Abusing the Castle Doctrine...Texas man shoots a teen in his yard...

[SkySlash]

Link to Story

I think there is probably more to this story than what is being reported, and while I support the Castle Doctrine as written, I absolutely do not support this man's actions as the article presents them to have been.

In my opinion, the Castle Doctrine is intended to give individuals an extra layer of protection from prosecution, by removing their duty to retreat, if they are confronted by a criminal while minding their own business in a public or private location.

I do not believe that the Castle Doctrine is a license to start shooting any time you simply feel threatened, and I definitely do not believe that such use was the intent of the authors of the legislation.

I'm not sure what prompted this man to shoot his teenage neighbor, but it sounds to me like he was spooked by the loud party next door and shot the first person he saw on his lawn. The fact that he shot through a window suggests to me that he was likely in no danger whatsoever from the teen he shot. Clearly the teen didn't have a weapon, nor did the shooter ever allege that he did. The shooter claims he thought he was about to be burglarized, but other than walking across his lawn there is no evidence that the teens made any moves suggesting that intent.

Frankly, I am very glad that the Grand Jury has moved to indict, and if the facts of the case show that the shooter simply shot a teen on his lawn because he "felt" that he might at some point become a threat; he needs to be convicted and sentenced for that piss poor critical thinking. I think a very clear message needs to be sent to these trigger happy nutjobs that you can't shoot people just because they are there and you're feeling frisky; and the courts need to make it abundantly clear that the Castle Doctrine is NOT a free-for-all License to Kill.

If this man didn't want people on his lawn, there are things within the law that can be done to warn trespassers not to venture onto his property. Since I highly doubt he had a fenced front yard, or purple on his trees, or posted no trespassing signs; he broke the law by shooting this person and he needs to be punished for it.

Some of you might bring up the Joe Horn shooting that happened and was highly publicized in the recent past, but I don't think the two cases are in the same category. I do think, however, that a proper message on what exactly the Castle Doctrine means has become past necessary.

Additionally, I think it would be fair to use the resulting death of the mother during the sentencing portion of the hearing. I have no doubt this case will result in a conviction, unless there is some unpresented evidence against the teens which I don't expect there to be. I don't think the shooter should be charged with any part of the mother's death, as that happened due to the actions of a likely drunk driver; but I do think it should be considered as a mitigating circumstance when he is sentenced.

This nonsense has got to stop! People like me fight long and hard battles in order to get good laws like this passed, and all it takes is a handful of these cases to get the law reversed...

It's time the courts send a message to this type of person and permanently scratch their itchy fingers.

-SS

 

[PT111]

I think this and the Joe Horn are similar in that to me neither on involved the Castle Doctrine. The media has dubbed the CD as a shoot first law and too many people take it as just that, a license to shoot on site whenever they feel the least bit threatened and think it provides full immunity from all legal problems.

I doubt that in this case the thought of the CD even entered into the fellows mind but rather just he was going to teach those kids a lesson. Whether or not it did the purpose of the CD was never to provide an open season on anyone you suspect might be threatening you. If you want the law modified then keep these kinds of shootings up and Sarah Brady will soon be making hay.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Additionally, I think it would be fair to use the resulting death of the mother during the sentencing portion of the hearing.

The mother's death should not be used in determining sentencing. This is because the connection between the original shooting and the auto accident is too tenuous to ascribe any liability to the original shooter, even though the mother wouldn't have been driving if not for the shooting.

The auto accident was caused entirely by the negligence of the drunk driver.

 

[SkySlash]

Which is precisely my take on the situation as well PT. They want to call it CD, and it's not even close to being such.

Unfortunately, the stigma sticks and the public doesn't know any better when they start demanding changes.

-SS

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Abusing the Castle Doctrine...Texas man shoots a teen in his yard...

There is no abuse of the law here. He did not shoot the teen because of Castle Doctrine. He did not invoke CD as CD isn't something one can invoke. If you thought this was a media problem, why did you perpetuate the fallacy and dub it an abuse of CD?

 

[Shadi Khalil]

There is no abuse of the law here. He did not shoot the teen because of Castle Doctrine. He did not invoke CD as CD isn't something one can invoke. If you thought this was a media problem, why did you perpetuate the fallacy and dub it an abuse of CD?

If and when he goes to trial, his lawyers will surely invoke the castle doc. in his defense. If not, his defense team is incompetent at best. When that happens, whether or not he is convicted, the castle doctrine will come under fire. I cant comment on whether or not the shooting was justifed. If the only information was what was in the article, I would say no on a clean shoot.

 

[SkySlash]

I didn't "perpetuate the fallacy and dub it as an abuse of CD." I pointed out that both the media and the civil authorities are doing so, and in turn, people like the defendant here are using that fallacy as a means of defense when they pull a stunt like this. Allow me to point out the linked article as a reference point.

Kaufman County authorities initially cited the state's new "castle law" in declining to file charges.

And if you look at this story by the Houston Chronicle, you'll note the following headline: N. Texan indicted in shooting despite 'Castle Doctrine'.

If the defense in this cases uses CD, which they no doubt will; the cycle is complete. The problem is that all public parties involved are sending a message that it is castle doctrine that allows one to shoot a person without recourse. I think that is a major problem and sets a dangerous precedent as it helps narrow-minded individuals to be even quicker to pull a trigger than they might have previously been.

I think it is important that the legislature reiterate their intent with CD, or the judiciary is going to decide it for them and who knows what that will result in. Either way, a message has to go out to people that CD does not mean you can just shoot someone on your property for any random reason you can think up and expect to get away with it by citing CD.

My admitted assumption is that the shooter in this case did cite CD, as that's what the authorities settled on when they initially decided not to refer charges. Time will tell if I am right on this one.

-SS

 

[Jason 9]

I'm a little disappointed at the lack of compassion here. Why don't we step back for a second and remember what it was like to be a teenager or a kid for that sake. Now imagine getting shot or your friend getting shot through a window then having your mother killed before your own eyes.

Now to flip all that around and throw compassion away. Reciprocity is justified here. You have to think what that boys dad or the mother's husband will do now. Grandfather or not, I don't think I'd be standing around waiting for a judgment.

 

[Shadi Khalil]

When I was a kid, we used to hop through yards all the time. I would jump three diffrent backyard fences to get to the pool. im sure the owners of those houses hated that shabby looking, skateboard toting holligans were tresspassing on their property and trampling their lawns, but was shooting me ever justified? No. Lord knows we got yelled at, hell one guy would release the hounds, but that was about it.

 

[carguychris]

FWIW the Dallasnews.com site seems to have cut me off, so I can't cite the exact text, but one of the earlier articles on this unfortunate incident stated that the teens' distance from the window and their direction of travel (i.e. towards the window versus laterally across the front yard parallel to the window) were both in dispute. However, IIRC the physical evidence from the angle of the gunshots, according to the article, seems to back the teens' assertation that they were traveling laterally across the yard at a distance.

...the courts need to make it abundantly clear that the Castle Doctrine is NOT a free-for-all License to Kill.

Absolutely. Furthermore, I don't think it's unfair for the media to bring up CD because it's so obviously central to the shooter's legal defense. After all, it was because of CD that the Kaufman County authorities let him off in March! Also, I think it's premature for the legislature to revisit CD until we see the outcome of this case.

 

[jrfoxx]

The problem is that all public parties involved are sending a message that it is castle doctrine that allows one to shoot a person without recourse.

I dont think anyone in anything I have read is saying castle doctrine "allows one to shoot a person without recourse", because if they were saying that, and belived it were true, then why was the man indicted for murder?

He was indicted, because "Castle Doctrine" does NOT allow you to shoot a person without recourse.If anything, this proves that the Brady's, and media's lies about it being a "shoot first" law, and that it allowes people to kill with immunity, is totally bogus, because if any of that were actually true, theman would not have been indivted for murder, so this shows that castle doctrine does NOT just allow you to kill whoever you want, and that the Brady's and media's it did are proven to be lies.

 

[PT111]

The biggest problem with the Castle Doctrine is that it is a totally new way of thinking about our laws and the misunderstanding of it. This not only includes the media and their hype but the average person who get their information from the news and Internet message boards. I see misinterpretaions of it all the time on gun boards with people making claims about it that I really hope they are never faced with it in real life.

The role of the judicial branch of our government is to interpret the laws. When I first heard that back in elementary school I though it was the stupidest thing I had eer heard. Over the next 45 years I have come to understand it. The Castle Doctrine has not been widely interpreted by our judicial system and this case is an example of it. The DA originally considered it to be justification for the shooting but the grand jury did not. We are going to see more cases like this and eventually enough cases will give guidelines on what the CD actually means and enough judicial rulings will be established that standard enforcement will be common.

When I took my CWP course the CD had just been passed in SC and the instructor did an excellent job of explaining it. Since then I have seen posts totally conflicting with what he said based on assumptions and hearsay. One post I saw said that with CD you no longer had to pull someone back inside your house when you shot them outside. The one thing that does trouble me is now it seems that people are much more tuned into killing an intruder rather than protecting themselves. The comments are no longer how can I stop the threat but which caliber is the best for a one shot kill.

The castle doctrine simply means that no longer do you have to determine that you don't have a retreat route before protecting yourself. In the case quoted in the OP I cannot see where there was an imminent danger to the shooter that he needed to try and kill the two teens at least from what I read. But if they had been trying to break in there was no need for the homeowner to have to run out the back door which was the case before CD. Twent-Five years from now we will have a beter understanding of what the CD is all about and the courts will have a better understanding but right now we are on unchartered ground. Unfortunately the media and average citizen is not making it any easier by calling it a shoot first law and a license to kill. When a Joe Horn can kill two people with a LEO standing there watching him, it doesn't help even if they were scumbags.

 

[Eghad]

The two individuals that Joe Horn shot were in the processing of stealing over $2000 in cash and jewelry from the home that was in a sack. Which in the State of Texas is a felony theft. They were convicted criminals from Colombia who had illegaly entered the United States. They were also members of a burglary ring in Houston.

The statement form Police CPT Corbett stated that the two individuals failed to stop after Horn warned them to stop. One individual ran towards Horn then angled towards the street. He also stated that both individuals were shot after they entered Mr. Horn's yard.

So these two guys were not just innocent angels standing around in the yard.

I know the police didn't arrest Mr. Horn at the time and I haven't heard anything since late 2007?????

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Castle Doctrine in Texas

The text of the legislation

AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
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 [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] 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:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(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 [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] 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:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(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. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (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, applies 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 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

There are actually three protected places under this law....

your habitation..this can be more than just your home under Texas Law. There is a legal definiton of habitation under Texas law.

your vehicle.

your place of business.

[

COLOR="red"]The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:[/COLOR]

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(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.

with that......

The law is merely an affirmative defense to your actions. It does not mean that the police can not arrest you. It does not maean the the DA can not have you arrested or indicited. It does not mean that you will not go before a grand jury or go to criminal court.

There is a process for adjudication of a homicide even if it is in self defense.
You could be 100% right in defending yourself and still end up indicted and headed for a criminal trial. However, under this law you would have an affirmative defense under which the judge or jury could aquit you.

parties with an interest could still bring a civil suit against you. It is an affirmative defense that this law provides you.

the law does not give you immunity from indictement and prosecution. It provides you with an affirmative defense that can be used in the adjudication process by those authorized under the law as a reason to not prosecute or indict you.

 

[toybox99615]

CD hype

there has been more hype on this board than any media over the CD. You would not have to read a great number of threads to find numerous positions that imply the CD provides a person a defense any time they believe they are in danger regardless of the level of the danger.

Yes the media has made a number of references to the CD that are certainly a stretch of the CD concept. But lawyers more than anyone else seem to be pushing the CD as justification for clients who simply shot first and though after the fact.

It is a sad case when you are prosecuted for defending you home and family in a defence situation. It just as sad when someone is killed in the name of the CD when there was no immediate threat. There is a major difference between threatening behaviour and simple trespass by walking on someones property.

 

[Willie D]

I've read more than enough posts on this board and others that indicate a strong desire to engage in some "castle defense" which I find unsettling.

I too remember cutting through yards as a kid or sneaking around at night as a 14 year old punk. We did get the "racked shotgun" once, which scared the bejesusus out of us.

Glad we never got shot because someone needed to "eliminate the 'threat' without giving away their position" (and that someone had poor threat evaluation).

 

[Eghad]

Well I suggest they read the law and know what can be done or not be done. If it isnt clear you might want to ask an attorney who deals in criminal matters.

 

[PT111]

There are actually three protected places under this law....

your habitation..this can be more than just your home under Texas Law. There is a legal definiton of habitation under Texas law.

your vehicle.

your place of business.

In SC the "Castle Doctrine" applies any place you have a right to be. It does not matter if you are walking down the street you are still covered by the same principles as in your home.

I've read more than enough posts on this board and others that indicate a strong desire to engage in some "castle defense" which I find unsettling.

You have noticed that too?

 

[bikerbill]

"Kaufman County authorities initially cited the state's new "castle law" in declining to file charges. Under the law, a person is presumed to be acting reasonably if he shoots someone he believes is trying to break into his occupied home, business or car."

That's not this Texan's understanding of the law. How does somebody cutting across your lawn equate with breaking into a home, business or car?

As it was explained in a class I took recently, it simply allows you to use deadly force if you are attacked in any place you are legally allowed to be. You can shoot a carjacker if he tries to take your car. You can shoot a robber if he breaks into or is breaking into your house. You CAN'T shoot people you are afraid might take one of the above actions. That's what the anti's said when the bill was proposed; "People will be shooting those intersection beggars if they approach their car." "People will be shooting Jehovah's Witnesses if they rattle the front door."

Self-defense is a right worth fighting for. We have no right to blast people walking on our grass uninvited -- even if the law says we can. Owning a firearm is a right -- and a responsibility. Guns don't kill -- people do. Those who don't know when pulling the trigger is the right move don't deserve to exercise the right to own a gun. Send him to jail.

 

[divemedic]

I love the way people on this board pass judgment based on press reports. Why bother to gather evidence or even have a trial? We already know all we need to know by reading the media reports.

 

[finity]

In SC the "Castle Doctrine" applies any place you have a right to be. It does not matter if you are walking down the street you are still covered by the same principles as in your home.

I am not from SC but Indiana. However are you sure that you are using the term "Castle Doctrine" properly.

My understanding of the CD is that the person just has to be trying to forcefully enter an occupied protected environment (home, car, business). The act of using force to enter an occupied dwelling constitutes the required threat to use deadly force. You have no duty to retreat.

The other term commonly used that is closely related to the CD (but not the same as) is the "Stand Your Ground" law.

In this case you again do not have a duty to retreat if you are threatened with death or grave bodily harm if you are in a place you are legally allowed to be. This concept is valid outside the areas where the CD is valid. The difference is the presentation of the threat. With CD the threat is assumed due to the nature of the event. With SYG, the threat has to meet the reasonability standard.

Indiana has both types of laws.