What do y'all think of this case?

It's the old Common Law where you could use deadly force to defend chattel. NV still allows this unlike CA where a burglar who falls through your skylight has a civil cause of action against you.
 
Standard result in Texas, but I bet that guy is really lucky.

------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
true story, a Union Gen. once said "Don't worry about those Rebs. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..SPLAT.
 
From the article:

A grand jury on Monday refused to indict a Caldwell County man who killed two intruders in his driveway earlier this month.

State law gives property owners considerable leeway to defend themselves and their property, legal experts said.

"In general, the law doesn't allow you to kill somebody who has already committed a crime against you."


If I understand this correctly, the home owner did not kill the two bad guys AFTER they had committed a crime against him. The fact that the two were still in the homeowner's driveway indicates that the homeowner shot them DURING the burglary. Technically speaking, since the bad guys had yet to leave with the property with the goods, then the burglary was not yet over.

This event happened at night. Texas laws allow the use of deadly force against those committing crimes on one's property. These laws are apparently a throwback of old British laws making crimes at night all be felonies.
 
The Grand Jury did good. I'll bet the rest of the criminals in that county will stay clear of that home.
 
It is interesting that the Grand Jury cleared him even though he reloaded and shot again.

Once more, those two feral humans ". . . had extensive criminal records." It looks like Mr. Nadeau saved the State some future expenditures and made his community a little safer to live in.

Then we have the dingbat sister of one of the dead men whine, "He could have wounded them. He could have shot the car. . ." I submit those two could have opted NOT to rob a fellow citizen. She'd make a good Kalifornian.
 
There is our solution to crime right here. If they didn't convict people for defending themselves and their property then there would be a whole lot less crime. If a schmuck takes it upon himself to come on to your property and steal your possessions or threaten you then just like Oatka said. Too bad, that was their choice and by doing so they forfieted ( sp )their own rights.

[This message has been edited by scud (edited August 30, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top