The Use of Deadly Force

[mimartin]

The right to own guns, gun safety and gun responsibility has been debated in Pho3ix thread “The first school shooting in Finland.” So this is a little different in that it has to do with when is the use of deadly force necessary and advisable. Is a human life, any human life more valuable than a material things?

 

Texas law says you can use deadly force to protect one’s property. The question is does it apply to your neighbor property too. Which the newpaper article does the best job of answering.

 

Houston Newspaper

 

Houston NBC TV

Houston TV CBS

 

So was the man right to kill the two criminals or should he have waited inside his home for the police to arrive like the police dispatcher suggested?

 

When do you feel the use of deadly force is advisable?

[Samuel Dravis]

Texas law on deadly force, protection of property, protection of someone else's property, and the use of a device in so doing. I'm not sure if the last one applies to guns, but perhaps so.

 

I do not think that deadly force should be employed except when in immediate danger of personal injury or death. There was no one in danger of this, and furthermore, the man was explicitly instructed not to do anything by the proper authorities. I consider the man both responsible and unjustified.

[John Galt]

If the neighbor asked the man to watch his property, the man was certainly in the right after he warned the burglars.

 

Honestly, if someone breaks into my home, they're gonna get shot, whether or not it looks like they have a weapon.

[Samuel Dravis]

I think it's important to note that it most definitely wasn't his property he was defending, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for his thinking to have been impaired by fright.

 

I suppose we will see if he is found legally responsible for the killings.

[Rev7]

Which the newpaper article does the best job of answering.

I personally think that the last one posted did the better job. ( the one with the recording of the 911 call)

So was the man right to kill the two criminals or should he have waited inside his home for the police to arrive like the police dispatcher suggested?

Well...this is a tough one..... I am not quite sure. Yes if the two burgalars were armed and had intentions of hurting people, but we don't know what they were thinking. No if were not armed and the police were in the general vicinity, and were able to catch the burgalars. But I am still not quite sure, so that is why I voted that we need more information to make a choice.

When do you feel the use of deadly force is advisable?

I think that you should use deadly force when someone has broken into your home and could potentially harm your family. I also think that it is acceptable to use deadly force when a person is armed and you fire upon them in order to protect the lives of others. ( and by this I mean in a public place, and you have a concealed weapons license)

[mimartin]

I personally think that the last one posted did the better job. ( the one with the recording of the 911 call)

I meant the newspaper did a better job of explain the legality of defending your neighbors property. You are correct the CBS one has the 911 call which to me puts the entire thing in perspective.

 

I suppose we will see if he is found legally responsible for the killings.

I don’t think he will ever be convicted in the Houston area of Texas. I seriously doubt he will even be charged. If someone can kill a Repo or shot a Scottish businessman banging on their door in the middle of the night, I doubt an old man will be charge with killing a couple suspected buglers.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2D81F3AF93BA35750C0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D71530F932A15752C0A962958260

[Rev7]

I personally think that the last one posted did the better job. ( the one with the recording of the 911 call)

 

I meant the newspaper did a better job of explain the legality of defending your neighbors property. You are correct the CBS on has the 911 call which to me puts the entire thing in perspective.

 

OPPPS!!! I totally spaced off on that one!

[Totenkopf]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BREAK_IN_MURDER?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

[Serpentine Cougar]

I don't think people should take the law into their own hands, unless their very lives are in danger or something. But in this case the guy wasn't in danger; it wasn't even in his own house. He should have waited for the police.

[Corinthian]

Well, those crooks will never do that again. The Old Man was in the right. 1: He gave them fair warning. 2: The Neighbor was out and had asked him to watch the place. 3: They were messing around an empty house, glass breaking, so on and so forth? Definitely up to no good. This all adds up to crooks getting what was coming to them.

[mimartin]

Well, those crooks will never do that again. The Old Man was in the right. 1: He gave them fair warning. 2: The Neighbor was out and had asked him to watch the place. 3: They were messing around an empty house, glass breaking, so on and so forth? Definitely up to no good. This all adds up to crooks getting what was coming to them.

Do you have additional information, because nothing I posted said anything about the neighbor asking the old man to watch the house?

 

The dispatcher told him to stay in his house and let the police handle it. Instead he took the law into his own hands.

[Corinthian]

I read the article. Maybe you should read it too?

[mimartin]

I read the article. Maybe you should read it too?

Cute. Perhaps you should reread it, because it said if the neighbor asked him to watch it. It never stated that he did for a fact.

 

Defense attorney Tommy LaFon, a former Harris County prosecutor, said the gunman may be on safe legal ground if the neighbor whose home was burglarized tells police he asked the man to watch his property.

 

"If the homeowner comes out and says, 'My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,' that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role," LaFon said.[/Quote]Hopefully the neighbor did ask him, but I have yet to see that written as a fact. Like I wrote earlier it does matter he will never be charged.

[Samuel Dravis]

the gunman may be on safe legal ground if the neighbor whose home was burglarized tells police he asked the man to watch his property.

 

"If the homeowner comes out and says, 'My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,' that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role," LaFon said.

Residents said they believe their neighbor did the right thing.

 

"We stand behind the man for protecting his neighbors and his own home," neighbor Lauren Malone said.

 

"It's important to note that the neighbor isn't in the same position as the homeowner," KPRC Local 2 legal analyst Brian Wice said. "The neighbor does not have the same right to use deadly force."

The shooting may become a test of the state law that allows someone to use deadly force to protect one’s property. But does that right extend to protecting the property of your neighbors?

I don't see anything about the neighbor specifically saying they told him to watch the house. Article 2 comes closest, but merely mentions a "neighbor," which may or may not be the neighbor whose intentions are in question.

 

 

edit: didn't see your post, mimartin.

[Corinthian]

Huh. My mistake. It doesn't matter. As it stands, the man still did the right thing and those guys got what was coming to them. I hope this old man isn't prosecuted for protecting his neighbor's property.

[Tommycat]

No, Kinda sorta... To an extent, when the neighbor is asked by the owner to protect a home, the neighbor becomes the security guard. However NOT being the property owner, he doesn't have the same rights as the owner. I don't know though... I would hope that it is legal. In hopes that burglers will have a real fear that a neighbor may be watching and shoot them. Now that's what I call neighborhood watch:D

[PoiuyWired]

If the neighbor asked the man to watch his property, the man was certainly in the right after he warned the burglars.

 

Honestly, if someone breaks into my home, they're gonna get shot, whether or not it looks like they have a weapon.

 

QFE.

 

It would be too late if you just happen to notice him having a gun at the last minute. Though I am more than happy if they would just leave before I need to fire a shot.

[mimartin]

Well the attempt to make this a race issue happen today.

NBC Houston

 

Also heard where they are trying to get a defense fund set up. I actually feel they should wait for charges to be filed before setting up a defense fund.

 

Here is to news paper coverage. I did like how the article handled the police dispatcher. In listening to the 911 call I thought the dispatcher handled it right.

Houston Paper

 

They have also released information on the two suspect burglars.

ABC Houston

[Corinthian]

Isn't it always racist when a black man commits a crime and gets caught?

[Ray Jones]

Not in Ghana?

[Samuel Dravis]

This article contains a recording of the 911 call.

 

Also, I noticed that the call occurred at 2pm. This is not nighttime. Going from the laws I posted near the beginning of this thread, the man was not justified under law, because deadly force is only employable during the night. I quote:

 

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or

tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson,

burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime,

or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(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.

I am curious how this will affect the shooter's position. Are we willing to overlook "minor" violations of the law (that is, how the law doesn't apply to midday) in favor of what may seem to be larger violations? If we do so, we encourage the very thing we hope to end.

 

It appears this man was indeed aware of new laws regarding protection of property using deadly force, but not necessarily the specific provisions. This seems to have provided him with the idea he was justified when it is not necessarily the case. This brings up another question: should gun owners be required to understand the specific provisions of law like this one?

[Corinthian]

That's a crock. Why should it matter if it's midday or midnight?

[mimartin]

That's a crock. Why should it matter if it's midday or midnight?

Because it is the law. If the legislators wanted it to read anytime time of day or night then that is how it would have read.

 

I am curious how this will affect the shooter's position. Are we willing to overlook "minor" violations of the law (that is, how the law doesn't apply to midday) in favor of what may seem to be larger violations? If we do so, we encourage the very thing we hope to end.

If you can shot a Scottish tourist knocking on your door or a repo driver legally taking your vehicle that you have not been making payment on, then shooting a pair of burglarizing the neighbor home is not going to be a big deal. I still believe no charges will be given to the grand jury. The grand jury will no bill this case. He will never see the inside of a court room in this case.

 

I hope I’m wrong because the 911 call makes it really clear that he disobeyed the police authority after the 911 operator tool him to stay inside and let the police handle it.

[Corinthian]

So you think he should have let them get away with their crime? Because the cops wouldn't have gotten there in time to stop them if they were already fleeing the scene when he called the police.

[mimartin]

So you think he should have let them get away with their crime? Because the cops wouldn't have gotten there in time to stop them if they were already fleeing the scene when he called the police.

In Texas, we have these things on our cars and trucks called license plates. Very easy to write down those and give the number to the police. Is a DVD player or a Television worth someone life? Is it worth the agony over the shooting that according to his lawyer Mr. Horn is facing today?

 

So no, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, but it is a job for the police and not a man with a shot gun. Police have cars and when they have the proper leads they do make arrest and not just at the scene of the crime.

 

Are you saying we should disregard people of authority and take the law into our own hands?