Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Selective editing, I posted THE ENTIRE SECTION OF THE LAW! ROTFLAMAO, you can't have it one way AND the other in your selective reading of the law. Your arguments are false and not anywhere within the letter OR intent of the law.
No you jumped to 9.43(2) without including 9.43(1). That made your point without including the previous part that included the word "or".
Dude you lose. Give it up.
Quote:
Fresh pursuit huh? He got in his truck, drove within his neighborhood BEFORE witnessing the criminal, who he didn't have definitive knowledge if he was even the same person, and then took action. There is no way shape or form that constitutes "fresh pursuit". Your twisting and turning in the wind is pitiful and pathetic.
Yes he wasn't in fresh pursuit of the crime committed on his property, but once he witnessed the criminal emerging from his neighbor's house, A SEPARATE CRIME, he was then in fresh pursuit for that crime.
Are you being thick on purpose?
Quote:
The OR's within the statue as I pointed out don't change anything within the law.
They absolutely do if you are capable of second-grade level reading comprehension.
Quote:
You can attempt to portray everyone else as a petulant toddler, but it's clear to all that your feeble attempts and name calling easily encompasses your behavior and your overall personality. Now, behave before the adults put you in time out.
No.
Quote:
And did you find a new word yet? Or are you going to keep going to the well of name calling and straw men, because we can play that game all day. Your tantrum enraged name calling explosion of emotion is eagerly anticipated.
There is no requirement under 9.41-9.43 to refer to 9.32-9.33.
Fail.
Where in 9.41-9.43 does it define, or refer to a definition in another section, for "fresh pursuit"?
See the bit about "in this article". And retrieving a firearm is not an "unreasonable delay", at least to a grand jury in Texas.
Try again.
sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous/ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/
Adjective:derogatory. Making a show of being morally superior to other people.
Love it. Clearly then if you want to attempt to show that he wasn't using force in self defense or to protect property then in 9.42 Mr. Flemming doesn't fit any of those criteria either!
Quote:
(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.
So Mr. Flemming drew down on someone who didn't immediately present a threat to him. And used deadly force (force with a deadly weapon) to prevent/terminate another's trespass. And yet in 9.42
Quote:
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(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.
Mr. Flemming doesn't meet any of these criteria either. The alleged thief wasn't a threat to him...he wasn't fleeing, he wasn't afraid he would be attacked. He fired his weapon. At someone over 3 football fields away.
You're completely out flanked and wrong on this issue. You can't interpret the law the way you see fit. If you break the law, you face the consequences as Mr. Flemming is now. Plain and simple. So, before you go attempting to portray Texas courts in a for certain light, you should be aware of the law and ALL OF IT'S WORDS before thinking you have the right to do something you just might not.
No you jumped to 9.43(2) without including 9.43(1). That made your point without including the previous part that included the word "or".
Dude you lose. Give it up.
Yes he wasn't in fresh pursuit of the crime committed on his property, but once he witnessed the criminal emerging from his neighbor's house, A SEPARATE CRIME, he was then in fresh pursuit for that crime.
Are you being thick on purpose?
They absolutely do if you are capable of second-grade level reading comprehension.
No.
Incoherent blather.
I'm not going to argue with a 5 year old who can't comprehend or understand clearly written legal Penal Code or English. You're a complete waste of time and clearly destined to end up on trial and in jail for your ignorance and moronic dithering.
Good day to you, and hope you have a good lawyer on retainer. You're gonna need it.
Love it. Clearly then if you want to attempt to show that he wasn't using force in self defense or to protect property then in 9.42 Mr. Flemming doesn't fit any of those criteria either!
He WAS using force to protect a third party's property, as provided for in 9.43. The threat of force is allowed when the use of force is allowed, as it was in this case to protect the neighbor's property. Threat of force is handled in:
Quote:
§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.
In 9.42-9.43, he WOULD HAVE been justified to use deadly force to protect the third party property if he reasonably believed there was no other recourse to recover the property.
Keep trying.
Quote:
So Mr. Flemming drew down on someone who didn't immediately present a threat to him. And used deadly force (force with a deadly weapon) to prevent/terminate another's trespass. And yet in 9.42
Mr. Flemming doesn't meet any of these criteria either. The alleged thief wasn't a threat to him...he wasn't fleeing, he wasn't afraid he would be attacked. He fired his weapon. At someone over 3 football fields away.
Section 9.41-9.43 do not require that he be threatened. It provides for the use of force and deadly force to prevent a theft. Read it again and keep trying.
9.42(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
Section 9.04 states that threat of force with a deadly weapon does not constitute the use of deadly force. Try again.
Quote:
You're completely out flanked and wrong on this issue. You can't interpret the law the way you see fit. If you break the law, you face the consequences as Mr. Flemming is now. Plain and simple. So, before you go attempting to portray Texas courts in a for certain light, you should be aware of the law and ALL OF IT'S WORDS before thinking you have the right to do something you just might not.
I am interpreting the law correctly. Fleming used the threat of force in an instance where the use of force, and even deadly force, was permitted to prevent the theft of third party property (under Texas law).
Quote:
Here ended the lesson.
No here began a remedial course on reading comprehension. You fail. Repeat the course after reading the law in its entirety and try again.
I'm not going to argue with a 5 year old who can't comprehend or understand clearly written legal Penal Code or English. You're a complete waste of time and clearly destined to end up on trial and in jail for your ignorance and moronic dithering.
Good day to you, and hope you have a good lawyer on retainer. You're gonna need it.
So, please tell us....how he was patrolling his neighborhood (without a pistol) is wrong?....If you are calling all people who do the "Neighborhood watch" as vigilantes, WITHOUT a pistol.......I would be embarrassed.
Neighborhood watch groups do patrol the neighborhood, where are they going to watch the neighborhood from, their basement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Walking down to your neighbors, with a gun is not patrolling the neighborhood...
Yes it is, especially if your gun is drawn
Quote:
pa·trol
Verb: Keep watch over (an area) by regularly walking or traveling around or through it.
Now that I've dispensed with the illiterates that don't know how to read and comprehend Texas law as written, how about a little New Hampshire law:
Quote:
627:7 Use of Force in Defense of Premises. – A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using non-deadly force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other in or upon such premises, but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4 or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson.
Quote:
627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. – A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.
Appears that Fleming was permitted to use non-deadly force to prevent the theft if he was permitted to be on the property. If it wasn't his property then the property owner would need to clarify if Fleming was permitted to be on the property, and unless the property owner is a total azzhole he would likely say that Fleming did have a right to be on his property to defend it.
But was what he did "deadly force" under NH law? We read further:
Quote:
627:9 Definitions. – As used in this chapter:
II. "Deadly force'' means any assault or confinement which the actor commits with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury. Purposely firing a firearm capable of causing serious bodily injury or death in the direction of another person or at a vehicle in which another is believed to be constitutes deadly force.
IV. "Non-deadly force'' means any assault or confinement which does not constitute deadly force. The act of producing or displaying a weapon shall constitute non-deadly force.
Was Fleming's firing into the ground considered "in the direction" of the criminal in question? If it wasn't then no deadly force was applied under NH law.
To me "in the direction of" is aiming at, or firing above the head of, or at the ground directly in front of, the criminal.
Where on the ground did Fleming shoot and was it "in the direction of" the criminal? That is for the jury to decide after all the facts of the case are submitted into evidence.
Appears that Fleming was permitted to use non-deadly force to prevent the theft if he was permitted to be on the property. If it wasn't his property then the property owner would need to clarify .
No, that's not how the law works. The burden of proof is on Fleming, not the property owner. If you are on someones property and claim you have permission you have to prove it, the owner doesn't have to dispprove it. Being that the guy lived a quarter of a mile away, it's unlikely Fleming had permission to go in and out of his house as he pleases.
No, that's not how the law works. The burden of proof is on Fleming, not the property owner. If you are on someones property and claim you have permission you have to prove it, the owner doesn't have to dispprove it. Being that the guy lived a quarter of a mile away, it's unlikely Fleming had permission to go in and out of his house as he pleases.
No the way the law works is you call the neighbor to the witness stand and ask him if Fleming has permission to be on his property. If the answer is yes then Fleming is permitted to be on the property. The property owner does not have to give written consent to Fleming for Fleming to be allowed on his property. It is the property owner's discretion.
The law also does not state that Fleming has to believe that he has permission from the property owner in order to be on the property lawfully.
Quote:
Wrong, that means directly at not direction of.
Ok break down the 360 degrees on the plane with the center of the criminals chest being degree 0 and tell me the arcs that are considered "direction at" and those considered "direction of", and those considered "not in any direction at or of".
The ground in front of Fleming or to Fleming's side would not be considered "in the direction of" or "at" the criminal.
No the way the law works is you call the neighbor to the witness stand and ask him if Fleming has permission to be on his property. If the answer is yes then Fleming is permitted to be on the property. The property owner does not have to give written consent to Fleming for Fleming to be allowed on his property. It is the property owner's discretion.
You've watched one to many cop shows
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
