TexasCHLforum.com

boomerang wrote:

SCone wrote:The Bible makes a huge difference in killing a thief in the night or during the day.

The Bible also says the thief "shall be sold for his theft" if can't make restitution and restitution can be anything from double (Exodus 22:4) to five times (Exodus 22:1) what he stole.

Some people who follow the Koran quote Sura 5:38 to say a thief's hand should be cut off.

I thought we weren't supposed to go there on this forum? do you REALLY want me to bust out with the reincarnation logic and druidic philosophies? :)

KBCraig wrote:

LedJedi wrote:ummm, actually i think lightning is technically correct here. I remember TXI once saying that even in a self defense shooting that if you kill someone you technically committed murder, however you have a positive defense against prosecution in that it's self defense.

I think that must have been a discussion about homicide, not murder (homicide is often mistakenly used as a synonym for murder, when it's not).

The statutory definition of murder:
§ 19.02. MURDER.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual;

In a self defense shooting, a person does not intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual. Death might be a likely and foreseeable outcome, but it's not the goal. The goal is to stop the other person from doing whatever justifies shooting them.

Ahh, you may be right. I'm not really an expert in such things, just parroting what I've heard before in a convincing tone :)

KBCraig wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: I am a bit old fashioned about murder.

Not to mention, confused about the definition of the word.

ummm, actually i think lightning is technically correct here. I remember TXI once saying that even in a self defense shooting that if you kill someone you technically committed murder, however you have a positive defense against prosecution in that it's self defense.

where is that guy anyway? i sure miss the back and forth with him!

57Coastie wrote:

LedJedi wrote:I dont know the specific details as they are at hand but i have faith that 12 men and women did in the jury box and they decided it was justified. That's good enough for me.

Back to the very beginning of this thread -- the wording of the original question assumes something untrue -- that Joe Horn was acquitted -- as does the above quote. There is nothing in the record indicating that the grand jury decided that "it was justified." All the grand jury decided was that Joe Horn should not be indicted. If any single grand juror should announce to the world the reason why they did not indict Mr. Horn in their secret proceeding, that person would most likely find himself or herself in serious trouble.

Not to beat a dead horse, but repeating this type of thing just leads to further misunderstanding -- unnecessary misunderstanding. I submit that we have had enough misunderstanding already. The guilt or innocence of Mr. Horn has not been decided by a court of law, therefore, as it now stands, not having been convicted, he is innocent. Similarly, by the way, the two decedents are innocent of the crime of the burglary of Mr. Horn's neighbor's home. It works both ways.

With respect,

Jim

good points man, good points indeed and i stand corrected.

In laymen's terms though to me it appears that a grand jury let him walk. To me that says those 12 folks thought it was justified enough to not even bring him to trial. I realize that may be different from the legal standing from it being a "justified shooting" but it comes to the same outcome. From my perspective it's splitting hairs. I'm glad it didn't come to trial. That's just further hassle for Mr. Horn to have to go through for what was at least in my opinion a completely legal and justified shooting.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

LedJedi wrote:
if you see my kid doing that... yep.. fire away. if she survives maybe it'll ingrain a lesson that i have apparently been unable to given what you just caught her doing.

I appreciate your candor...but I would have to let her run away. I am a bit old fashioned about murder. I really can't imagine killing a person over material possessions. Our society is going to get pretty messed up if we all just start blasting each other over TV sets, stereos and yard ornaments.

in the long run i like to think it would get sorted out and folks would realize you just can't get away with that kinda thing. Once that message got across and folks started to realize they might actually get shot for breaking into your car and jacking your stereo maybe they'll realize their life is worth more than that. They have to realize that for themselves though. It's not my place to let them run off with my hard earned property while they try and figure that out.

I don't go out and break my back every day but I've studied a LOT to be able to do what I do for a living. There is a lot of my time in my work and I will not step back and someone run off with my stereo which amounts to a certain amount of my time spent earning it.

I will be the fist to step up and give someone the shirt off my back if they're hungry and to whatever I can to "teach a man to fish" but i cannot and will not abide thieves. If that means i have to put some 00 in someone's behind to protect my property (or yours for that matter) then I will do so without hesitation so long as I can do that within the confines of the law and my right as a property owner.

Life is worth more than property. My life is worth more than my property. The life of a thief is not. They chose that vocation of their own accord. They chose to put themselves in a risky situation and they should know the law allows DF in defense of that property they're running off with. You may have moral objections to using DF for property but I do not (as well as many others I know). If you don't agree with DF over property I wholeheartedly respect that and defend your right to NOT use DF if you so choose, but please do no chagrin others of our lawful right to defend property because you consider our lawful defense outside your moral code of ethics.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I just want it understood that you're talking about your own personal moral code, not the law. I suppose you can pass moral judgement on others for how they feel. You have a right to your own opinion, but try and understand that not everyone shares your perspective on the situation and that when you're talking about ethics and morality (which is essentially what we're talking about here, not law, because we all agree on the law i think. that's clear)... ethics and morality are often matters of perspective and opinion. What one man considers a travesty another considers justice. Who is to judge what is right and wrong in the realm of ethics? I dont think anyone is qualified in that. That's why we have laws to establish the confines of what is right and wrong. And, in Texas our laws allow for DF in defense of property.

DParker wrote:

LedJedi wrote:well, honestly, i don't much care where or how they were shot. 9.43 doesn't say where or how they need be shot and I'm not sure self defense does either. someone can be retreating and I might still consider them a threat.

That's all true, and I'm not suggesting that my hypothetical was a requirement for a legal defense. I just offered it as a counter to the "They were 'shot in the back', so they couldn't have been any threat" assertion and was wondering if sounded as plausible to others as it did to me.

oh, i think i missed the scenario. i scanned back a few pages and don't see it... can you re-post? i think i missed it.

DParker wrote:Thanks for proving my point so brilliantly.

Anyone else have any opinions as to my offered scenario as a potential explanation for the facts of the case as they've been reported?

well, honestly, i don't much care where or how they were shot. 9.43 doesn't say where or how they need be shot and I'm not sure self defense does either. someone can be retreating and I might still consider them a threat.

I dont know the specific details as they are at hand but i have faith that 12 men and women did in the jury box and they decided it was justified. That's good enough for me.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

DParker wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Thank You Charles.

*** whoosh ***

*********woosh is right************** You have said nothing that would need a response as nothing you said in any post had any significance to the topic at hand. About all I read when seeing your posts is a whole lot of hot air as it spews forth from a pretentious pompous windbag. Your posts just wreak of self deprecation. I am truly sad for you. I can only imagine how truly unimportant you are in your real life that you feel it necessary to get on an internet forum and attempt to make judgmental statements about the opinions of others.

I am wanting to get one thing straight from you. If late one night, I catch your teenager and his friends stealing my car stereo, would you like me to shoot him in the back if he tries to run away...or would that be different?

if you see my kid doing that... yep.. fire away. if she survives maybe it'll ingrain a lesson that i have apparently been unable to given what you just caught her doing.

cxm wrote:Gents, I have read PC Chapt 9 pretty carefully... I can't find a single place it tells you WHERE you can or can not shoot someone if you are justified in using deadly force...

If I have missed this somehow, would someone be kind enough to show it to me?

Thanks

Chuck

where as in location on the body?
answer: it doesn't specify which is good imo cause if it gave specifics and you missed accidentally you could be even more liable.

or where as in location you're standing when you fire the shot?
It makes no reference to location like this. The only thing really close that I know of is the stipulation that DF be IMMEDIATELY necessary, but that's more a question of timing rather than geographic location.

Dan20703 wrote:I would love to see a t-shirt that said:

TEXAS PENAL CODE 9.43
JOE HORN HAS MY PERMISSION

well come one... that came off like it was a challenge.

http://www.cafepress.com/libertygear713

I'm happy to make others if you guys want. It's easy to do and costs me nothing. I set the stuff in there to be at-cost so there's no markup.

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


not to hijack the thread, but,if he were in a neighborhood watch area wouldn't that be an implied request for protection?

2a doesn't necessary apply based on the condition of the OR at the end of 1. If the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; then the actor does not need permission. I believe that was the case in relation to joe horn, thus 2a does not apply (thanks to DParker i think for pointing this out to me.)

And, i'm not sure that the existence of a neighborhood watch or participation in that watch would necessarily constitute an implied request for protection in this case, though that's an interesting concept and I believe that would be a REASONABLE assumption in my opinion. I honestly believe the there is a standing reasonable assumption that anyone having their property stolen would want a good Samaritan's assistance in protecting that property, but I'm not sure there's any case precedent out there that says that. It's just a reasonable assumption imo.

Charles, or anyone else equally qualified feel free to kick me in the buttox if i'm off base here. I don't want to give out bad information.

seamusTX wrote:The preceding message contained a comment about the "remains concealed" clause. It was removed while I was composing my reply, which I can't delete.

The "remains concealed" part covers this scenario: Someone goes into a department store near closing time and hides in a dressing room. After the store closes, he steals stuff.

It is perfectly legal to be in the store while it is open, but it becomes burglary if the criminal stays there after closing time with the intention of stealing.

- Jim

yeah that dawned on me right after i wrote it... didn't realize you were gonna be that quick on the draw.... you're smokin :)

57Coastie wrote:Interesting discussion about burglary, robbery, theft in the nighttime, etc.
While I could not criticize one treating these questions as being academic, I really do feel that the technical definitions of robbery and burglary in Texas have a bearing on how one sorts out the issues in this case, and thus far I have not seen the technical definitions come into play.

Jim

Good point, i figured that was a given since i've read it before.

§ 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion
of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a
felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony,
theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or
attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other
than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a
habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation
with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed
or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

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; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 727, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

I think that clears it up.

Keith B wrote:
§ 9.42 does not apply because it was not nighttime.

You're missing the point man, which is easy to do in something this complicated. The night time requirement only counts for theft in that phrase. Night time is not required for burglary, arson, etc. That has always been the traditional interpretation of the phrasing. Otherwise you couldn't shoot a burglar in your home in daytime and there have been many such incidents where honest folks have done just that and walked away without the police batting an eye.

Night time requirement is only for theft in that phrasing. Admittedly they should have phrased it better.

DParker wrote:Holy moly! Back the truck up!! I really messed up on this one. In interpreting 9.43 I neglected to review 9.42 (the conditions of which must be satisfied for 9.43 to apply). As it turns out, 9.42 requires that the incident occur "during the nighttime" in order for force to be justified...

§ 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.

So much for my brilliant analysis

I believe the "in the night time" only applies to simple theft. I do not believe it was intended to have the night time requirement attached to arson, burglary, robbery, or agg robbery. At least that's always the way i've seen it interpreted. You're authorized for DF in burglary in daytime as well. Simple theft requires night time though.