Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[bobman0330]

So I actually did some research here and dug up the following:
[ QUOTE ]
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that, it seems that killing fleeing burglars probably is OK. The best counterargument is probably that the killer used an unreasonable amount of force. Which is possible, but hard to tell without knowing more about the details of the shooting. Texas craziness FTW.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that, it seems that killing fleeing burglars probably is OK. The best counterargument is probably that the killer used an unreasonable amount of force. Which is possible, but hard to tell without knowing more about the details of the shooting. Texas craziness FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yea wow, looking at that certainly makes it seem that he was justified. Texas craziness is right...

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
So I actually did some research here and dug up the following:
[ QUOTE ]
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that, it seems that killing fleeing burglars probably is OK. The best counterargument is probably that the killer used an unreasonable amount of force. Which is possible, but hard to tell without knowing more about the details of the shooting. Texas craziness FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, looks like he's 100% within his legal rights. texas is a sick place.

[MuresanForMVP]

I may be moving to Texas soon. I've been saying throughout the thread that I thought he was guilty, but if those laws posted by Bobman are true that's pretty awesome. Man I had no idea it was that drastic down there.



edit: That state should change its motto to "Texas: where it's open season on scumbags."

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I actually did some research here and dug up the following:
[ QUOTE ]
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that, it seems that killing fleeing burglars probably is OK. The best counterargument is probably that the killer used an unreasonable amount of force. Which is possible, but hard to tell without knowing more about the details of the shooting. Texas craziness FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, looks like he's 100% within his legal rights. texas is a sick place.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting requirement, sucks for the guy that the incident took place in "broad daylight"

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]

To think that someone could go to prison for this is scary as hell to me. This man didn't wake up that morning with the intent to kill two black men. He was given a set of circumstances and he acted. Was it the wrong -- probably. Would you, I or anyone else do what he did --- probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] Someone actually believes this

[istewart]

And FWIW, in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
This man didn't wake up that morning with the intent to kill two black men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though it's not explicit in the recording, I think most of us can assume this guy would use any chance to shoot a black dude. If they were white this almost surely would not have happened in the way that it did.

[Kiddmother]

[ QUOTE ]
And FWIW, in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
This man didn't wake up that morning with the intent to kill two black men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though it's not explicit in the recording, I think most of us can assume this guy would use any chance to shoot a black dude. If they were white this almost surely would not have happened in the way that it did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Seriously that was not my take on the guy at all --- I picture him as "old school" for sure --- but I think he was intent on not letting "a thief" get away with robbing in his neighborhood in broad daylight --- I didn't get him not wanting "a black person" to get away with it. I believe his only mention of them being black was when the 911 operator specifically asked if they were white, black, hispanic, etc.

[ElSapo]

[ QUOTE ]
And FWIW, in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
This man didn't wake up that morning with the intent to kill two black men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though it's not explicit in the recording, I think most of us can assume this guy would use any chance to shoot a black dude. If they were white this almost surely would not have happened in the way that it did.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

It's all speculation of course, but I listened to the call and didn't get this at all. Not at all.

I'm going to drop out of this thread - the people discussing seriously and the people trolling have become indistinguishable to me. Not a good sign for my own sanity.

[MuresanForMVP]

Is the requirement for 9.42 that it occurs during the nighttime? Like,as the end all?