TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote: We might think a DA would speak more carefully; but as I said above, it was an oral statement, most likely not prepared in advance.

Indeed we would!


Those "less than thoughtful" statements help to contribute to all the misinformation already out there. Apparently the homeowner thought he had the right to shoot the other man per Texas law.

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/local/7407371.html

Ford says he thought he had a right to shoot Fountain under a Texas law.

Now, he may have drawn this conclusion on his own from "barbershop talk" or any number of other sources....but the fact remains, he had it wrong. People often form ideas based on information gathered from those they consider reliable sources.This is the reason I am not cutting the DA any slack.



An interesting aside... is the "poll" in todays paper concerning the question of using deadly force to protect property:

http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/conte ... _poll.html

seamusTX wrote:

"Now, if an intruder is in your home, you can shoot them whether it's daylight or dark," she said."

Burglary. Good to go.

"I wasn't there, so I don't know all the details, and I haven't seen the offense report, yet," she continued. "But I know what the law is — a person actually has to be coming at you, and, even at that, you have a duty to retreat."

I think "actually coming at you" is inaccurate. The attacker has to be using deadly force, or imminently threatening to do so. If they have a crossbow, they do not need to move to present an imminent threat. If they have a club, you get into a subjective area of what is imminent.

An able-bodied attacker can cover 20 feet in a second, and a 70-year-old man might be hard-pressed to acquire a sight picture in that time.

The attacker's posture, facial expressions, and utterances would be relevant.

In fact, the Shelby County shooting would not be justified under the state's new "Castle Doctrine," which gives homeowners more rights to protect their property with deadly force.

I think that's correct. The new law removes the duty to retreat, but the justifications for using deadly force are basically the same. (Attempting to enter an occupied vehicle is not relevant in this case.)

- Jim

Jim,

IMO....you understand the law better than this DA.

As concerns her first statement, "burglary" is not mentioned (although I agree with you). She simply states:

"Now, if an intruder is in your home, you can shoot them whether it's daylight or dark".

I do not believe you can (lawfully) shoot someone for mere presence in your home. Her public statement is dangerously misleading IMO.




Her second statement:

"But I know what the law is — a person actually has to be coming at you,...."

This is so plainly wrong.... that it does not require any argument. It also tells me she does NOT "know what the law is", and like the first statement....is misleading to the public.



Her third statement:

"the state's new "Castle Doctrine," which gives homeowners more rights to protect their property with deadly force...."

I understand her meaning....but wish she would have worded it differently, as I don't believe any more "right" is acquired. There is a certain element of empowerment in being able to "stand your ground" and not suffer a "successful" law suit by the other side (for any legal shooting/show of force). But the "right" itself....is either there, or it is not.

Just my .02 on it.

I thought it was poorly reported in some respects....and highly inaccurate in others.


The shooting itself (using only the information at hand), was inappropriate and unnecessary in my judgment.

seamusTX wrote:Those statements are correct, according to my understanding of the law.

Using deadly force in daylight requires that you are protecting yourself from another's use of deadly force, attempted sexual assault, robbery, aggravated
kidnapping, arson, or burglary, or to recover stolen property in some circumstances.

Vandalizing an unoccupied car does not constitute any of those crimes.



- Jim

I'm good with that, now how about these:

"Now, if an intruder is in your home, you can shoot them whether it's daylight or dark," she said."

"I wasn't there, so I don't know all the details, and I haven't seen the offense report, yet," she continued. "But I know what the law is — a person actually has to be coming at you, and, even at that, you have a duty to retreat."

In fact, the Shelby County shooting would not be justified under the state's new "Castle Doctrine," which gives homeowners more rights to protect their property with deadly force.

Thoughts on the accuracy of these statements made by the DA?

"That means you have the right to defend your property at night with deadly force, but not in broad open daylight," Russell said.

"Now, if an intruder is in your home, you can shoot them whether it's daylight or dark," she said."

"I wasn't there, so I don't know all the details, and I haven't seen the offense report, yet," she continued. "But I know what the law is — a person actually has to be coming at you, and, even at that, you have a duty to retreat."

In fact, the Shelby County shooting would not be justified under the state's new "Castle Doctrine," which gives homeowners more rights to protect their property with deadly force.

Not much information just yet....so things may change dramatically in the coming days.

What are your thoughts on the way this was reported (information as concerns the law accurate/correct), and what would YOU have done in the same circumstance (using only the present information as your guide)?

http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/conte ... oting.html