TexasCHLforum.com

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

SCone wrote:It also concerns me that shootings like this will push the legislature to narrow the scope of the law.

I don't think that's likely to happen. PC 9.33 and 9.43 are exactly the same laws that justify use of deadly force by the police to prevent -- or rather terminate the commission of -- burglary and robbery.

Mr. Horn took two huge risks: (1) that the burglars might have the means to do him harm; (2) that they were not in fact burglars. He was vindicated in this case, but anyone considering similar action needs to keep those risks in mind.

- Jim

57Coastie wrote:Lastly, I must take the time to comment on an earlier comment here by a member who I consider to be a personal friend, who suggested that one reason why a civil action is unlikely to follow is because there is no obvious evidence here that it would be to an attorney's financial advantage to bring an action. I cannot say this is an untrue observation with respect to some attorneys, but I can say that this is not the only reason attorneys take on a lawsuit.

I did not mean to suggest that all lawyers are motivated by profit, though taking cases on contingency is very common. It is possible that an attorney could take the case pro bono as a matter of principle.

Then the question becomes whether some lawyer licensed in the state of Texas is willing to take the case, knowing that it would be difficult to get a jury sympathetic to the plaintiff (this is a supposition on my part).

- Jim

Walker wrote:I kin see that you haven't been to law school.

Never even bin close.

I did walk around Oxford and Cambridge, but I don't think anything rubbed off.

- Jim

Walker wrote:For you lawyer types out there: What are the chances of someone bringing civil action, for example for wrongful death? (God forbid.)

I am not a "lawyer type," nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'll venture an opinion. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread and all that.

The deceased were engaged in a felony at the time of their deaths. That can easily be proved at trial. Mr. Horn was justified under the law for using deadly force to prevent a burglary. I'd say wrongful death is off the table.

Other bases for lawsuits in this type of case are loss of income and loss of consortium. The deceased were (AFIAK) unemployed criminals, so there is no basis for calculating their income. Loss of consortium of an illegal alien felon boyfriend is not likely to get a lot of sympathy from a jury pool drawn from the same population as the grand jury.

Mr. Horn's assets most likely comprise his home and some retirement funds. Texas law protects a homestead, a vehicle, two horses or mules and their harness, 12 head of cattle, 60 head of other types of livestock, 120 fowl, household pets. etc., from being seized in a judgment other than mortgage default. There's little loot to attract a lawyer to such a case.

- Jim