CNN....fair and balanced (Gun Control = DC handgun Ban)

[Strip]

In Texas you can shoot someone that is stealing your property and unarmed.

Strip(er)

[SIG220]

_____________________________ __________________


The recent case of Joe Horn in Texas last November comes to mind.   Mr. Horn saw two illegal immigrants burglarizing his neighbor's home one night.   He called police right away, but they failed to show up in time.   Rather than let the burglars get away, Mr Horn confronted them, and killed them both with 3 shotgun blasts.   Both fleeing men were shot in the back.

Here is a post about this story that cites Texas law:

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/12/03/joe-horn-and-justification/

Here is the original ABC News story about it, including a tape of his call to 911 ( where you can hear him shooting the men ):

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3880630

Here is a link to a news story when it was discovered that both criminals were illegal aliens from Mexico:

http://vigilantejoe.blogspot.com/

And here is a recent local news story from last week about the current investigation:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6013534

The District Attorney has put a lot of effort into investigating this shooting, and plans to bring it to a grand jury within a few weeks.   Mr. Horn has been forced to hire an attorney at great expense, and now faces the risk of criminal prosecution. 

Legal experts say that this is a "dream case" for a defense attorney, and that it would be impossible to get a conviction against Mr. Horn.  But if the case does go to trial, his legal costs will probably bankrupt Mr. Horn, who is 61 and retired.

So tell me, is it really worth it to shoot someone in such a scenario?   Both Mexicans were unarmed and fleeing.


_____________________________ _________________

[DREDIOCK]

<edit> I was mildly suprised that CNN aired the pro gun argument.

Didnt see the clip you posted but I for one was surprised when one of the CNN newsmen said.
"Like the gun advocates like to say You will take away my right to own a gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."

I had to doublecheck to make sure It really was CNN I was hearing this on LOL

[B17Skull12]

"gun control is using both hands."


LOL!

[Gunslinger]

_______________________________________________


The recent case of Joe Horn in Texas last November comes to mind.   Mr. Horn saw two illegal immigrants burglarizing his neighbor's home one night.   He called police right away, but they failed to show up in time.   Rather than let the burglars get away, Mr Horn confronted them, and killed them both with 3 shotgun blasts.   Both fleeing men were shot in the back.

Under Texas law I think they'd have a hard time getting a conviction. 

[AKIron]

Under Texas law I think they'd have a hard time getting a conviction. 

If it were at night I'd agree. Texas law does not allow for what this guy did. Still, I think every thief should steal at risk to his/her life.

[Gunslinger]

If it were at night I'd agree. Texas law does not allow for what this guy did. Still, I think every thief should steal at risk to his/her life.

I disagree

From Sig's first link

§ 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

And not to mention the fact that of the three EYE witness to the event 2 are dead.  All he needs is one jurror to have reasonable doubt.

EDIT:  From his last link, legal experts aren't even sure if they can get an indictment let alone a conviction.

The state's castle doctrine gives homeowners the right to protect themselves and their property using deadly force. That includes a business, car, or home. The law was changed in September of last year. Homeowners no longer have to try and get away

[AKIron]

I never looked for myself so that law has either been revised or the training I got several years ago for my CC license misled us. They specifically told us the law allows you to protect your belongings but that you can't shoot someone who is running down the street with them. Perhaps that was their interpretation.

[Toad]

I think there is a general movement towards the Castle Doctrine.

Briefly, from Wiki,

Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited
The intruder must be acting illegally -- i.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home
 
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony
 
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit burglary

The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

It doesn't cover shooting someone running away from you in any state as far as I know.

I think about 15+ states have some sort of Castle doctrine or no retreat law.

[lasersailor184]

If the person has broken into your house, and have stolen something, then there are two of those conditions you met in order to fire upon them.

[Maverick]

IN the case of somebody running away from you which is the scenario you talked about you lack this particular condition.

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home

It's at the top of the list.

[lasersailor184]

The criminal has made an attempt to get into the home (albeit successfully), has committed burglary and is committing a felony.

Castle Doctrine permits me to blow his head off.

[Gunslinger]

Again there were 3 witnesses to this act.....2 of them are dead.  I'm not saying I agree with what this guy did but I agree with some of the news writers that the DA will have a hard time getting an indictment....let alone a conviction.  They have been investigating this for 4 months now and nothing.....

[texasmom]

There are a few things I reckon that I value enough to shoot someone for ~ a tv ain't one of them.

p.s. thanks for posting the video. I am pleasantly surprised that CNN showed the pro gun arguement as well.

[Toad]

Laser, have you taken a CCW course?

I'm thinking you haven't.

The first thing they drill into everyone here is that you can only use deadly force if you reasonably believes that the use of the deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious physical harm to the person's self or a third person.

Our statute is

Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.

      (b)   A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.

      (c)   Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.

It varies slightly from state to state but most states have this provision. Some states allow deadly force to stop a forcible felony but not all. Best to know your state's law before you pull the trigger.

I think you'd have a hard time convincing a jury that a guy running away with your TV set posed such a threat in a non-forcible felony state.

Personally, I'm not going to kill anyone over a stolen TV set even if my state law allowed it. YMMV.