You can't shoot anyone in your home in Texas or El Tejon is proven right
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
teknoid said;
No rulings can be found because the law is too new. If it was enacted in September of 07, there is no sense looking for an appellate court ruling until sometime in 2009. Judging from the dates of the cases I looked at, it takes upwards of two years for a case to wind it's way through the trial courts and be heard and ruled on in the appellate court in Texas.
So you won't know what the law really means until the courts have their say.
Jeff
No rulings can be found because the law is too new. If it was enacted in September of 07, there is no sense looking for an appellate court ruling until sometime in 2009. Judging from the dates of the cases I looked at, it takes upwards of two years for a case to wind it's way through the trial courts and be heard and ruled on in the appellate court in Texas.
So you won't know what the law really means until the courts have their say.
Jeff
rbernie
Contributing Member
Which makes this:
Seem pretty disengenuous.
Sorry, Jeff. I understand your point, but I disagree with your message and means.
Oliver Wendell Holmes (Buck v. Bell) said:
Laws can and have been used / found / propagated for anything and everything. Even such august a group as the Supreme Court has some laughable decisions (see above).
Not trying to say that you are not right in what you are implying, but honestly, we can find "SOMETHING" to bolster virtually any argument.
alsaqr
Member
"This horse is not only dead, its flies have started to blow maggots."
+1
+1
Common sense needs to be used when defending ones self, but THIS guy didn't use any
Well I understand why you'd like to deter people from thinking that they have the right to shoot anyone they want to on their property because of the new Castle Doctrine law in Texas for a couple of different reasons (they don't have that right and to think that they do is extremely foolish and to do so would be tempting fate to make an example of you/not to mention the ammo it gives the anti-gun freaks), but I don't really think that this was a very good case with which to make your point since there are a few things wrong with it from the very beginning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Valdez (the deceased boyfriend) had established residence at the house the shooting took place, NOT the shooter. Maybe his girlfriend had thought that he had moved out, but he still had a legal right to be there.
That makes the "....In Your Home" portion of the title incorrect.
The title should say "You can't shoot the boyfriend of the girl with whom you're sleeping in their home in Texas and expect to be cleared, especially when you run away to Colorado right after". The title's too long, but you see my point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The shooter fled the scene and then later tried to claim self defense. Like someone said before "Flight equals guilt in the eyes of the law". If he wanted to claim self defense he should have stayed at the scene. Any home owner with a lick of sense would stay at the scene if they had just shot an intruder, especially if it was at their own home. That's pretty much a given.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) There's no evidence that Valdez attacked or even threatened the shooter prior to his being killed. Plus, Valdez wasn't even threatening Diane at the point that he was shot so the shooter can't claim that he was trying to protect someone else at the time he used deadly force.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what I mean?
I understand and I agree with your point that self defensive measures always need to be tempered with common sense before you open fire, but this case was flawed from the get go for the purposes with which you were trying to use it to illustrate that common sense needs to be used when defending ones self because the shooter in this case didn't really use any common sense.
Well I understand why you'd like to deter people from thinking that they have the right to shoot anyone they want to on their property because of the new Castle Doctrine law in Texas for a couple of different reasons (they don't have that right and to think that they do is extremely foolish and to do so would be tempting fate to make an example of you/not to mention the ammo it gives the anti-gun freaks), but I don't really think that this was a very good case with which to make your point since there are a few things wrong with it from the very beginning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Valdez (the deceased boyfriend) had established residence at the house the shooting took place, NOT the shooter. Maybe his girlfriend had thought that he had moved out, but he still had a legal right to be there.
That makes the "....In Your Home" portion of the title incorrect.
The title should say "You can't shoot the boyfriend of the girl with whom you're sleeping in their home in Texas and expect to be cleared, especially when you run away to Colorado right after". The title's too long, but you see my point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The shooter fled the scene and then later tried to claim self defense. Like someone said before "Flight equals guilt in the eyes of the law". If he wanted to claim self defense he should have stayed at the scene. Any home owner with a lick of sense would stay at the scene if they had just shot an intruder, especially if it was at their own home. That's pretty much a given.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) There's no evidence that Valdez attacked or even threatened the shooter prior to his being killed. Plus, Valdez wasn't even threatening Diane at the point that he was shot so the shooter can't claim that he was trying to protect someone else at the time he used deadly force.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what I mean?
I understand and I agree with your point that self defensive measures always need to be tempered with common sense before you open fire, but this case was flawed from the get go for the purposes with which you were trying to use it to illustrate that common sense needs to be used when defending ones self because the shooter in this case didn't really use any common sense.
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
I don't suppose you've got a basement to hide out in then...
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Actually, there was no duty to retreat from your residence in Texas in 2002 and the 2007 law did not change this. So I don't think this is a valid point.
rbernie
Contributing Member
But I believe that the the 2007 law updates changed the definition of when deadly force was considered reasonable, which would seem to be very relevant in this instance.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well, it did change that part of a law but not in a way that would have affected the outcome of this case as far as I can tell. Whether 2002 or 2007, there was already a presumption that allowed you to use deadly force to protect your residence... not to mention the longstanding laws on criminal mischief at night, preventing felonies, etc.
And as Jeff originally pointed out, the fact that all those laws were on the books didn't stop someone from receiving 25 years in prison for shooting someone breaking into a house once all the facts were heard.
The fact is, that using deadly force can have some serious repercussions. That is why I only use it if I feel my life or someone else's life is in danger if I do not.
rbernie
Contributing Member
The current law does not state that you can only protect your residence - it uses the term 'occupied habitation'. That's not the same as 'house' or 'residence'. It may very well be that there was a change in verbiage used - I do not know. But that would potentially be relevant to the situation where one person may be residing in another person's (former or current) residence.
But the facts weren't all heard. The *real* take-away, to me, was that useful testimony that would have helped establish a presumption of self-defense was not admitted at trial. We also have no idea what statements were made by the defendant along the way that might have fundamentally stripped away the prospect of claiming a reasonable fear of death or immediate bodily harm to himself or Roxanne.
Once again, obtaining/retaining competent and motivated legal representation and letting them do the talking would seem to be key moreso than almost anything else. Presuming that this case somehow speaks to anything other than that is simply too much of a stretch.
Roger that.
As I said - I agree with the overall point of the thread, but I think that the verbiage used to make the point was poorly chosen, and in fact was chosen to be deliberately obfuscatory.
bdickens
Member
My CHL instructor made a very good point in his class: Think long and hard about who or what is worth $25,000 to you before you shoot, because that is about what it will cost to retain a good lawyer.
There's legal, and there's prudent. Often there is a wide gap between the two.
There's legal, and there's prudent. Often there is a wide gap between the two.
- Status