Kingsland man shoots burglars of neighbor's house

[mr.72]

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=8763997&nav=0s3d

I guess the spirit of Joe Horn lives on.

the BGs were in the process of fleeing, inside their car when they were shot.

[lunchbox]

lets hope they dont make as big a deal out of this as they did joe horn

[bpet]

Not a lot of information in the article. Certainly not enough for ME to reach any kind of conclusion.

Unless there is more to be said about the confrontation, all I can see is that the BGs were trespassing. Doesn't appear that they had been in the house and stolen any property. Unless there was some kind of deadly threat to the good neighbor, I don't see a justification for the shooting.

I expect that we have not heard the last of this story and that the neighbor is in for a not-so-fun ride of his life.

Hope things work out for him as more information is provided but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

[SCone]

Agree, very little info to justify the shooting at this time.

[lunchbox]

well there isnt any more info since the media is so bias anyway thats what tey want you to think so there will be an outcry for his arrest

[Pinkycatcher]

Agree, very little info to justify the shooting at this time.

Criminal mischief at night, probably an outdated law which will be repealed soon if this hits the media, but enough to get a decent defense.

[boomerang]

Criminal mischief at night, probably an outdated law which will be repealed soon if this hits the media, but enough to get a decent defense.

Well then we should shoot as many criminals as possible before the legislature is back in session.

Maybe if we make crime dangerous for the criminals we can convince them to relocate to NY or DC or LA or Mexico or Canada.

[Pinkycatcher]

Criminal mischief at night, probably an outdated law which will be repealed soon if this hits the media, but enough to get a decent defense.

Well then we should shoot as many criminals as possible before the legislature is back in session.

Maybe if we make crime dangerous for the criminals we can convince them to relocate to NY or DC or LA or Mexico or Canada.

(if you wern't sarcastic)

[lunchbox]

speaking of there was an armed robbery and man hunt next to where i work they obviously didnt feel it was to dangerous

[boomerang]

Well then we should shoot as many criminals as possible before the legislature is back in session.

Maybe if we make crime dangerous for the criminals we can convince them to relocate to NY or DC or LA or Mexico or Canada.

(if you wern't sarcastic)

I'm completely serious.

If 90% or more of the thieves and robbers and rapists were convicted and sent to prison and the recidivism rate was 10% or less then I would say the justice system had room for improvement and it was worth trying to improve it. But I look at the closure rates for reported crimes and the recidivism rate for criminals and it's clear the justice system isn't very effective. Shooting criminals is effective, especially if they die. Dead criminals have a zero percent recidivism rate.

If criminals move to NY or DC or LA or Mexico or Canada because they don't want to get shot by Texans then that also makes Texas a better place to live.

[casingpoint]

Unless the shooter was charged by the neighbor with protecting the neighbor's possessions, the shooter has no safe harbor under law. This is not to say the suspects didn't need to be shot. They did, and the shooter acted accordingly. But that is not going to add up to justifiable anything.However, the local District Attorney, ever mindful of election day, may call the shoot justified. And The People may say justice was done. And that's just the way it will go down, just like the Joe Horn case.

[Pinkycatcher]

Unless the shooter was charged by the neighbor with protecting the neighbor's possessions, the shooter has no safe harbor under law. This is not to say the suspects didn't need to be shot. They did, and the shooter acted accordingly. But that is not going to add up to justifiable anything.However, the local District Attorney, ever mindful of election day, may call the shoot justified. And The People may say justice was done. And that's just the way it will go down, just like the Joe Horn case.

Yes they do, they do not have to be given permission, if I can find the section, I know someone has it around here, I should just copy it to a word document or something. But if they are committing criminal mischief at night, or theft at night it's in the code that you can shoot.

*edit*

§ 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.

Notice the bold, both (1) & (2) do not have to be met, it is one or the other. The italic portion would be the applicable section to this case.

[The Annoyed Man]

If criminals move to NY or DC or LA or Mexico or Canada because they don't want to get shot by Texans then that also makes Texas a better place to live.

If Criminals move to NY or DC or LA or Mexico or Canada... ...they can get elected to office!

[casingpoint]

I stand corrected. But I am having some trouble with this shooting in the back thing. Cowards shoot people in the back. Persons apprised of the law know when to pull the trigger on a frontal shot. Like cops. When the perps are running away, it time to pursue, not shoot. Certainly human life has some value left in Texas. I can understand the property owner shooting in the back to protect his property rights. But a third party has no vested interest in the property, and suffers no personal loss if the property is stolen. That is hardly a mandate for shooting people in the back. The law in Texas on this matter is a bit of a stretch. I wouldn't count on going to the bank on it. Except maybe to borrow money to pay a lawyer to settle a civil claim from the survivors of the deceased.

[Pinkycatcher]

I stand corrected. But I am having some trouble with this shooting in the back thing. Cowards shoot people in the back. Persons apprised of the law know when to pull the trigger on a frontal shot. Like cops. When the perps are running away, it time to pursue, not shoot. Certainly human life has some value left in Texas. I can understand the property owner shooting in the back to protect his property rights. But a third party has no vested interest in the property, and suffers no personal loss if the property is stolen. That is hardly a mandate for shooting people in the back. The law in Texas on this matter is a bit of a stretch. I wouldn't count on going to the bank on it. Except maybe to borrow money to pay a lawyer to settle a civil claim from the survivors of the deceased.

Well, there could be extra circumstances, such as: Was he reaching for what possibly could be a gun? Was he attacking somebody else? Was he going into a place where another 3rd party is, such as a kid's bedroom, or toward a sensitive area? Was he getting behind cover to better engage you? Are there multiple assailants? Etc.

It's not cut and dry, if someone is just running down the middle of the street after you caught them robbing you, it's probably best not to shoot, but if they're running into your garage where there's a door that leads into the house, it's probably best to shoot.