Houston carjacking victim may not face charges for shooting attackers
- Thread starter Eppie
- Start date
The article says it happened at 9:30 P.M. IIRC, the law in Texas defines nighttime as 30 minutes past sunset and 30 minutes before dawn. Sunset for Houston is listed at 7:31 P.M. on Tuesday. Under the law, it would seem to be justified. That being said, I am not a lawyer.
Whether or not potentially or actually taking a life over an automobile or other property is an action one would actually want to live with, well that's a whole other can of worms.
OldMarksman
Staff
Let's stop propagating that myth.
Horn's 911 call does indicate that he was under the impression that he would be justified in shooting to defend his neighbor's property.
Under some circumstances (including the existence of a prior request from the neighbor to do so), one might well be justified.
However, Horn's attorney did not pursue that defense.
What saved Horn's hide was the Grand Jury testimony of an eyewitness (LEO) that Horn had fired in self defense.
Horn has suffered heaiviy since.
Our founding fathers lived within the constructs of centuries-old laws that did not excuse the use of deadly force to defend property per se.
This was a robbery.
Closing The Gap
New member
Isn't carjacking a form of aggravated robbery? If so then the time of day doesn't matter. Still justified under section 3A IMO.
OldMarksman
Staff
Mr. Gap, it was a robbery, and the time of day does not matter.
Whether it was justified depends upon whether the other conditions were met, and that will be decided by others on the basis of the evidence.
Unless the shooter is an unusual person, he will probably have doubts for the rest of his life.
Whether it was justified depends upon whether the other conditions were met, and that will be decided by others on the basis of the evidence.
Unless the shooter is an unusual person, he will probably have doubts for the rest of his life.
Closing The Gap
New member
The rest of his life is undoubtedly changed. I was only basing my opinion on the law as I read it and the circumstances presented in the story.
No one commenting on the idea that they may have been still pointing a gun in his direction? I know the article doesn't say so, but it doesn't say otherwise either.
Not even considering that the thieves now have all of his personal information and most likely the location and means of entry to his home where he may have family who are now exposed to risk.
I must say fellas, if this happened to me and they got my car, (BMW with garage door remote built in), papers in the glove box with my home address, etc... If those were the thoughts in my mind at that moment, that they might go after my family and I pretty much have no way to stop them in time. I'd be pulling the trigger too.
What is a robbery that is perpetrated at gunpoint called?
Last edited:
Hear ye, hear ye. Finally somebody that thinks like I do. He's got the car key, garage door opener, must likely all the house keys, the wallet and your home address and he knows the man of the house is not there. If he's got half brain that's where he's headed next.
Last edited:
Closing The Gap
New member
Aggravated robbery.
Double Naught Spy
New member
This is not exactly true. At the time of the shooting, as described, the armed robbery was still in progress.
Even if the robbery had occurred as suggested as this quote suggests, then justification can still be made for the protection of life threatened by the robbers. The robbery may be over, but the threat being posed may not be. This would depend on the circumstances.
So just because the robbery itself might be described as being over, it does not mean the situation does not allow for lethal force as other circumstances develop as a result of the robbery.
Oh contraire. It this occurred at night, it certainly does matter in Texas.
TEXAS PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.42 : Texas Statutes - Section 9.42: DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY
Let's see, the robbers were armed and so is aggravated robbery. So if this occurred at night, then lethal force under such circumstances would be lawful.
Last edited:
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Had a case here in Ohio where someone jacked a car from a family. (If I recall correctly it was Columbus). He then used the address from the registration to find the home a day or two later. Keys to the home were on the key ring. He went to the home where he found the woman alone with her son and killed the woman. Thank god the kid wasn't physically harmed.
Double Naught Spy
New member
That may be, but I don't know of any state where you are allowed to preemptively use lethal force to stop a person from committing a potential crime at some unknown point in the future. The criminal may have your wallet, keys, garage door opener, etc., but possession of those items because they may give the criminal access to others isn't justification for lethal force.
Closing The Gap
New member
I'm not from Texas but, doesn't the Texas law I put in post http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5634779&postcount=16 #16 cover this? Or is that not the correct Texas law regarding justified use of deadly force. The way it reads seems pretty clear. You can use deadly force to recover property, as a result of an aggravated robbery, and the criminals carry firearms that could result in serious bodily injury or death. This would meet the section 1, 2B and 3B requirements. No?
I disagree. There is language about "what you can articulate in court" and "what a reasonable person" believes could happen. If I can articulate in court, meaning describe what I was thinking at the time, that my garage door opener and address are in the vehicle, and then to think a reasonable person wouldn't believe that, is a far stretch. Much further than what I've just described.
It is commonly known and accepted that you should not have your home address listed in your GPS as such. Call it "Franks House" or something. If anyone steals your GPS, boom they know where you live.
Similar concepts though vastly different applications.
Last edited:
You guys citing all this time of day stuff as if it were important in this case must not be reading the same law I am. They are two different criteria to meet entirely. Read it again and understand what you are reading. Aggravated robbery is met, done deal, time of day means absolutely nothing.
Last edited:
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Double Naught Spy is correct. There is no jurisdiction (at least in the United States) in which one may use deadly force based on a belief that a crime may be committed in the future; whether the belief is "reasonable" is irrelevant.ripnbst said:
In Texas, the "time of day stuff" is important. The section of the statute quoted by DNS in this post is very clear that one may use deadly force to protect property only at night. If you're reading something different from this, please give us chapter and verse.
I think he is referring to the bit about robbery and aggravated robbery being listed in a section that seemed to say the crimes, and not loss of property, justified shooting the fleeing felon to stop him.
That seemed different from the section on shooting to stop loss of property, and did not seem to require night - unlike property defense.
I may have read it incorrectly, but that was how it seemed to read to me, too.
That seemed different from the section on shooting to stop loss of property, and did not seem to require night - unlike property defense.
I may have read it incorrectly, but that was how it seemed to read to me, too.