TexasCHLforum.com

DoubleJ wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:IIRC
IANAL, BIPOOTV
FWIW
IOW
YMMV

(See what you started DJ!!!)

ahthankyou.

And I thought CISCO was bad at acronyms...

Not that this will come as a shock to anyone, but while watching the national coverage of this story last night on all of the major cable news outlets, as well as listening to their radio counterparts this morning, I found it interesting that not ONE of the legal analysts they had on to discuss the case got the relevant TX law correct. Every single one implied that the grand jury ignored the law and parroted the assertion that TX law requires that a third party request that the actor protect their property in order for force/deadly force to be justified. Of course this is not correct. I even posted a correction of (including the text of 9.43) to CNN's live blog on the subject during the broadcast. The blog is moderated and all posts must be approved (which is done fairly quickly) before they are made visible to other readers. Interstingly, they allowed through all of the mindless, simplistic rants on both sides of the issue ("He's a hero!" "No, he's a murderer!"), but my factual correction of their error was disallowed.

I've always chalked up inaccuracies in broadcast news to simple incompetence and laziness. Now I'm not so inclined to give them that benefit of the doubt.

DParker wrote:Not that this will come as a shock to anyone, but while watching the national coverage of this story last night on all of the major cable news outlets, as well as listening to their radio counterparts this morning, I found it interesting that not ONE of the legal analysts they had on to discuss the case got the relevant TX law correct. Every single one implied that the grand jury ignored the law and parroted the assertion that TX law requires that a third party request that the actor protect their property in order for force/deadly force to be justified. Of course this is not correct. I even posted a correction of (including the text of 9.43) to CNN's live blog on the subject during the broadcast. The blog is moderated and all posts must be approved (which is done fairly quickly) before they are made visible to other readers. Interstingly, they allowed through all of the mindless, simplistic rants on both sides of the issue ("He's a hero!" "No, he's a murderer!"), but my factual correction of their error was disallowed.

I've always chalked up inaccuracies in broadcast news to simple incompetence and laziness. Now I'm not so inclined to give them that benefit of the doubt.

parker, care to share that info with us or point me to it?

LedJedi wrote:parker, care to share that info with us or point me to it?

§ 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.

Of particular import is the "or" (as opposed to an "and") at the end of (1). That makes the conditions of (1) in conjunction with the relevant conditions of the other sections (9.41 & 9.42) sufficient for justification. A request by the thrid person for protection of their land/propert is also one justification, but it is only one of multiple justifications.

I do think that the legislature made an error in not including an "or" at the end of (2)(A) as well, even though it is obviously implied.

(Edited to add the following link to the relevant sections of the TX Penal Code):

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm

DParker wrote:

LedJedi wrote:parker, care to share that info with us or point me to it?

§ 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.

Of particular import is the "or" (as opposed to an "and") at the end of (1). That makes the conditions of (1) in conjunction with the relevant conditions of the other sections (9.41 & 9.42) sufficient for justification. A request by the thrid person for protection of their land/propert is also one justification, but it is only one of multiple justifications.

I do think that the legislature made an error in not including an "or" at the end of (2)(A) as well, even though it is obviously implied.

(Edited to add the following link to the relevant sections of the TX Penal Code):

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm

I'll be darned... i can't believe i missed that.

LedJedi wrote:I'll be darned... i can't believe i missed that.

Don't feel bad. Every single "legal expert" I've seen/heard on the broadcast news outlets missed it too.

DParker wrote:

LedJedi wrote:I'll be darned... i can't believe i missed that.

Don't feel bad. Every single "legal expert" I've seen/heard on the broadcast news outlets missed it too.

Yup. Everybody's been talking "Castle Doctrine" this and "Castle Doctrine" that. The Castle Doctrine played very little part in the whole incident, if i remember the story correctly (it has been a while). I'm now hearing that the two thieves may have turned towards Mr. Horn, apparently to attack him, which would invoke the Castle Doctrine protections, but he was justified by PC§ 9.43 to stop the theft of his neighbor's property.

i guess the question is a justified shooting under 9.43 grant the protection of the castle doctrine? I dont recall that it would but it's been a few months since i read it.

If it would not grant that protection in a justified shooting that would be a one very good reason to press the self defense aspect so you can fall under the castle doctrine's protection.

barres wrote:

DParker wrote:

LedJedi wrote:I'll be darned... i can't believe i missed that.

Don't feel bad. Every single "legal expert" I've seen/heard on the broadcast news outlets missed it too.

Yup. Everybody's been talking "Castle Doctrine" this and "Castle Doctrine" that. The Castle Doctrine played very little part in the whole incident, if i remember the story correctly (it has been a while). I'm now hearing that the two thieves may have turned towards Mr. Horn, apparently to attack him, which would invoke the Castle Doctrine protections, but he was justified by PC§ 9.43 to stop the theft of his neighbor's property.

DParker wrote:...Interstingly, they allowed through all of the mindless, simplistic rants on both sides of the issue ("He's a hero!" "No, he's a murderer!"), but my factual correction of their error was disallowed.

I've always chalked up inaccuracies in broadcast news to simple incompetence and laziness. Now I'm not so inclined to give them that benefit of the doubt.

It's both. Most news people are technically incompetent, even to report what they actually witness live or see on tape.

90% lean (way) left. The bias and the incompetence fuels the mistakes, errors, and lies more than either alone would do.

Wow. I just read this from yesterday's Houston Chronicle:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hot ... 64151.html

Pay special attention to the last paragraph about a detective arriving on the scene and seeing the shoot. It seems that every other media account of the story omitted that incredibly significant detail. Or am I just the only one who managed to miss it?

DParker wrote:Wow. I just read this from yesterday's Houston Chronicle:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hot ... 64151.html

Pay special attention to the last paragraph about a detective arriving on the scene and seeing the shoot. It seems that every other media account of the story omitted that incredibly significant detail. Or am I just the only one who managed to miss it?

Old news but interesting that so many "journalists" hide that fact.

DParker wrote:

LedJedi wrote:I'll be darned... i can't believe i missed that.

Don't feel bad. Every single "legal expert" I've seen/heard on the broadcast news outlets missed it too.

I just got thru listening to three yammer-heads on O'Reilly going at it on Joe's case...

Dennis Kucinich, and two blond TV reporter-ettes on FoxNews...One was a "lawyer", the other, a host of a featurette morning show on that network...

Even thought they touched on some interesting points, they talked over each other, and never really came up with any conclusive or definitive truth to the incident...Not that I had a reason to expect anything special to come of this...I just happened to be laying here typing away, and poof! Here comes the case on Joe!

I am deeply convinced that there are NO credible spokes-people at all on gun-control (not that that effort is credible at all), or Pro Second Amendment in the main stream media...

I believe we are extremely blessed to have a website like this and a few others out there to get the real deal when times get a little tense out there for our concerns...

Kinda stinks to be entertained, yet somewhat vacant of anything filling or satisfying during that little diddy...

The decision to no bill Joe Horn in the shooting deaths of two burglars is as illogical as the law against open carry in Texas, the one state in the nation you would expect some semblance of stereotypical frontier customs to hang on. The no bill was anticipated, however, in light of the sterotypical frontier sentiment "They needed killing," which lingers deep within the public body of the Lone Star State and shows no signs of abating.

casingpoint wrote:The decision to no bill Joe Horn in the shooting deaths of two burglars is as illogical as the law against open carry in Texas, the one state in the nation you would expect some semblance of stereotypical frontier customs to hang on. The no bill was anticipated, however, in light of the sterotypical frontier sentiment "They needed killing," which lingers deep within the public body of the Lone Star State and shows no signs of abating.

Why is it illogical to no bill a many who committed no crime as is the case with Joe Horn?

(We all have varying opinions on the degree to which Joe Horn acted rashly but everything he did was legal -- according to all the published reports we have available, and the result of the Grand Jury. Saying that a Grand Jury acted wrongly or that the DA somehow manipulated them without providing the evidence is not sufficient.)

DParker wrote:Not that this will come as a shock to anyone, but while watching the national coverage of this story last night on all of the major cable news outlets, as well as listening to their radio counterparts this morning, I found it interesting that not ONE of the legal analysts they had on to discuss the case got the relevant TX law correct. Every single one implied that the grand jury ignored the law and parroted the assertion that TX law requires that a third party request that the actor protect their property in order for force/deadly force to be justified. Of course this is not correct. I even posted a correction of (including the text of 9.43) to CNN's live blog on the subject during the broadcast. The blog is moderated and all posts must be approved (which is done fairly quickly) before they are made visible to other readers. Interstingly, they allowed through all of the mindless, simplistic rants on both sides of the issue ("He's a hero!" "No, he's a murderer!"), but my factual correction of their error was disallowed.

I've always chalked up inaccuracies in broadcast news to simple incompetence and laziness. Now I'm not so inclined to give them that benefit of the doubt.

On The O’Reilly Factor tonight - the one lawyer said under Texas Law - there was NO Law broken "the way it was written"..