Page 2 of 17

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:55 pm
by Lucky45
txinvestigator wrote:What part of his actions fall outside of that?

Hey TXi, :mad5
Why are you leaving out some important info. :nono: You know some of us don't read fully.
PC §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.
What's up with that??

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:10 pm
by txinvestigator
Lucky45 wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:What part of his actions fall outside of that?

Hey TXi, :mad5
Why are you leaving out some important info. :nono: You know some of us don't read fully.
PC §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.
What's up with that??
I left that out because it does not matter if the third person has requested his protection of the land or property.

It states; "OR" the actor reasonably believes.............

That means he is justified if the statement BEFORE the "or" is true, or after the "or" is true. Both or not required or the word "AND" would be used.
PC §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;
Notice the word "or". That means he is justfied if EITHER statement is true. If he reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible
movable property, then he is justified, OR, if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of the land or property, he is justified. The section does not require BOTH 1 or 2, only one OR the other.

Of course, if the shooter reasonably believed the neighbor had requested his protection, then he has a justification. OR if he reasonably believed he had a duty to protect the property, then he was justified. OR if it was one of the relations listed he was justified.

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:15 pm
by txinvestigator
Russell wrote:Exactly. I was pointing at those 2 situations:


- Police have a good chance of recovering the property if the person got a good look at their faces and was a good witness
First, no they don't. Second. The law does not state that the police might be able to recover the property. He just has to reasonably believe the property cannot be recovered by any other means. And someone who has dealt with burglaries, even with descriptions, recovery of property is slim at best.

-
We don't know if the neighbor requested the old man to look after the house and/or property
Does not matter. Believing someone requested your protection is only one of the several justifications. He was also justified IF he reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property.

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:19 pm
by boomerang
Russell wrote:- Police have a good chance of recovering the property if the person got a good look at their faces and was a good witness
What percentage of burglaries end up with the property being recovered?

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:10 pm
by boomerang
Russell wrote:I love lasagna :grin:
It's to die for. :grin:

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:12 am
by txinvestigator
Russell wrote:
boomerang wrote:
Russell wrote:- Police have a good chance of recovering the property if the person got a good look at their faces and was a good witness
What percentage of burglaries end up with the property being recovered?

I'm afraid you might have caught me talking out of my bum when I stated that sentence, I don't have statistics, it was just hopefulness :lol:


I was in the middle of making lasagna when I wrote that. I plead temporary insanity. I love lasagna :grin:
HEY!. Gonna share?????? [homer simpson] ummm lasagna [/homer simpson]

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:56 am
by Lucky45
More Info from Houston Chronicle
Nov. 15, 2007, 1:28AM
Shooting of theft suspects may test self-defense law


By RUTH RENDON and PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

In a case legal experts say may "stretch the limits" of the state's self-defense laws, a Pasadena man shot and killed two suspected burglars during a confrontation as they attempted to flee his neighbor's property Wednesday afternoon.
In the minutes before the fatal shootings, Pasadena police said the man called 911 and reported that he had heard glass breaking next door and saw two men entering the home through a window. Still on the phone with police, the man, believed to be in his 70s, saw the suspects leaving from the back of the home.
"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way.'
"Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."
After the shotgun blasts, the telephone line went dead. But the neighbor called police again and told a dispatcher what he had done.
When police arrived moments later, they found two dead men in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive. One was across the street, and the other had collapsed two houses down behind a bank of mailboxes in the Village Grove East subdivision.
Up to the grand jury
Police said the neighbor, whose name was withheld Wednesday, appeared calm as he retraced his steps for police.
"He was well composed and knew what he was doing," Mitchell said. "He was protecting the neighbor's property."
It will be up to a Harris County grand jury to decide if the man committed a crime by opening fire, police said.
Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor.
If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in his favor, LaFon said.
"If the homeowner comes out and says, 'My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,' that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role," LaFon said.
The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection.
The neighbor, however, would have been on much safer legal ground if he had been trying to protect his own property, LaFon said.
Failed to stop
Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said the neighbor told investigators that he knew the next-door residents were not home. The man told investigators that he encountered the pair when they exited his neighbor's through a gate leading to the front yard.
Corbett said the neighbor asked the men, one of which was carrying a white bag, to stop, but they did not.
The neighbor fired twice. One shot struck one of the suspected burglars in the chest, and the other was struck on the side.
The names of the two burglary suspects were not released Wednesday evening. The two men had documentation on them from Puerto Rico, Colombia and the Dominican Republic, police said.
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.
But the person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings and must suspect that taking less drastic measures could expose themselves or others to serious danger.
A state senator who authored a law passed this year giving Texans stronger rights to defend themselves with deadly force said he did not believe the legislation he spearheaded would apply to the Pasadena case, based on the sketchy facts that have emerged so far.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, said the so-called castle doctrine law he wrote doesn't apply to people protecting their neighbors' property.The measure "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Wentworth said. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."
A quiet neighborhood
On Wednesday afternoon, other residents were stunned to exit their homes to find police cars and yellow crime scene tape
Lacey Hernandez, who lives one block from the shooting, was home when she heard two loud pops, but couldn't identify the noise. A short time later, she was leaving to pick up her children from school when she noticed the police cars.
"I was in shock because I never heard a gunshot before," Hernandez said.
She described her neighborhood as very quiet. The subdivision is lined with two-story brick homes with trees in the front yards.
"We leave our garage door open," she said. "We let the kids run the streets just like nothing. Now they will not be playing in the streets."

ruth.rendon@chron.com

peggy.ohare@chron.com

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:21 am
by TxD
Lucky45 wrote:More Info from Houston Chronicle
Nov. 15, 2007, 1:28AM
Shooting of theft suspects may test self-defense law


By RUTH RENDON and PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

In a case legal experts say may "stretch the limits" of the state's self-defense laws, a Pasadena man shot and killed two suspected burglars during a confrontation as they attempted to flee his neighbor's property Wednesday afternoon.
ruth.rendon@chron.com

peggy.ohare@chron.com
It is interesting that the "legal experts" mentioned in this article speak
of "self defence laws". Do you think that most readers will associate this
statement to CHL or Castle Doctrine even though neither apply?

I do think this case may very well search the limits of the Penal Code concerning "deadly force".

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:57 am
by stevie_d_64
Lucky45 wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote:We can paint the numbers all day on this, and you are correct, nobody's stuff is worth a life...But then again we do not know what the two burglers did after they were told to stop...
Hold up stevie. :nono: Before we go any further, I don't want you to think I'm a burglar sympathyser. Like the Presidential candidates, you can check my RECORD and see that I have NEVER, EVER, had an issue with using FORCE including DEADLY :fire when it comes to property. I'm a letter of the law kinda guy :txflag: , I don't flip flop on the issue like some others. I was just rehashing what others say all the time, who went and got a CHL and now are unsure of when they will use it.
Never assumed anything different...I know what you were setting up...I would have done the same thing...

The problem with all of this...And granted I am posting, not having seen ALL of the posts since yesterday, so I may be sticking foot into mouth again...

The neighbors all pretty much say the neighbor who shot and killed these two burglers is a stand-up guy, and they do not want to see him charged with anything...But then again that is for the DA to decide and a jury of the neighbors peers to do so...

I have not seen anything "yet" on the ID's of these criminals, what their history is, and other sundry issues...

Contrast that between the neighbor who confronted them, asked them to stop what they were doing, they somehow failed to comply with that request, and were shot for "some" reason...Hopefully some light can be shed on all of this...

The message I hope that somehow gets out more is that a criminal bent upon continuing their wiley ways, should ask themselves..."IS" their life worth more than the stuff they steal???

If someone they do not know is armed and confronts them while they have arm-fulls of stolen stuff, and they are asked to stop...

I think it would be a good idea to comply, regardless if they think the armed citizen is going to shoot or not...

A criminal, not a civilian, should start to assume the fetal position and hope for the best...I would think everyone would walk away from that incident breathing...

Just my opinion...

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:00 am
by stevie_d_64
seamusTX wrote:Remember the CHL holder on the bus?
Yep, the surface judgement was really fast considering the kid looked like he had issues...When in fact it was the deceased that had issues...

But all of that came out in the wash...

Thats a great story to bring back up Jim!

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:02 am
by stevie_d_64
Venus Pax wrote:Like many here, I will be interested to learn the outcome of this.

I think the fact that he's 70-years-old works in his favor.
Not to be critical at all...But what if he was 43???

Just for the sake of stirring the pot... ;-)

I just want to know if it had been me, would I be cast in a different light perhaps...Honestly I want to know... ;-)

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:07 am
by stevie_d_64
Russell wrote:Exactly. I was pointing at those 2 situations:

- (this point I left out, just because) ;-)

- We don't know if the neighbor requested the old man to look after the house and/or property
Excellent!!!

I know when we leave next week to head north, I always let two neighbors I know and trust to watch over things...What they do to that effect is up to them...I know they already have the number(s) to call me in the event of "something", and they've had those numbers for years...

They ask the same of us when they scoot out of town for whatever...

I think that is about all we can do as neighbors to watch after each other...How we do that is up to the individual...

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:16 am
by stevie_d_64
From the Houston Comical:
"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way.'
He said "stop", that is a recorded statement...He did not say he was going to "shoot"...

I could say something about the dispatcher/communications specialist, but I choose not to...