly, I know folks who fire blindly at strangers who wander unannounced onto their property. They proudly defend this practice by quoting everything from the 2nd Amendment to "shoot first, ask questions later." Asking questions of the dead is far more trouble than anyone wants.
Reminds me of a story about a certain couple eating a forbidden fruit from a forbidden tree in a certain garden.
Obviously the Muhses considered firing at strangers to be a sporting hobby.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Lee, I don't understand your thread title. There is nothing in the article to indicate that the shooters didn't know their target. Their target was "trespassers" and trespassers is what the shooter intended and accomplished shooting.
I see no statements of remorse over shooting, hitting, and killing of the victims. I see no statements in regard to misidentification of the targets. As far as the shooter was concerned, the target was identified and dealt with as per the 911 call.
Maybe the title should have been ...
or
Then again, these are things that one should know anywhere, no?
doc540
Member
river rats
they do crap like this
they do crap like this
MisterMike
Member
This actually stirred a memory of something that happened to me when I was a wee lad. I was a member of a group called the Explorers . . . kind of like Boy Scouts, but closely tied to our church.
We took a canoe trip one weekend, and came to a point where somone had strung barbed wire across the river. In retrospect, it was clearly intended to snag an unspsecting canoeist. About the time our group had cleared this obstacle, a couple of Deliverance-looking guys showed up with shotguns, and threatened to shoot us if we didn't turn around. That wasn't about to happen, since our group was mostly made up of a bunch of little kids who would never have made it back upriver against the current.
I can't really say why they relented and let us go on our way, but after a few minutes they did. Maybe my little pea-brain didn't pick up the nuances, but at the time it sure seemed that these two goofs were ready to shoot . . . just because they didn't like people canoeing down the river next to their farm.
This sort of thing is a constant thorn in the side of responsible gun owners. It only takes one negative interaction . . . or even a news story like this . . . to forever turn someone to an anti-rights perspective.
We took a canoe trip one weekend, and came to a point where somone had strung barbed wire across the river. In retrospect, it was clearly intended to snag an unspsecting canoeist. About the time our group had cleared this obstacle, a couple of Deliverance-looking guys showed up with shotguns, and threatened to shoot us if we didn't turn around. That wasn't about to happen, since our group was mostly made up of a bunch of little kids who would never have made it back upriver against the current.
I can't really say why they relented and let us go on our way, but after a few minutes they did. Maybe my little pea-brain didn't pick up the nuances, but at the time it sure seemed that these two goofs were ready to shoot . . . just because they didn't like people canoeing down the river next to their farm.
This sort of thing is a constant thorn in the side of responsible gun owners. It only takes one negative interaction . . . or even a news story like this . . . to forever turn someone to an anti-rights perspective.
Posted by Jeff White:
Not limited to Texas, I'm afraid. A lot of people are terribly misinformed, particularly when it comes to what to do in the case of trespass, and some of what people have advocated here could get them in a world of trouble should they act on it, or even if something should happen where the facts are not clear but their posts could prove damaging.
Posted by Double Naught Spy:
Yep! It is essential that everyone understand his or her state laws before taking gun in hand, not to mention firing.
This case in Texas involved some people doing something exceptionally stupid and illegal when encountering what they said they thought to be trespassers. Trespass laws seem to be the subject of a lot of confusion.
In most states, the only lawful thing to do when encountering a trespasser is to ask him to leave. In some states, if the trespasser refuses to leave, one's only recourse is to notify the authorities. And in some states, what the authorities will do is issue a citation, while in others, they may be empowered to make an arrest.
"Holding" a trespasser is unlawful in most places; after all, the trespasser is where he should not be, and keeping him from leaving is inconsistent with the intent of the law. It also can create a lot of legal risk for the property owner.
These things vary greatly by state, and within states, there are different kinds of trespass.
Before anyone ventures out with a gun to deal with a trespasser, or to do anything else for that matter, he darn well better know what he can and cannot lawfully do in his state. I personally would not rely on applying dictionary definitions to the wording in the statutes without having a legal opinion based on the laws in the context of the rest of the code and on legal precedent. And I wouldn't rely on verbal advice from the sheriff. I've heard altogether too many people say "a policeman once told me...".
These "ranchers" in Texas obviously didn't have a clue.
Not limited to Texas, I'm afraid. A lot of people are terribly misinformed, particularly when it comes to what to do in the case of trespass, and some of what people have advocated here could get them in a world of trouble should they act on it, or even if something should happen where the facts are not clear but their posts could prove damaging.
Posted by Double Naught Spy:
Yep! It is essential that everyone understand his or her state laws before taking gun in hand, not to mention firing.
This case in Texas involved some people doing something exceptionally stupid and illegal when encountering what they said they thought to be trespassers. Trespass laws seem to be the subject of a lot of confusion.
In most states, the only lawful thing to do when encountering a trespasser is to ask him to leave. In some states, if the trespasser refuses to leave, one's only recourse is to notify the authorities. And in some states, what the authorities will do is issue a citation, while in others, they may be empowered to make an arrest.
"Holding" a trespasser is unlawful in most places; after all, the trespasser is where he should not be, and keeping him from leaving is inconsistent with the intent of the law. It also can create a lot of legal risk for the property owner.
These things vary greatly by state, and within states, there are different kinds of trespass.
Before anyone ventures out with a gun to deal with a trespasser, or to do anything else for that matter, he darn well better know what he can and cannot lawfully do in his state. I personally would not rely on applying dictionary definitions to the wording in the statutes without having a legal opinion based on the laws in the context of the rest of the code and on legal precedent. And I wouldn't rely on verbal advice from the sheriff. I've heard altogether too many people say "a policeman once told me...".
These "ranchers" in Texas obviously didn't have a clue.
jerkface11
Member
They killed a 7 year old for no reason. Do you really think the sign matters? It's not like it's going to taint a good shoot.
DAVIDSDIVAD
member
That's what "such as it is" means, dude.
Every state has different laws, and sometimes the law allows things some would not agree with, and many other times it can punish or excessively limit options puting people at risk or helping bad guys previal.
In this case it would appear the two callous individuals were outside Texas law for several reasons. First they clearly were not defending themselves.
That leaves defense of property in Texas. Nobody stole anything, commited any felonies, or were fleeing the scene with property.
There is one final option under Texas law.
Vandalism at night on private property is malicious mischief under Texas law.
Finaly if the news report is to be believed they were not even on thier private property. The news often gets such things wrong, and that information may or may not be correct and is likely merely a statement of someone else.
If it is a situation where they were technicaly legaly justified that sign would still hurt them in front of a jury.
Especialy if someone really may be shot.
The media is ususaly biased, and it is difficult to know the situation. Some young children were hurt by gunfire and one killed when no lives were in danger. Moraly wrong for most people.
However playing devil's advocate we must consider Texas law. If the shot individuals were commiting malicious mischief and they were on the shooters' property then it could be potentialy legal.
We do not know if they were doing donuts in the yard, making noise and intentionaly being a nuisance on a wild ride at night before jumping off to urinate in the yard. While that would not moraly justify the use of force for most of us, it could legaly justify the use of force under Texas law on private property at night.
In this case it would appear the two callous individuals were outside Texas law for several reasons. First they clearly were not defending themselves.
That leaves defense of property in Texas. Nobody stole anything, commited any felonies, or were fleeing the scene with property.
There is one final option under Texas law.
So it could be mailicious mischief at night if on thier property. If individuals were urinating on private property in the middle of the night while tresspassing and that urination or exposure qualifies as a crime it could count. If the offroad vehicles were destroying property it could potentialy count again.
Vandalism at night on private property is malicious mischief under Texas law.
Finaly if the news report is to be believed they were not even on thier private property. The news often gets such things wrong, and that information may or may not be correct and is likely merely a statement of someone else.
If it is a situation where they were technicaly legaly justified that sign would still hurt them in front of a jury.
A sign that shows pleasure in shooting someone, and implies they will be shot again even if unnecessary to prevent something which justifies such force under the law is a very poor choice to decorate the yard with.
Especialy if someone really may be shot.
The media is ususaly biased, and it is difficult to know the situation. Some young children were hurt by gunfire and one killed when no lives were in danger. Moraly wrong for most people.
However playing devil's advocate we must consider Texas law. If the shot individuals were commiting malicious mischief and they were on the shooters' property then it could be potentialy legal.
We do not know if they were doing donuts in the yard, making noise and intentionaly being a nuisance on a wild ride at night before jumping off to urinate in the yard. While that would not moraly justify the use of force for most of us, it could legaly justify the use of force under Texas law on private property at night.
Last edited:
Devil's advocate
The other article says
If the shooting did occur on or very near their property, or what they reasonably believed to be their property given the darkness, and was in response to what could reasonably be construed as willful destruction of property (ie 'tearing up the levee'), they might get off. Defense of property could theoretically include defense against vandalism, tire damage, or even urine.
The defense lawyer gets multiple swings at the pinata of justice - if he can claim public urination makes them vandals, he will. If public urination makes them technically criminals, less protected under the law than other citizens, he will. All sorts of claims that would enrage a jury, the judge will consider and weigh.
A clever lawyer will set the scene as "multiple ATVs roared up to their isolated home and cut the engines ominously. Their home is well away from any public oads, and no one could have any reasonable legal reason to be there at that time of night. It was pitch black and the couple couldn't see well. They called out a challenge that wasn't answered. They heard multiple people moving toward them. She shot once, realized she couldn't see well, and handed the gun to her husband to protect her. He shot once. The family of off-roaders waited until two shots had been fired before responding. The couple stopped firing immediately upon realizing that they weren't in imminent danger"
I imagine a lot will hinge on whether the family was off-roading legally, or whether off-roading was prohibited where they were (by whoever or for whatever reason). If the parents were DUI or weren't tested for drugs/alcohol, the defense will get a lot of mileage out of it.
Oh, and that sign? A good start on the insanity defense. Look at the photos of the two - a good legal team will be getting the medial work up to support 'vitamin deficiency induced delusional paranoia'.
The other article says
If the shooting did occur on or very near their property, or what they reasonably believed to be their property given the darkness, and was in response to what could reasonably be construed as willful destruction of property (ie 'tearing up the levee'), they might get off. Defense of property could theoretically include defense against vandalism, tire damage, or even urine.
The defense lawyer gets multiple swings at the pinata of justice - if he can claim public urination makes them vandals, he will. If public urination makes them technically criminals, less protected under the law than other citizens, he will. All sorts of claims that would enrage a jury, the judge will consider and weigh.
A clever lawyer will set the scene as "multiple ATVs roared up to their isolated home and cut the engines ominously. Their home is well away from any public oads, and no one could have any reasonable legal reason to be there at that time of night. It was pitch black and the couple couldn't see well. They called out a challenge that wasn't answered. They heard multiple people moving toward them. She shot once, realized she couldn't see well, and handed the gun to her husband to protect her. He shot once. The family of off-roaders waited until two shots had been fired before responding. The couple stopped firing immediately upon realizing that they weren't in imminent danger"
I imagine a lot will hinge on whether the family was off-roading legally, or whether off-roading was prohibited where they were (by whoever or for whatever reason). If the parents were DUI or weren't tested for drugs/alcohol, the defense will get a lot of mileage out of it.
Oh, and that sign? A good start on the insanity defense. Look at the photos of the two - a good legal team will be getting the medial work up to support 'vitamin deficiency induced delusional paranoia'.
mcdonl
Member
My opinion. Scum with guns. Just because they own guns does not make them good people.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Lee, I don't understand your thread title
Do you really think- no matter what other conditions prevailed at the moment- that this couple would have deliberately and knowingly shot and killed a 7-year old boy?
Thus the title...
lpl
Do you really think- no matter what other conditions prevailed at the moment- that this couple would have deliberately and knowingly shot and killed a 7-year old boy?
Thus the title...
lpl
Who was driving the offroad vehicles at night was probably not known to the shooters. The most visible thing would be the lights on the offroad vehicles and what they illuminate. Viewed through trees while they are moving, with moving shadows telling a young boy from a teenager or adult would be difficult.
If the ATV riders were tearing through the area, making a lot of noise, having fun damaging property, and then stopped briefly (to urinate) who the shooters were shooting at was probably still an unknown to them.
If they shot at where a rider would be above the lights of the vehicle they would have hit thier target even without knowing who or what it was.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
seems they were in 4 wheel drive road vehicles on public property. even going by the mensac refugees own statement to 911 they were on the levee. the levee is not part of the trailers estate. its public. 9 pm? couple alcoholic/tweakers? bac about ,02 something
Lonestar49
Member
Mug pics worth a 1000 words with problems and more
...
Parinioa strikes deep, into your heart it will creep, starts when you're always afraid, step out of line, the man comes, and takes you away..
As in their Mug shots and posted sign.. A picture is worth a 1000 words..
These 2 look, and act, like paranoid animals, and as such, belong behind bars.
What "fear of their lives" was present other than their own paranoia as to how they viewed the world 1 foot outside of their property line, and "close enough" to be just on, or just, boarding on it.. ?
None, (in the real world)
Ls
...
Parinioa strikes deep, into your heart it will creep, starts when you're always afraid, step out of line, the man comes, and takes you away..
...
As in their Mug shots and posted sign.. A picture is worth a 1000 words..
These 2 look, and act, like paranoid animals, and as such, belong behind bars.
What "fear of their lives" was present other than their own paranoia as to how they viewed the world 1 foot outside of their property line, and "close enough" to be just on, or just, boarding on it.. ?
None, (in the real world)
Ls
I agree the shooting was wrong.
However the basis of legality is Texas law. Under Texas law no "fear of thier lives" is necessary to use deadly force against anyone commiting "malicious mischief at night" under Texas law.
Other criteria is necessary.
Texas has strange criteria for deadly force in that regard. For example under Texas law if someone commits theft during the nighttime, is escaping with that property, and the person reasonably believes the individual will get away and that property will be lost they can shoot the individual in the back to prevent escape with that property. They are under no threat of harm, and can legaly use deadly force just to prevent escape with any stolen item. The escaping individual could be running down the block 200 yards away.
Whether it is a cheap outdoor decoration, the person's vehicle, or some medication they will die without it is theft during the night, and the property may not be recovered if the person escapes.
Under Texas law deadly force then becomes legal.
You won't find that in any other state.
Willfuly damaging another's property is considered criminal mischief. So willfully damaging another's property at night in Texas can allow the use of deadly force if the criteria is met.
In this case that criteria could possibly be met if the individuals felt they needed to stop the criminal mischief, or damage of the levy at night.
It may have been an ongoing problem, where people offroading night after night get away with destroying the only thing that is keeping thier property from flooding and being destroyed.
That does not mean the shooting is moraly acceptable, but it may be legaly acceptable under Texas law:
That does not mean the outrage after such a callous shooting will not result in charges being filed. The outcome under Texas law though should be based on the law if the Grand Jury or later a jury are judging the actions on the basis of the law and not the morality of the action.
Hostile Amish
member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 522
Wow. Don't these idiots know that they are making the legal condition of guns more on the edge?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Why would they care. They have more pressing issues with which to deal such as alledged trespassing and the like!
Yeah, I do think they would have shot at a group of people including children. They had no need to "identify" their target further because they had identified it as being composed of trespassers.
Have you not seen these folks?
There is no indication from their shooting that they cared what they were shooting at or what damage they did to it. They were convinced wrong was being done to them by the sheer belief they the were being trespassed against and they handled the situation in the way they thought most appropriate.
I don't see anything in their actions to indicate they cared one iota that children were present. After all, they were part of those who were trespassing.
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2009/05/12/gayle-and-sheila-muhs-redneck-psycho-nutjobs-with-guns/ (warning, foul language)
The images are those also found here...
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7557222&page=1
Note the quote...
They knew there were multiple people at which they shot.
Hell, the victims where chased down and illuminated by Muhs on an ATV.
So yeah, I think the Muhs were fine with shooting kids.
Attachments
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
No kidding the victims weren't trespassing. That has been in numerous articles and noted several times already that they were on the levy and that the levy is public land.
They didn't just shoot and kill a kid on public property, but shot a total of four people including 2 children, one of which died.
They didn't just shoot and kill a kid on public property, but shot a total of four people including 2 children, one of which died.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Then let me take a different tack.
I think the State of Texas will eventually render a good object lesson here on why it is necessary to know your target, unless I miss my guess. And that's not even considering Rule IV.
This isn't a free fire zone in some sort of war. There is still an expectation of at least a minimal level of responsibility where the employment of lethal force is concerned. It should go without saying. I'm still not finding any news reports datelined later than 11 May, so I don't yet know if more significant charges have been filed. But suffice it to say that I would not be surprised if there are.
lpl
I think the State of Texas will eventually render a good object lesson here on why it is necessary to know your target, unless I miss my guess. And that's not even considering Rule IV.
This isn't a free fire zone in some sort of war. There is still an expectation of at least a minimal level of responsibility where the employment of lethal force is concerned. It should go without saying. I'm still not finding any news reports datelined later than 11 May, so I don't yet know if more significant charges have been filed. But suffice it to say that I would not be surprised if there are.
lpl
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Okay, so you agree that the Muhs likely had zilch concern in regard to who they were shooting?
I don't know that the State of Texas will necessarily say anything about knowing your target. The State will likely argue that the Muhs shot indiscriminately into a vehicle of people, repeatedly, in cold blood. I don't see this shooting as any different than a drive-by shooting where the shooter fires into a crowd at night and kills a child. I don't see the State, any state, making a big deal about identifying a target in those cases.
I don't know that the State of Texas will necessarily say anything about knowing your target. The State will likely argue that the Muhs shot indiscriminately into a vehicle of people, repeatedly, in cold blood. I don't see this shooting as any different than a drive-by shooting where the shooter fires into a crowd at night and kills a child. I don't see the State, any state, making a big deal about identifying a target in those cases.
DHJenkins
Member
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=7557222&page=2
"DeFoor said the Muhs were known to police and have previous arrests though neither he nor the court could say what the charges were or when. "
Sounds they're still looking for the meth lab so they can upgrade the charges. If they're manufacturing/guarding/distributing illegal drugs, that'll change the whole ballgame.
"DeFoor said the Muhs were known to police and have previous arrests though neither he nor the court could say what the charges were or when. "
Sounds they're still looking for the meth lab so they can upgrade the charges. If they're manufacturing/guarding/distributing illegal drugs, that'll change the whole ballgame.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
