Nightrunner
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 8
For it to qualify under this section, all numbered items must be met. I cannot see how the couple's actions meet item 3. Despite it being at "night," it is not entirely dark yet at 9pm this time of year. Plus when all else fails, when deterring an aggressor or trespasser (no matter where you live) you should ALWAYS verbally challenge and, if necessary, fire a warning shot into the air before engaging an unidentifiable target.Zoogster said: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:§ 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.
These people could have just been itching to abuse what they figured was their right to shoot first. Even from a strictly legal standpoint, I don't think a jury could come to the conclusion that they had exhausted all other means of other than deadly force. "Oh, well I didn't think of that," isn't an excuse after you pull the trigger. There are many other non-lethal responses they could have made.
What if it WAS an ongoing problem? Then I bet this couple probably found the frequent loud noise from the vehicles very annoying. Combine that with itchy trigger fingers and a muddled interpretation of this widely-known but poorly-understood law, and you've got a good premise to upgrade the charges to murder.
Last edited: