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.
"(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."
"
(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 "
It says force not deadly force and "immediately or in fresh pursuit "
he no longer was in fresh pursuite when he went back and got his gun and went searching the neighborhood.
but it's still some good info, thanks
Nice editing. You forgot the part where it says:
Quote:
9.43(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
And Section 9.43 allows for use of deadly force as prescribed for in Section 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:
(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 nighttime 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.
In any event, he was in "fresh pursuit" of the thief at the moment he witnessed the thief burglarizing his neighbor's home. He can apply the law as stated in 9.41 and 9.42 to exercise deadly force in fresh pursuit of a criminal engaged in burglary of his neighbor's home, as prescribed for in section 9.43.
The law states that the actor must consider it reasonable to apply deadly force. It is up to a jury to determine if his actions were "reasonable". As it happens here in Texas, a grand jury usually returns a no-bill in these instances.
Keep trying and eventually you will figure it out.
I would much rather have Mr. Flemming as a neighbor than some useless coward that is going to go hide in the corner while his neighbor's house is burglarized. Or call the police, who, if they aren't busy that night, might come out and take a report after the fact. I suspect the real reason that Flemming was arrested was because the police actually had to arrest the burglar and haul him off. No money in that...
If the cops don't think it's worth responding to you centrally will not be able to shoot them over it.
Fact is your really going to be the big guy in town with a parade given in your honer for shooting the neighbors kid for stealing from a garage.
I'll gather some info like what they looked like Lie# direction the fled etc etc but I will not shoot then for you.
Now, if a life is in danger I'll be the first to pull the trigger and kill them to save a life but iI will not kill them for your junk.
Keep trying and eventually you will figure it out.
I didn't for get it at all I pointed out a finer point of the Bill.
So try it again, it the "totality of the law" you apply the whole law.
He was not in "fresh pursuit" he stoped to go get his gun.
and
what you posted is
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
it predates the castle doctrine and it does not justify deadly force.
How about a link to the Texas castle doctrine
Last edited by snofarmer; 02-22-2012 at 12:25 PM..
I didn't for get it at all I pointed out a finer point of the Bill.
Your ability to read and fully comprehend sections 9.41-9.43 of the Texas Penal Code is abysmal.
Quote:
So try it again, it the "totality of the law" you apply the whole law.
I already did. But for the learning impaired:
9.43 states he can protect a third person's property, if he would be justified under 9.41 or 9.42.
9.42 states that deadly force is authorized to protect property if justified under 9.41 and that deadly force is immediate necessary to prevent commission of burglary or robbery, or to prevent the criminal from fleeing immediate after committing burglary, etc, and that no other means other than deadly force can be employed. It is up to a jury to determine if a reasonable person would have employed deadly force in the specific instance.
9.41 states that force is justified when the actor reasonably believes that force is necessary to recover stolen property.
Keep trying you will get it eventually.
Quote:
He was not in "fresh pursuit" he stoped to go get his gun.
Seeing someone climbing out of a neighbor's window, stopping to retrieve a gun, and then pursuing the criminal would constitute "fresh pursuit" in my eyes. It is up to a jury to decide what fresh pursuit is, and in Texas a grand jury would see it the way I see it, usually returning a no-bill.
what you posted is
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
How about a link to the Texas castle doctrine
Castle Doctrine is Section 9.32-9.33. It provides for the use of force for self defense and the defense of others.
Does not apply in Fleming's case (had he lived in Texas) since we are dealing with defending property, and not self-defense or defense of others. Sections 9.41-9.43 pertain to defense of property using force or deadly force.
§ 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 nighttime 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.
...
§ 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:
(2) the actor reasonably believes that: (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
Did you notice the AND's within the law? They are not optional, they are to be related to the previous statements within the law. Meaning the previous condition must be met, AND the following conditions satisfied as well. Before attempting to use the law, you should really read the law.
Did you notice the AND's within the law? They are not optional, they are to be related to the previous statements within the law. Meaning the previous condition must be met, AND the following conditions satisfied as well. Before attempting to use the law, you should really read the law.
Did you notice the "ORs" in the law? Repost the law again, but this time highlight the "ORs", with a little less sanctimony this time.
Castle Doctrine is Section 9.32-9.33. It provides for the use of force for self defense and the defense of others.
Does not apply in Fleming's case (had he lived in Texas) since we are dealing with defending property, and not self-defense or defense of others. Sections 9.41-9.43 pertain to defense of property using force or deadly force.
(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:
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
If Mr. Flemming didn't meet the parameters of 9.41, he wouldn't have met the parameters in 9.42 or .43. Thus he would have been charged as well in Texas.
If Mr. Flemming didn't meet the parameters of 9.41, he wouldn't have met the parameters in 9.42 or .43. Thus he would have been charged as well in Texas.
Your the one who I have taking yet another swing at it.
I think you are full of yourself.
You can try to stand behind this old law that does not justify deadly force in the case that you are spouting off about.
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.
