if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
The Right to Blast you
by
I just got a whiff of a story that looks pretty interesting. Texas’ ‘Castle Doctrine’ to be used in 70yr. old’s deense. exerpts from the article:
It will be up to a Texas grand jury to decide whether a man who fatally shot two men he thought were robbing his neighbor’s home acted within the state’s self-defense laws.
The man, who is in his 70s, shot the two suspected burglars Wednesday afternoon in a quiet subdivision of the Houston suburb of Pasadena. He confronted the men as they were leaving through a gate leading to the front yard of his neighbor’s home.
No identities have been released.
Police say that just before the shootings, the man called 911 to say he heard glass breaking and saw two men entering the home through a window.
So this man used his prior knowledge of this law as his justification to blast a couple of jackers (allegedly) on the way out of his neighbor’s house. At first I was a little pissed, because that could be me getting the recieving end of vigilante justice, for mistakenly wandering onto someone’s property to knock on the door, but I decided to look at this clause and the case itself. As much as I can from a fucking website or two.
The building or vehicle must be occupied at the time for the deadly force provision to apply, and the person using force cannot provoke the attacker or be involved in criminal activity at the time.
Some refer to the measure as the “castle doctrine,” drawing from the idea that a man’s home is his castle and that he should have the right to defend it.
Fifteen other states have passed similar laws. Texas is the first state to pass such a law this year, said Rep. Joe Driver, a Garland Republican who sponsored the measure.
So, if I read it correctly the law actually says you need not feel the need to run from harm, but can defend yourself even if the opportunity to run might have been an option. This must be why people are REALLY polite down there.
So, what at first glance might have seemed like cold blooded murder, actually might have been an informed defender of property. This case could work out for the old time (I feel) if he can prove something that is referenced in the article. Because the man and his own property were never in any real harm, I don’t think the law spells out a provision for him, but the twist:
If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in the shooter’s favor, defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor, told the Houston Chronicle. “That could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role.”
I’m interested to see how this might play out in court. I think he has a case if he was put in charge of the neighbor’s property. If I’m the next door neighbor to this fellow, I’d probably commit a little perjory and say he did, if these creeps were actually stealing from me.
This story is an interesting follow up from the second amendment thread, because the right to own a firearm and defend oneself from harm is constantly under debate these days. The left is going to have a field day with this I’m sure. However, with a little understanding as to the circumstances for this, and remembering that this guy isn’t allowed to simply blast people in the street for fun (remember, he’s on trial for for this) we see that having and keeping our rights is completely possible with a judicial system for checks and balances.
Comments
My initial response to this story is that Mr. old guy is proper fucked.
He was told by the police dispatcher to remain inside and NOT make an approach.
He was NOT protecting his property, his place of business or his auto.
The law is specific, these listed domociles must be inhabited in order for this “Castle Doctrine” to apply.
We can assume that the burglars were unarmed (nothing mentioned in the story) so he will be hard pressed to claim “defense” when he is holding a shotgun and they are not armed.
That could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role.”
Only if Mr. old guy was house sitting at the time and actually occuppying the dwelling at the time of the burglary.
I don’t think the “obligation to retreat” doctrine is in play here, Mr. old guy put himself in harms way, it was not foisted upon him.
I hope he gets a sympathitic jury, but not only is he going to jail, but the family of the dead burglar will sue him big time.
Well, it is Texas; shooting low life pieces of shit and getting away with it is fairly well established precedent…
This guy should go to jail. He was repeatdly told by the 911 dispatcher that the police were on the way, he should stay in doors. He ignored the 911 dispatcher, went outside and confronted people leaving the crime scene. He then took it upon himself to be judge, jury and executor.
You can hear the police tape here. I am sure they will play that in court. He should go to jail for the rest of his life.
He should go to jail for the rest of his life.
that would be wht
5 -6 years maybe?
heh
hmm
ok Now if the homeowner asked this guy to watch his home, while he was away, then the home would be unders his covenant of protection.
IE he was honor bound to defend his neighbors property as it were his own.
Now here is the real problem. the burgles were outside the home, and apparently unarmed. however the man confronting them is 70 years old, what is he supposed to do? face them with closed fists? Judo, Karate, that they encourage women to learn to avoid rape?
These 2 young men could easily defeat him in a hand to hand contest, so he brought the universal equalizer, a gun.
So far so good, holding them at bay with a shotgun is legal, and within the moral obligation to defend his neibhiors home.
Now heres the problematic part, apparently both men approached the old guy after he asked them to stop.
now quick question:
A old man approaches you with a shotgun, while you are in commission of a breaking and robbery, HE is pointing the gun at you, and asks you to stop. What do you do?
According to the old man they approached him.
obviously in their minds they didn’t think he scared old man would shoot them,and that they could take him down easily.
I do not think they were going to explain that they were furniture movers.
THEY made 2 mistakes
Robbing that home,and approaching a armed man when he tells you to stop.
You can whail and whine about how wrong it is that he shot them. but look, hes 70 at a obvious disadvantage to these 2 men, they chose to robe that home, he chose to confront them, as part for his civic duty and personal honor.
THEY chose to approach a armed man...... and the got killed.
If this had been a officer shooting them.. the case woudl be closed right now.
Harley, your whole post assumes facts not in evidence.
What we KNOW is that:
He was armed, the burglars were not.
He shot and killed one of them (possibly in the back), one of them chose flight over fight,maybe both.
He was the aggressor, chosing to advance into danger, the burglars were in the process of fleeeing the scene and there is no evidence that they advanced or challenged the shooter.
In order for “Castle Doctrine” to apply the residence must be occuppied.
You can bet that the other burglar will testify that he and his buddy were leaving the scene when he heard a loud bang, then saw his buddy’s body parts all over the lawn and if he had not run away that crazy old loon would of shot him as well.
If this had been a officer shooting them.. the case woudl be closed right now.
No. Deadly force is only justified in the protection of life (yours or an innocent bystander). He will be hard pressed to claim self defense when he has a shotgun,and they don’t.
I’m sure his lawyer will prepare a nice story like “I told those guys to freeze and wait for the cops but they had this big candle holder (flashlight, substitute any large object here) and they advanced on me, despite my warnings that I would fire. I had no choice”.
Deadly force is only justified in the protection of life
Not quite right, in Texas deadly force can be used to protect property, prevent arson etc.
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.
The above from a houston chron article.
I can’t ever fucking link.
ok rich you have a point, facts not in evidence, we need to see how much more comes out of this..
i did say apparently he did ask them to stop, we still dont know for sure.
but still
its gonna be this guys word against ...well 2 dead men..
This is a troubling case, but i still stand by the idea of defending your neighbors home when asked to.
also, anyone invading a home, any ones home, has to know that they could be met with deadly force…
ok
a recent event in our area.
A guy recently released from jail, on parole, went out drinking with his buddies. they decide to hit a bar, which the parole, could not go in with out obviously and publicly violating his parole.
So they get into a argument, and kick him out of the truck.
Well he staggers down the road and into a garage, where he passes out in the owners car.
well the next morning the landowners wife goes to teh garage and find a man passed out in her car. he wakes up and bolts out of the garage.
she informs her husband of what happened he calls the cops and runs out of the house…
at some point the 2 men meet, and the drunk is shot.
5 times, once in the neck.
now get this shit.
4 rounds were in the BACK exploding out his intestines and stomach, the 5th shot was in the c3 vertebrae, completely destroying it.
He did not die. when paramedics arrived they found the man 100 yards from the house in the woods.
THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL he ran 100 Yard with a bullet in his vertebrae or stomach like that.
This home owner chased hm down and shot him well outside the area of the house and garage.
I would consider this wanton homicide, as the guy was leaving and did not threaten anyone or try to take anything......
oh and the shooter… still hasn’t been charged with anything, hes a former state and county trooper…
the drunk is paralysed for life....
this was clearly a unprovoked shooting, ....and like the one posted by manwhore… the facts took a bit to come out.
thanks rich, for the correction.
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.
Wow, thats pretty scary. So, if you go outside one early morning to retrieve your morning paper and you witness your neighbor walking away with it, you can legally shot and kill him?
And a correction on my last post, I guess both the burglars died of their wounds. although the original story had one of them fleeing, running down the street. We do not know when he died or what statements he had made prior to expiring.
Wow, thats pretty scary. So, if you go outside one early morning to retrieve your morning paper and you witness your neighbor walking away with it, you can legally shot and kill him?
I think it has to be dark, but yeah. Kind of scary huh?
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.
Yeah, that’s why I linked in the law. The thing is called the ‘Castle’ because it pertains to the defense of property. Hence, a man’s home is his castle, you cna defend it as such.
I think you can use deadly force in Texas for the defence of property.
Yeah, that’s why I linked in the law. The thing is called the ‘Castle’ because it pertains to the defense of property. Hence, a man’s home is his castle, you cna defend it as such.
To be fair, my disagreement with Harley was on what actions a police officer could justify in this instance, the Castle doctrine would not apply to an officer called to the scene.
I’d like to add, just because you can do something(use deadly force) doesn’t mean you should.
I wouldn’t shoot someone stealing my paper. However, I have been burglarized twice in the last 18-24 months. So, if I come home and someone is in my living room holding my TV, I might.
that would be wht
5 -6 years maybe?
heh
If you believe in capital punishment I personally don’t see why he shouldn’t get it. He murdered two people, pre-meditated it should be added, while he was directly ordered not to by the 911 dispatcher. He choose to go compleltly against everything the 911 dispatcher said and take the law into his own hands. Anything else said, is just an excuse. He murdered two people. He should go to jail for life or get the death penalty if you believe in that.
If you are in your home and someone breaks in we are talking about something so different - you have no idea what threat this person might be to you. In this case they were no threat to him at all, he was in his house. He choose to go outside against direct orders. He took his shotgun obviously intending on using it (hear him on the 911 call, he makes it clear he is just going to ignore them as if it’s cool or something). Pre-meditated murder = life in jail.
Of course he killed two black guys in texas so a medal is more likely.
If you believe in capital punishment I personally don’t see why he shouldn’t get it. He murdered two people, pre-meditated it should be added, while he was directly ordered not to by the 911 dispatcher. He choose to go compleltly against everything the 911 dispatcher said and take the law into his own hands. Anything else said, is just an excuse. He murdered two people. He should go to jail for life or get the death penalty if you believe in that.
yes, it does now look like he went to confront them.
however, we now only have his version of events, to rely on........
I ask this:
Had he gone out unarmed and tried to stop these guys? would he be in his rights to defend himself should they decided to attack him?
I see your point Padders, from the 911 call and the story it does seem he was intent on shooting them. VEry wrong, thing to do.
I ask this:
Had he gone out unarmed and tried to stop these guys? would he be in his rights to defend himself should they decided to attack him?
You have the right to defend yourself regardless of whether you are packing or not, but again, you are assuming thats what happened when all the other evidence points to a certain state of mind bent on retribution.
And what ever story he comes up with, he will have to explain (much like playing hop scotch on the freeway or going into a lion’s cage) why he placed himself in a position of peril in the first place.
If you believe in capital punishment I personally don’t see why he shouldn’t get it. He murdered two people, pre-meditated it should be added, while he was directly ordered not to by the 911 dispatcher.
Padders, this is where your socialist upbringing does you wrong. No man can be ‘ordered’ to do anything in this country.
The average american has the freedom of ‘choice.’ Under his best understanding of the law he referenced on the phone, he, in my opinion, thought he was performing his civic duty. If it was illegal, he will go to jail, but he was (at the very least) doing what he thought was legal and right.
The courts will iron it out, but you are a fool to believe any suggestion made by a 911 dispatcher would constitute legal advise on the matter.
from what i get, his neighbor asked him to keep a eye on his property.he will have to explain (much like playing hop scotch on the freeway or going into a lion’s cage) why he placed himself in a position of peril in the first place.
yes, it does now look like he went to confront them.
Yup.
Had he gone out unarmed and tried to stop these guys? would he be in his rights to defend himself should they decided to attack him?
Of course. He even did so with the gun. Had he gone out with the gun and then drawn a weapon or even a knife on him I would have more sympathy. This istn’t what happened (or he certainly never said anything to the 911 operator which you would think he would). He would still have put himself in danger but it perhaps would not have been pre meditated murder. Instead it seems clear he decided to go out and shoot them if they didn’t stop stealing something. That’s murder.
Padders, this is where your socialist upbringing does you wrong. No man can be ‘ordered’ to do anything in this country.
Actually you can. If you don’t do what a police offer says they can and will arrest you. You may be able to aruge with them about it later, but if you don’t do what they say expect to be arrested - or as a number of youtube videos have shown recently, shot or tassered.
The point, ignoring your jibe, was that he can not claim he made a mistake or wastn’t thinking straight or whatever, he was implicitly told to stay inside. He decided to ignore the 911 dispatcher. He is in his rights to do that, but he should now face the penalty, be it life imprisonment or given texas love of the death penalty the later.
The courts will iron it out, but you are a fool to believe any suggestion made by a 911 dispatcher would constitute legal advise on the matter.
I don’t know if 911 dispatchers have any authority, i doubt they do, but that istn’t the point - is it; the point is he was implicitly told what he was doing was wrong. He still continued to do it. Pre-meditated murder.
If he dosen’t go to jail for the rest of his life, I won’t exactly be surprised but it would uphold the sterotype of texas justice (or lack of it).
Actually you can. If you don’t do what a police offer says they can and will arrest you. You may be able to aruge with them about it later, but if you don’t do what they say expect to be arrested - or as a number of youtube videos have shown recently, shot or tassered.
Again, you are wrong here. You are not ‘expected’ to perfrom this action. A police officer could simply attempt to have you rape someone else. It cannot happen.
I don’t know if 911 dispatchers have any authority, i doubt they do, but that istn’t the point - is it; the point is he was implicitly told what he was doing was wrong. He still continued to do it. Pre-meditated murder.
I certainly am glad you are not an attorney, either. Pre-meditation would be tough to stick to the lad.
It would be pretty toug for the old timer to have planned out that whole scenario and then act it out on a 911 call. You need to stop thinking you’re smart because we play reruns of ‘bones’ in England. :-)
Does anyone web savvy know why quotes appear this way?
you hit the CODE button, and not the <a> button…
the CODE is for setting a text color, and i guess blue is the default color.
Next entry: Dobbs Does Perot
Previous entry: Call Me
Washington has similar laws stating that you have no “obligation to retreat”. When I lived in Colorado twenty years ago the locals managed to blow away two-bit thieves on a regular basis, much to the dismay of that den of leftist shitheads in Boulder.
I’ve never figured out where the “obligation to retreat” came from, or what fucking moron fist proposed it, but I hope they were gang raped in the ass and bled to death - in their own home.