This shooting happened a few miles from me, your thoughts...

[stevie_d_64]

But I have a right to order him to stop messing with my property. And if I do, and he turns his attention from the property to me, it then becomes an unprovoked threat to my life. And I will shoot to protect my life.
From the tone of the DA's comments, I think there is more to this story than what was in the report. She seems inclined to cut the guy a break if she can.

I suspect that the old guy ordered the BG to stop, the BG came at him and the old guy shot him. Unless the old guy blabs his way into prison, the grand jury will probably no bill him.

Note: The fact that the guy was a well-known drug maniac has no bearing on things, unless the old guy knew it at the time. If he did, he would have reason to presume the guy was a threat. But if he didn't, it's a matter of historical interest only.

I agree, some excellent points here...

Lemme add to it...

No one knows why Fountain behaved the way he did Sunday afternoon, but authorities suspect his actions may have been drug-related, and Fountain has a criminal history of erratic behavior.

I personally do not believe it is up to any of us to determine to a great length of certainty this aspect of someone acting against you in this way...Like the law implies, you must "reasonably" determine, not "absolutely" determine that the threat requires a degree of force to stop...I believe we all practice good judgement in this regard, and in most cases our judgement saves lives and property...

"According to Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code, a person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or property to prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

"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. "But according to the law, property is not as valuable as human life."

Technically I say she's right, and again I believe we all practice good judgement in this regard...

But I'll agree with frankie here that this story lacks a serious point...

Did the deceased make a threatening move with a "weapon" (stick, crowbar, bat whatever) at the man who defended himself with the use of deadly force??? We may never know, unless I missed something here...

Whether is day or night, if someone is committing a crime against you, someone else, against property and you instruct them to "stop", that instruction is only that, at that point, a verbal warning...

If the person decides to take issue and you reasonably determine that force, or deadly force is reasonably necessary to stop that threat...

Well...I believe that is the biggest issue for the grand jury to determine...

I think its right that it is being handled in this way by the DA, even though it appears to be in the press a self-defense shooting...

The actions of the homeowner after the shooting will weight heavy on this decision...His calling for an ambulance, police I believe shows good intent to save this person...

SOmeone made another good point that if the deceased had stopped and complied that the home owner would not have shot...And waited on ploice to show up and take the person into custody...

I would have done this without a doubt...Even after the windshield was destroyed...It can be fixed...A life taken cannot of course, and that is unfortunate...

This is just my opinion...

I hope the home owner has good counsel...

This is one incident we need to keep track of...

[stevie_d_64]

From the article...

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.

According to Nacogdoches District Attorney Stephanie Stephens, the new law, which goes into effect in September, takes away a homeowner's duty to retreat from a threat, and also extends use of deadly force to an occupied vehicle, as well.

I thought that the applicability of a law that is signed into law by the President or Govenor of a state, that that law immediately goes into effect???

Of course I know about the September 1 date that most laws that don;t get signed by the govenor for whatever reason, thats when those go into effect...

But if it is signed into law before that date, its the law...And is effective...

Thats just what I thought...

Maybe there is some sort of lag in the time in enforcement of any instructions to Law Enforcement from the AG or something...

I believe she is wrong on this aspect...But I stand to be corrected...

No problem...

[seamusTX]

I thought that the applicability of a law that is signed into law by the President or Govenor of a state, that that law immediately goes into effect???

According to the Texas constitution, laws normally go into effect no earlier than 90 days after the conclusion of the legislative session, which boils down to September 1. Sometimes they go into effect January 1 of the next year.

The Texas constitution allows for emergency legislation to go into effect sooner, but it must be requested by the governor and passed by a supermajority.

The U.S. system is different. A federal law can go into effect when signed by the President, or ten days later if he doesn't sign or veto the bill (I'm leaving out a few special cases).

- Jim

[stevie_d_64]

I thought that the applicability of a law that is signed into law by the President or Govenor of a state, that that law immediately goes into effect???

According to the Texas constitution, laws normally go into effect no earlier than 90 days after the conclusion of the legislative session, which boils down to September 1. Sometimes they go into effect January 1 of the next year.

The Texas constitution allows for emergency legislation to go into effect sooner, but it must be requested by the governor and passed by a supermajority.

The U.S. system is different. A federal law can go into effect when signed by the President, or ten days later if he doesn't sign or veto the bill (I'm leaving out a few special cases).

- Jim

Thats why I always thought that after the legislative process was complete, and the bill was passed by majority vote, and then signed by the chief executive (either govenor or president) that was it...

I need to update my schoolhouse rock video collection then...

[seamusTX]

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

Thanks. I need to say for the benefit of the DA that she was speaking to reporters, off the cuff; and we're not even certain they quoted her precisely.

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".

She said "intruder." In Texas, burglary is unauthorized entry of a residence with the intention of committing theft or assault. It doesn't have to be forced, and the intruder doesn't have to do anything threatening (other than being there).

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

You are right. If a child or person with Alzheimer's wanders in, you can't just shoot them and get away with it. But if the circumstances indicate that the intruder intended to commit theft or assault, DAs and grand juries are inclined to give the homeowner a pass.

Most of the time, intruders have forced their way in, are armed, have already threatened the homeowner verbally or with a weapon, and/or have a long criminal record.

Anyway, 98% of the readers of a newspaper would give this short quotation little thought.

"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.

Again, the members of this forum and similar groups are very aware and careful of words like right. We know the law does not grant rights. Most people don't think in those terms.

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.

As to the guilt or innocence of the shooter, we may never know. The grand jury may no-bill him, or he may plead to discharging a firearm on a public road.

- Jim

[Doug.38PR]

The law needs to be changed. Daylight or Nighttime, your property is your property. It is an extension of your life. It is something you spent time, sweat and a portion of your life to earn.

If it can be stopped without restorting to using deadly force, great. If excessive force is used, then the person should be charged accordingly. But you shouldn't have to just stand there and watch it happen and hope the police get there in time to stop him (crime is already in progress).

And a 71 year old man should not have to put himself at that kind of risk with a madman bashing in his windshield.

Jury should nullify the law and let Ford go.

[flintknapper]

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]

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.

I can't argue with that. Lawyers are generally very fussy about giving advice. They should not sling the stuff casually in a public forum.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

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 I'm getting worried that this old guy might blab his way into prison. He needs some good advice real quick, and it may already be too late.

I myself would NEVER shoot someone merely because I believed I had the "right" to.

I would only shoot someone if I was in fear for my (or another's) life and there was no other way to solve the problem available to me at the time.

In other words, only if I had to.

Not for any other reason.

Not ever.

For his sake, I hope he was badly misquoted.

[Trope]

We clearly don't have the whole story, but here is a thought. The vandal was busting in a windshield, which means he either had a destructive tool (weapon) or was doing it with his fists (on drugs?). Breaking a windshield from the outside requires the kind of force that if delivered to a 71 year old would be devastating, probably lethal. If the attacker then moved toward the homeowner, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the homeowner now feared for his life.

The missing parts of the story would appear to be quite significant.

[frankie_the_yankee]

We clearly don't have the whole story, but here is a thought. The vandal was busting in a windshield, which means he either had a destructive tool (weapon) or was doing it with his fists (on drugs?). Breaking a windshield from the outside requires the kind of force that if delivered to a 71 year old would be devastating, probably lethal. If the attacker then moved toward the homeowner, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the homeowner now feared for his life.

The missing parts of the story would appear to be quite significant.

Sure. But if a police detective asks a leading question and the guy says something like, "I shot him 'cause I figured I had the right to.", he could be in a whole lot of trouble.

Birds gotta fly. Fish gotta swim. And police detectives gotta detect crime if there is any possibility at all that one has been committed.

That means they frequently indulge in "role play", maybe pretending to be the suspect's friend, saying things like, "Hey, in that situation, anybody would have done that, right?". There is not a thing in the world that is wrong with a detective acting like that. He's just doing his job.

He gets paid for gathering evidence against people to put them away if they broke the law. He doesn't get paid for letting people slide.

This case seems to have the element of disparity of force built right in. A Almost any 70 year old is in reasonable fear for his life if threatened by a 50 year old, even if the younger guy is unarmed (unless the 70 year old is MUCH bigger). So if the guy said something like, "I shot him because he came at me and I was in fear for my life.", he walks.

Let's hope that that is what really happened, and that the old guy can articulate it.

[kwf2006]

All I have to say is that the AM/PM law/code needs to be 24/7.

So what do we have to do to get it started?

[Trope]

I started to get into what he said, frankie_the_yankee, but didn't feel like typing it. You are absolutely correct about what he (apparently) said. I know lots of people (some with guns, some without) who have very little understanding of the laws relating to force and lethal force. I do think that more than a few people have gotten themselves into trouble by not knowing them, and also their words that demonstrate that lack of knowledge.

I don't understand why someone would have a gun but not bother to know the laws. But it certainly happens.

[stevie_d_64]

The whole determination of what the intent of an "intruder" is, just reeks of opinion, and that the "pre- per- ponderance" (lawyers, did I git this right?) of the evidence or investigation after the fact is what will make or break you...

I agree that we are responsible enough, to be able to determine, rather quickly, if a child (lost), or elderly person (Alzhiemer's condition) is not a threat, even in the dead of night, however unlikely that that may actually occur...

Back to reality, I'm sure there is no one we know in our community, who discuss these issues regularly, that there is this "...the law protect us now, shoot first, ask questions later..." mentality...

So I am an optamist, sue me!

[seamusTX]

The whole determination of what the intent of an "intruder" is, just reeks of opinion,...

All questions of guilt and innocence involve the actor's mental state. It's impossible for it to be otherwise. That's one reason why we have juries.

Determining the intent of a burglar is not difficult. If he threatens you, he has made his intentions clear. If he breaks in, you can presume he is there to steal or do harm. Ditto if someone comes in through an open door and refuses to leave when confronted.

People who use deadly force against burglars are almost never prosected. It becomes an issue is when it turns out that something fishy was going on, like the homeowner was selling drugs or the "intruder" was the wife's boyfriend.

I'm sure there is no one we know in our community, who discuss these issues regularly, that there is this "...the law protect us now, shoot first, ask questions later..." mentality...

The phrase that makes me see red is "shoot the Avon lady."

- Jim