"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing,
if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Friday, November 16, 2007

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.