TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

LedJedi wrote:awe, i can't find it now either. they took it down. I guess they didn't like the lawyer on joe's side trouncing her opponent. Wish i could have saved it for you guys but their entire video widget is all in flash.

I don't understand .. What Lawyer is Joe's opponant? If The DA really wanted to he probably would have got an indictment..Ham sandwich and all that. I presumed the DA was on Joe's side. Am I wrong?

DParker wrote:I couldn't find the video, even after doing a search of the entire site. Is it gone?

Skiprr wrote:Here is an interesting read in today's Houston Chronicle:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 66865.html

The Chronicle interviewed Horn yesterday, and even if you have no real interest in reading anything further about the case itself, there are things mentioned like time dilation and perceptual changes under stress that many of us have heard before, but I think it's important for CHLers to keep hearing them...just in case.

barres wrote:

DParker wrote:

LedJedi wrote:I'll be darned... i can't believe i missed that.

Don't feel bad. Every single "legal expert" I've seen/heard on the broadcast news outlets missed it too.

Yup. Everybody's been talking "Castle Doctrine" this and "Castle Doctrine" that. The Castle Doctrine played very little part in the whole incident, if i remember the story correctly (it has been a while). I'm now hearing that the two thieves may have turned towards Mr. Horn, apparently to attack him, which would invoke the Castle Doctrine protections, but he was justified by PC§ 9.43 to stop the theft of his neighbor's property.

DParker wrote:

LedJedi wrote:parker, care to share that info with us or point me to it?

§ 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.

Of particular import is the "or" (as opposed to an "and") at the end of (1). That makes the conditions of (1) in conjunction with the relevant conditions of the other sections (9.41 & 9.42) sufficient for justification. A request by the thrid person for protection of their land/propert is also one justification, but it is only one of multiple justifications.

I do think that the legislature made an error in not including an "or" at the end of (2)(A) as well, even though it is obviously implied.

(Edited to add the following link to the relevant sections of the TX Penal Code):

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm

DParker wrote:Not that this will come as a shock to anyone, but while watching the national coverage of this story last night on all of the major cable news outlets, as well as listening to their radio counterparts this morning, I found it interesting that not ONE of the legal analysts they had on to discuss the case got the relevant TX law correct. Every single one implied that the grand jury ignored the law and parroted the assertion that TX law requires that a third party request that the actor protect their property in order for force/deadly force to be justified. Of course this is not correct. I even posted a correction of (including the text of 9.43) to CNN's live blog on the subject during the broadcast. The blog is moderated and all posts must be approved (which is done fairly quickly) before they are made visible to other readers. Interstingly, they allowed through all of the mindless, simplistic rants on both sides of the issue ("He's a hero!" "No, he's a murderer!"), but my factual correction of their error was disallowed.

I've always chalked up inaccuracies in broadcast news to simple incompetence and laziness. Now I'm not so inclined to give them that benefit of the doubt.