Page 1 of 2
CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:17 pm
by philip964
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/0 ... e-suspect/
A car jacking victim was arrested for murder after he was robbed at gun point. Apparently after the armed criminal left in his van, he drew his weapon and fired at his van leaving. The van crashed into parked cars a few miles away. He was being interviewed by police about his armed robbery when they found his van and arrested him for murder.
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:31 pm
by mayor
while this could have happened anywhere, it is less surprising out of California.
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:31 pm
by Keith B
If he had shot him while sitting in the van he would have possibly been justified, but in California you can't use deadly force to stop someone once you are not in fear for your life or have already exited the vehicle/dwelling.
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:37 pm
by SewTexas
Keith B wrote:If he had shot him while sitting in the van he would have possibly been justified, but in California you can't use deadly force to stop someone once you are not in fear for your life or have already exited the vehicle/dwelling.
I'm not sure which states you can or can't.
I know that in Texas you can
in CO and CA you can't
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:51 pm
by crazy2medic
I've been meaning to ask this question, who has prepaid legal service, Is there a thread on this subject because I haven't been able to find one.
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:55 pm
by Keith B
crazy2medic wrote:I've been meaning to ask this question, who has prepaid legal service, Is there a thread on this subject because I haven't been able to find one.
We don't discuss prepaid legal services on here, other than to say be sure of what you are buying if you sign up.
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:28 pm
by crazy2medic
Ok, that's why I had questions I've read some stuff I don't like so thanks and I'll leave the subject alone
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:32 pm
by philip964
Since this occurred at night, in Texas my view he would be no billed by the grand jury.
In California, this guy is toast. The illegal who shot the daughter in SF has a better chance of getting off since that evil gun went off by accident.
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:50 am
by o b juan
Sew Texas Quote
"I'm not sure which states you can or can't.
I know that in Texas you can
in CO and CA you can't:
Where did you here the above / Did you have a Lawman or LTC Instructor tell you that/
Read 9;41 & 9:42
It is not a really good idea to shoot a fleeing thief !
Use deadly force only to stop unlawful deadly force!
What deadly force is being used against you or another!
I hope you did not here that from a Texas LTC instructor.
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:34 am
by Pawpaw
o b juan wrote:Sew Texas Quote
"I'm not sure which states you can or can't.
I know that in Texas you can
in CO and CA you can't:
Where did you here the above / Did you have a Lawman or LTC Instructor tell you that/
Read 9;41 & 9:42
It is not a really good idea to shoot a fleeing thief !
Use deadly force only to stop unlawful deadly force!
What deadly force is being used against you or another!
I hope you did not here that from a Texas LTC instructor.
PC §9.41 & PC §9.42 wrote:PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night¬time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:09 pm
by SewTexas
Pawpaw wrote:o b juan wrote:Sew Texas Quote
"I'm not sure which states you can or can't.
I know that in Texas you can
in CO and CA you can't:
Where did you here the above / Did you have a Lawman or LTC Instructor tell you that/
Read 9;41 & 9:42
It is not a really good idea to shoot a fleeing thief !
Use deadly force only to stop unlawful deadly force!
What deadly force is being used against you or another!
I hope you did not here that from a Texas LTC instructor.
PC §9.41 & PC §9.42 wrote:PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night¬time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
(^this) My husband and/or I have been carrying since it was legal, we know the law
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:29 am
by o b juan
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Paw Paw & Sew Tx
The above part of your quote excludes from shooting a fleeing suspect Period
You do not have the complete law till you reach a period and a New Penal code # starts !!
Please read the law more carefully Texas Law is sometimes Complicated and convoluted. But it is the Law here in Texas.. Wouldnt want you to get in trouble
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:54 am
by K.Mooneyham
o b juan wrote:(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Paw Paw & Sew Tx
The above part of your quote excludes from shooting a fleeing suspect Period
You do not have the complete law till you reach a period and a New Penal code # starts !!
Please read the law more carefully Texas Law is sometimes Complicated and convoluted. But it is the Law here in Texas.. Wouldnt want you to get in trouble
So, you're saying that since the person who carjacked the victim is "another", then all the preceding stuff is nullified? Or am I understanding you wrong here? I'm not a lawyer or anything near to that profession, just a simple mechanic, so I'd really like that one spelled out for me, if you could. Thank you.
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:37 am
by casp625
K.Mooneyham wrote:o b juan wrote:(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Paw Paw & Sew Tx
The above part of your quote excludes from shooting a fleeing suspect Period
You do not have the complete law till you reach a period and a New Penal code # starts !!
Please read the law more carefully Texas Law is sometimes Complicated and convoluted. But it is the Law here in Texas.. Wouldnt want you to get in trouble
So, you're saying that since the person who carjacked the victim is "another", then all the preceding stuff is nullified? Or am I understanding you wrong here? I'm not a lawyer or anything near to that profession, just a simple mechanic, so I'd really like that one spelled out for me, if you could. Thank you.
You missed the 'or' in one of the subsections.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
..[snip]..
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night¬time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
This whole section is in reference to deadly force. As in, if you use any force other than deadly force to protect or recover your property, it would put you or another at substantial risk of death or serious injury. So after someone just committed armed robbery against you, would it make much sense to try to recover your property by pushing the guy to the ground and trying to snatch the property back (use of force)? No? So why would you only resort to the use of force when you would be met with deadly force?
Re: CA:Car jacking victim arrested for murder
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:38 am
by Pawpaw
o b juan wrote:(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Paw Paw & Sew Tx
The above part of your quote excludes from shooting a fleeing suspect Period
You do not have the complete law till you reach a period and a New Penal code # starts !!
Please read the law more carefully Texas Law is sometimes Complicated and convoluted. But it is the Law here in Texas.. Wouldnt want you to get in trouble
I could not disagree more and I believe you are the one who needs to read more carefully.
Tell us, please, what method of force (other than deadly force) could the individual have used to "protect or recover" his property without exposing himself or another to a substantial risk of death or bodily injury? If you can't come up with one, then the use of deadly force is justified, per the law I quoted, including paragraph B.