One for the Gipper!!!~

[speedsix]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Burglare ... 38949.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...sometimes the good guys still win!!!

[speedsix]

...covered under 9:31 (a) and, if they were holding any of the guns, other following sections...

[hirundo82]

I could be way off, but I presume the Castle Doctrine doesn't apply in someone else's home. The details of this shooting and the aftermath will be interesting.

Castle Doctrine doesn't apply to an unoccupied dwelling. However, I can see a justification for this shooting under PC §9.43:

Sec. 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.

This is similar to the Joe Horn case in Pasadena a few years back. Although that one eventually came down to the fact that he feared for his life, one of the justifications was that his neighbor had asked him to keep an eye on his property. In this case it is even more clear-cut since the shooter was the burglary victim's father and the burglars were still inside the house. Since they were stealing guns, he could also make a good case he was reasonably in fear for his life.

I'd be very surprised if charges were filed against the shooter in this case.

[speedsix]

...it was occupied the moment the father, who had control and a perfect right to be there, walked into the house...after that...9:31, 9:41, 9:42 (2) (A) and (B) and 9:43 (B) all apply...if it even goes to the Grand Jury, it will be so that the justification of the shooting is legal...9:43 (A) may apply...and 9:43 (C) also does apply...


read 9:43 (2) (C) - (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.


"...is the actor's
spouse,
parent,
or child ,(BINGO......the property he is protecting is his son's)
resides with the actor,
or is under the actor's care."

[speedsix]

...Dallas Morning News story on Wednesday adds: ...the homeowner's father, who Ellis Cty. Sheriff's Lt. Saulter said has a concealed handgun license, confronted the two men inside his son's home, "...where they were in the process of carrying some of his son's guns toward the back door..."

...so they were armed...I smell roses on this one...they shoulda joined the Army...

[A-R]

Don't have time to reference the PC and site relevant statutes right now, but going purely from memory I believe the fundamental issue here is that self-defense law in Texas now goes well beyond merely a "castle doctrine" to broader "stand your ground" doctrine. In nutshell, it doesn't have to be YOUR home or YOUR property, you just have to have a legal right to be there while the person against whom you're using force/deadly force does NOT have a legal right to be there. Now before anyone takes this too far, this doesn't mean I can shoot anyone for stepping on my lawn (insert Clint Eastwood "Gran Torino" reference here ) - they have to also be putting me in some immediate fear of a very serious crime before I'm justified in shooting.

But I think a father walking in on burglars in his son's house who already have GUNS "on or about" their person would certainly qualify.

If you REALLY want to fully understand all of this, I strongly urge each of you to take Charles Cotton's Texas Deadly Force Laws Seminar - it's easily worth a few hundred dollars, but admission is free (or at least it was when I took it at PSC last October).

[A-R]

Castle Doctrine doesn't apply to an unoccupied dwelling.

Not saying you're wrong, I just honestly don't remember purely from memory and don't have time to look up statutes right now ... but this doesn't sound right to me. Do you have a citation to a particular statute that says this?

[speedsix]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00378F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

9:31(a)(1)(A) specifies occupied...and it became occupied when the father stepped in...and when they had weapons in hand, headed for the back door, and Dad walked in...they were committing a robbery...kicking in 9:31 (a)(1)(C)...it just wasn't their best day....


Texas PC § 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.