Vigilante shoots robbers breaking into his neighbors home.... (banks, family, business)

[Roaddog]

Originally Posted by texanborn

I catch you stealing my car I have the right to shoot to kill in Texas. Catch you in my house I have a legal right to shoot to kill. Welcome to Texas, ain't we a great state.

Yes, it's a heck of a concept, you can protect your life and property, it's sorry that you work all your life so you can own a few things and someone can come along and take them and if you take action to stop them you will be the one going on trial. Texas looks better and better to me every day.

[texanborn]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Actually not with a grand jury. All that a grand jury looks at is, is there enough evidence to proceed with trial, and they dont need 100% to state yes, just a majority. Furthermore, A grand jury does not decide guilt or innocence, in this case they will be looking at, is there enough evidence that the man killed the thugs? (my opinion is that the tape states clearly that he killed them). They leave it up to trial to decide if he was justified.

It is very common for prosecutors to want to charge someone, but because doing so would not be politically or public supported, they send the case to a grand jury so they have someone to point the finger at.. "look, the grand jury stated to indite, so I have to proceed"

It is very rare for a grand jury to not proceed, so the fact that its at a grand jury most likely means he will be arrested and charged. Remember, this isnt an emotional decision, its purely a legal synopsis, and I'm no lawyer . I understand those who dont want him charged, but I'd be shocked if he isnt charged.

I'm talking about "NOT GUILTY' as if you or I were on a jury. YOU KNOW LIKE BEING PICKED FROM A JURY POOL . And I know how and what a Grand Jury does.

[texanborn]

Originally Posted by Roaddog

Yes, it's a heck of a concept, you can protect your life and property, it's sorry that you work all your life so you can own a few things and someone can come along and take them and if you take action to stop them you will be the one going on trial. Texas looks better and better to me every day.

One thing that has not been brought up is that one of those that was shot was not who he said he was. He was going by more than one name. I don't know the full details on that tho.

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by UB50

I'd like to start a magazine called "Texas Self-Defense."

In my first issue, I'll have an article titled "A Realtor Knocked on my Door - So I Killed Her"

and maybe these too:

"How To Protect Yourself Against Neighbors, Relatives & Acquaintances"
"Protecting Yourself in Traffic Jams"
"Defending Yourself against Parking Space Thieves"
"Don't Let the Repo Man Steal Your Car!"
"A Theft is A Theft: The Legality of Shooting Recyclers Who Try to Steal Your Trash."
"Poor Aim as A Legal Defense"
"Defending Your Personal Space in Shopping Malls and Grocery Stores"
"People who Look At You Funny: Are They Being Aggressive & A Threat?"

I'm sure others will be able to think of some more...

Ah liberal sarcasm at its best. Perhaps laws that are designed to protect the criminal are part of the cause of high crime?
LA is a mess. hmmmm wonder why?
Philidelphia is a mess, washington, detroit.
But in the rual areas where it is understood that you can be shot for breaking into anothers home? Whoa crime is pretty low.
The laws you poke fun of. No you can't shoot someone for knocking on your door... Or because they insult you.
I find no fault with anyone who feels a criminal caught in the act should be shot, stabbed, tased, or beat within an inch of their lives. The criminal obviously had no concerns about you or his own life. Why should we concern ourselves with theirs?

[texanborn]

Originally Posted by pghquest

This man will be put on trial for murder.. The law is very clear that the shooter, must have a fear of IMMEDIATE danger, IN THEIR OWN HOME in order to justify shooting.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:


SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding

Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section

30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section

30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending

Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as

follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is

justified in using force against another when and to the degree the

actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary

to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted

use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was

immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed

to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the

person against whom the force was used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter

unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business

or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove

unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or

place of business or employment; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated

kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,

robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location

where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against

whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity

at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before

using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether

an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the

use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider

whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as

follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person

is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force

against the other under Section 9.31; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably


believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the

other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of

aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual

assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the

deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that

subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had

reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was

used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter

unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business

or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove

unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or

place of business or employment of the actor; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense

described by Subsection (a)(2)(B)

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location

where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person

against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in

criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not

required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this

section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining

whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed

that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not

consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies

Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative

defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death

that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was

justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,

Chapter 9 Penal Code

SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is

amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:

Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER

EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative

defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff

all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was

lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as

amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after

the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the

effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the

offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for

this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is

committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of

the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as

amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and

Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action

that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action

that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by

the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is

continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007

To my understanding they were in his front yard when he told them to stop. 10 to 15 feet from Mr. Horn. I willing to let the courts and a jury to work this one out.. But I WILL donate up to 1,000 dollars to a defence fund for Mr. Horn if he needs me to.

[texanborn]

Originally Posted by Skytripper

OK......maybe he MEANT to just blow their kneecaps off so they could be hobblers from now on and TRY to commit future burglaries in wheelchairs.
Either way........their days of being thieves are over with and they should put up new "Neighborhood Crime Watch" signs in that hood.......saying something like:
Shotgun patrolled
The last 2 are no longer here
Burglars WILL be SHOT......Survivors WILL be shot AGAIN!

Oh well......they WOULD still be alive if they had only stayed in bed that day.....'stead of being punks who feel the need to burglarize.

Sorry....but to all those gun control folks, its stories like this one that help crime rates from really getting out of control.
Criminals SHOULD FEAR MORE than cops, getting busted and a little jailtime when it comes to breaking into someone's home!

Mr Horns neighbors seem for the most part to be supporting him. This is not a low income neighbor hood and maybe they are tired of people taking what they have worked so hard for.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by theroc5156

Not true. What's to say he's not going to another room, to his car for weapons, to hurt someone else??

Bottom line: Don't sneak into a stranger's house and you won't get hurt.

As for theft, what if the thieves were stealing a unique item that was in your family for 100 years and very valuable to you? Is it worth killing someone over? Personally, I think I should be allowed to shoot. Do I want to kill the perp? No, I want to maim him for life though. If I kill him, oh well.

People have the right to defend themselves and their property.

Sorry but I dont make the laws.. I follow them.. Per the Texas law September 1, 2007 (and most other states), it is imaterial what is being stolen.

As for him going to get his weapon, you would be justified, I copied and pasted the whole Texas law where it clearly states you are justified if you are in immediate danger.. going to get a weapon would be immediate danger.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by texanborn

To my understanding they were in his front yard when he told them to stop. 10 to 15 feet from Mr. Horn. I willing to let the courts and a jury to work this one out.. But I WILL donate up to 1,000 dollars to a defence fund for Mr. Horn if he needs me to.

Actually he was in his neighbors front yard, and they were outside. Neither one is justifiable in Teas or anywhere else, so get the checkbook ready because he will need a fund, I'm sure of it..

[Greatday]

Most states prohibit the use of deadly force to protect personal property

As for protecting oneself (or another), while deadly force may be allowed, the variation is in several other areas. For instance, would a reasonable person be in fear for their life? Was their life actually threatened? Some states provide that, BEFORE deadly force can be used, there is a "duty to retreat" standard - if you can "retreat" and get away from the person threatening you, then, you CANNOT use deadly force. Most states do not use this standard however

[texanborn]

Originally Posted by UB50

In California, we can shoot you if we find you in our house too -- if you are there to harm us.

If you are a neighbor dropping by to tell us that you don't appreciate our kids speeding down the street, we can't kill you though I understand that is legal in Texas. Authorities say man fatally shot neighbor during dispute | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (broken link)

If you are trying to repossess my car because I didn't pay my auto loan, I can't kill you in California either -- though I understand that is legal in Texas. In Killing of Repo Man, Law Shields the Killer - New York Times (Though I have to admit, the way I'm reading this new "castle doctrine," since the repo man has a legal right to be there, he can shoot back?)

I imagine next we'll hear about shootings of Avon ladies and newspaper boys, all in the great state of Texas.

You're right. In California, they won't let you do that. But if someone enters your house, well, they're fair game (providing you didn't invite them in).

You're sounding just alttle silly now...Shoot the Avon Lady ! When the repo man was shot Texas did not have the castle doctrine. If I remember that case went straight to a Gran Jury and the shooter was no billed. The repo man has no more right to take your car then any other crook. There is no court order giving them the right, it's just the bank having it stolen with out due process of law.