Houston carjacking victim may not face charges for shooting attackers

The section quoted above begins as follows:

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:" (My emphasis)

Everything that follows specifies the conditions under which protecting property with deadly force is justified. One of those conditions is that the crime must happen at night.

The entire section is about stopping the loss of property, and nothing else.
 
And so either way, the shooting is justified, whether as for stopping an aggravated robbery or the protection of property at night.

Where it would not be justified is for the purpose of using lethal force against the robber for the purpose of stopping him from possibly going to your home at some future time and doing harm.

Aggravated burglary is met, done deal, time of day means absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Aggravated robbery, not burglary.
 
Vanya, re-read post 32. Nighttime is specifically mentioned in relation to (edit: solely) property related crimes (theft, criminal mischief); the crimes (edit: that necessarily also include crimes) against persons do not seem to stipulate nighttime, whether for prevention or post.
 
MLeake said:
Vanya, re-read post 32. Nighttime is specifically mentioned in relation to (edit: solely) property related crimes (theft, criminal mischief); the crimes (edit: that necessarily also include crimes) against persons do not seem to stipulate nighttime, whether for prevention or post.
Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at. Thank you for the clarification MLeake. I am posting from my phone so don't have the ease of reference I do from a computer.

The night time reference is listed within the list and applying to two different SPECIFIC crimes. One being criminal mischief and the other something else. That something else was not aggravated robbery. Occurring at night time does not apply to all crimes listed in that section of the law.
 
I also believe that the aggravated robbery part does not have to be at night. It(texas code 9.42) specifies which crimes need to occur at night.

However also since it was an act of fleeing with property this falls under section 2B not section 2A as highlighted by DNS post. Section 2A only applies to the imminent commission, the shooting occurred post aggravated robbery while the individuals attempted to flee which is clearly section 2B.

(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
Click to expand...
 
I'm indifferent about whether or not it was a good shooting, as far as I'm concerned these types of events serve to remind criminals that they need to worry about more than just the police.
Also, what this guy did isnt much different than what a cop would have done if he were standing nearby.
It could be looked at as a citizens arrest, sort of.

They were also working as a team with the third guy in the Honda, returning to this guys home may very well have been in their plans.
No way to tell for certain what they were up to, but if he had wife/kids at home its likely to have been a real concern for the victim at the time.
 
Where it would not be justified is for the purpose of using lethal force against the robber for the purpose of stopping him from possibly going to your home at some future time and doing harm.
Click to expand...

You guys are looking too far into my statement. I said nothing about it being a justification acceptable to the law. I said I would most likely be pulling the trigger and I'll take my chances in court but those freaks are not going to drive away with access to my family period, law be damned.

I have a dear and very dead Aunt to show what these animals will do if given opportunity. You never know, challenges occur and precedent is set in the oddest of ways and sometimes a jury just does what it sees is right.
 
sometimes a jury just does what it sees is right.
Click to expand...

And if I were on that jury, you would have a hard time convincing me that it was justifiable for you to shoot someone for fear of what he might or might not do at some future time. Keys, or a garage door opener mean nothing, locks only keep honest people out, criminals pay them little mind.

That being said, It looks like the gentleman in this case was justified under the law .
 
Legal texts and analyses of self-defense law make it clear that using lethal force to prevent some future crime (not that the BG is running towards a school with a gun) is not acceptable.

That was part of the debate on battered wife defenses - a predicted future assault did not cut it.
 
And if I were on that jury, you would have a hard time convincing me that it was justifiable for you to shoot someone for fear of what he might or might not do at some future time.
Click to expand...

Oh, and again, I said nothing about using this as a defense which means it's not being claimed and isn't being ruled on.
 
I said before - don't count on Texas as a magic land where you can just blaze away. It's a throw of the dice about a jury and your lawyer's presentation.

You can be the one that gets a jury that doesn't buy into your story.
 
Oh, and again, I said nothing about using this as a defense which means it's not being claimed and isn't being ruled on.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you are willing to use lethal force against another person that you think might go to your home.

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.
Click to expand...

I said I would most likely be pulling the trigger and I'll take my chances in court but those freaks are not going to drive away with access to my family period, law be damned.
Click to expand...

Then it sounds like you would likely be committing a felony and are advocating such here, "law be damned" as you said.
 
and are advocating such here
Click to expand...

I wrote what I wrote, I related that in the same circumstances I would have likely done the same as this individual did.

So please take your words out of my mouth, I haven't advocated anything to anyone else.
 
don't count on Texas as a magic land where you can just blaze away.
Click to expand...

Many have said that "a armed society is a polite society".
I think we should put that to a modern day test, without the "Wild West" antics of yesteryear, and Texas is the perfect proving ground with its wide expanses of rural areas and its several large cities, along with its wide array of ethnic and economic residents.

I really would like to see the results of a 10 year test using Texas with nearly zero firearms restrictions and little fear of prosecution if you validly defend your person, family, possessions or another person from harm.
By "validly" I simply mean using your CCW to stop/disrupt/end a violent armed felony that you didnt play any role in starting.
A full analysis of individual events and overall crime statistics within that era would be incredibly interesting, and perhaps useful to the rest of the country.
 
using Texas with nearly zero firearms restrictions and little fear of prosecution if you validly defend your person, family, possessions or another person from harm.
Click to expand...

Why Texas, Arizona already has better then a one year head start and it is equally as diverse, if on a smaller scale.
 
Valid is determined when the jury speaks. That's the kicker in the 'good' shoot incidents. Both Frank and I have documented good shoots that go bad.
 
Posted by Dashunde: I really would like to see the results of a 10 year test using Texas with nearly zero firearms restrictions and little fear of prosecution if you validly defend your person, family, possessions or another person from harm.
Click to expand...
Texas firearms restrictions are not materially different from those of many other states. A permit is required to carry concealed, open carry is prohibited except on one's on property, and there are a number of places where it is unlawful to carry firearms.

The use of force laws in Texas are in line with most other states in which there is a castle doctrine and no duty to retreat. The law on presenting a firearm is somewhat less restrictive than those of forty four or forty five other jurisdictions, and Texas is unique in terms of excusing the use of deadly force to protect or recover tangible, moveable property under limited circumstances.

By "validly" I simply mean using your CCW to stop/disrupt/end a violent armed felony that you didnt play any role in starting.
Click to expand...
There is more to "validity" than not having initiated an encounter. Most important is the need for immediate necessity.

And again, Texas differs little from other states in terms of justification when violent armed felonies are involved.
 
The relevant parts of Section 9.42 are as follows:

(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.
Click to expand...

The operative words are in bold text.

The actor reportedly shot a person who had just robbed him and who was driving away in his car.

The time of day provision only applies in cases of theft or when it is necessary to prevent criminal mischief, which is covered elsewhere.

Had the actor shot the robbers before their having tried to drive away in his car, different parts of the code (9.32 and 9.42 ,(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;) would apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top