Texas Castle Doctrine At Work

[Pete_C]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw....11a44bd33.html

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/978845.html

The resident told police that he was sleeping, but his wife heard something downstairs. She awoke her husband who got his handgun and went to investigate.

He told officers that he confronted a man, later identified as Williams, who, he said, was removing the TV from the wall, Beaudreault said.

The robber "came at him," Beaudreault said, so he opened fire.

"He fell down a brief time, then got up and jumped through the window that he came in from," the detective said of Williams. "He landed spread-eagle on the front porch and he was lifeless."

[irregularjoe]

Sad story. A LIFE for a TV.

[bozodog]

A low life's life for someone else's TV.

[Carnevil]

The dude has a shotgun and the guy came at him, that has to be the dumbest scumbag. I have no problem with this story, maybe this little incident will make some other punk think twice before robbing somebody.

[Pete_C]

Turns out it was a 12 guage shotgun at 3ft.

No wonder he "went back out the window he had entered through"

But having been shot by a robber myself, I can say that I empathize with the homeowner.

Whether he had told the robber to stay put and wait for the police or get out of his house; chances are the idiot made a move to grab the shotgun and the homeowner did what he had to. In this city there are to many cases of "home invasions" starting like this and if the homeowner just tries to hide or escape they end up bound and terrorized and often executed while the thugs pillage their home.

[JDoors]

Sometimes a property owner's intentions aren't clear, but it's clear enough here: "Some guy's in my house and is comin' at me -- BANG."

[Bubba Bob]

Sad story. A LIFE for a TV.

Surely you can't blame the home owner?

[irregularjoe]

Well it seems like the votes are in on this.

It's still a sad story however. Life for a TV.

I'm not saying that I blame the homeowner. Who knows how you would react in a situation like that.

The link to the Star- Telegram claims that the homeowner used a 9mm handgun, not a shotgun.

I do have a problem with the quote from the Star- Telegram: "Beaudreault said the case will be referred to the Dallas County District Attorney's Office, and prosecutors will show the information to a grand jury.

Beaudreault called that procedure routine. He indicated the man probably won't be indicted by the grand jury.

"They usually no-bill these cases and there is no reason this case would be any different," Beaudreault said. "He was in his house. He was protecting his property and his life."

Routine? That's a little scary to me. If someone is shot to death for whatever reason, I think an in depth investigation is warranted.

Someone said in an earlier reply that maybe the next intruder would think more after this (or something to that effect). And I agree to that reasoning, although I don't think it will circumvent future crimes of this nature. There certainly does not seem to be a decrease of violent crimes in areas that are more permissive in civilian firearms access.

On the other hand I also believe that when someone uses a gun to "defend his property" there needs to be a lot more of an investigation than just "routine".

Shooting someone for whatever reason should require a legitimate investigation.

Edited October 18, 2008 by irregularjoe

[bozodog]

Routine means, in this case taking it further. To the grand jury with the information collected by the investigation. "It's routine to take it to a grand jury."

And was it really a "life for a TV?" Perhaps, "a life for a father/husband/sons life"?

There certainly does not seem to be a decrease of violent crimes in areas that are more permissive in civilian firearms access.

Crime has gone down in states that allow concealed carry permits.

[irregularjoe]

Routine means, in this case taking it further. To the grand jury with the information collected by the investigation. "It's routine to take it to a grand jury."

And was it really a "life for a TV?" Perhaps, "a life for a father/husband/sons life"?

There certainly does not seem to be a decrease of violent crimes in areas that are more permissive in civilian firearms access.

"Routine means, in this case taking it further. To the grand jury with the information collected by the investigation. "It's routine to take it to a grand jury."

That's not the gist of what I read, but I could be wrong.

"And was it really a "life for a TV?" Perhaps, "a life for a father/husband/sons life"?"

Again, I didn't see that as part of the story.

"Crime has gone down in states that allow concealed carry permits."

Concealed weapons are not the isuue here. The gun was in the man's house.

However I disagree with your assumption. I live in Phoenix. Every other yahoo on the street has a concealed weapon. Gun crime is at an all time high.

[JDoors]

Routine procedure means that in that area the local police don't make the decision whether or not to prosecute, a grand jury has that responsibility. It also means firearms are used to prevent crime hundreds of thousands of times every year in the U.S. so, yes, firearms used for self-defense is a routine matter for the police.

Regarding the comment: "a life for a father/husband/sons life." If someone breaks into your home and comes toward you, you have every reason to suspect they intend to cause you bodily harm. That, too, is all too common. You might feel sorry for the criminal, but better him than that husband and wife winding up in the morgue. But they were safe BECAUSE he defended his family from potential harm.

I guarantee the areas with the least restrictive gun control laws have the lowest crime rates in the nation. You state that "every yahoo on the street" has a concealed weapon but, if they're concealed, how are you coming to that conclusion? A guess? A fear? Any idea how many concealed carry permits were issued in Phoenix? Even if you had x-ray vision and could see the firearms yourself, how would you know they're carrying them legally?

The violent crime rate for Arizona, according to the The FBI Uniform Crime Report, is going down (-3.7% from 2006 to 2007, the latest data). Their statistics are quite extensive, and dense, so I didn't look up the data for any individual city.

[jcl]

The violent crime rate for Arizona, according to the The FBI Uniform Crime Report, is going down (-3.7% from 2006 to 2007, the latest data). Their statistics are quite extensive, and dense, so I didn't look up the data for any individual city.

Phoenix data. It looks like violent crime is slightly above the ten year average but the rate is relative stable over the last decade. (min: 9471 (2004), max: 11194 (2006), avg: 10317, last year: 11168) OTOH weapon violations are way up over the last decade. (min: 531 (2001), max: 1144 (2007), avg: 728, last year: 1144)

Edit: Forgot: population grew from 1,256,353 in 1998 to 1,609,935 in 2007.

[Pete_C]

Routine means that it happens so frequently in Dallas (probably at least once a month) that they refer it to the DA and Grand Jury for Review so that the Media does not jump all over them claiming that the decision to not prosecute was racially motivated, or community outcry over the shooting.

We had one last year (in the suburbs ) where a couple teens cut across a neighbors fenced yard to get to a party they heard music from (at least that was their story) . The old guy saw two kids in the middle of the night just outside his window. He had had a yard sale and had stuff on his porch and thought they were stealing it ; so he shouted a warning and shot a warning shot which grazed one.

The teens went home to one boy's house. His mother was a nurse and insisted on driving them to the hospital rather than calling the police or an ambulance. En route she collided with a drunk driver (it also turns out she was under the influence of prescription painkillers etc and probably should not have been on the road). She died and the community was in an uproar that the old man was not charged with anything.

So, they refer it to the grand jury to confirm the circumstances; identities etc and that it was not some setup etc.

[JDoors]

The violent crime rate for Arizona, according to the The FBI Uniform Crime Report, is going down (-3.7% from 2006 to 2007, the latest data). Their statistics are quite extensive, and dense, so I didn't look up the data for any individual city.

Phoenix data. It looks like violent crime is slightly above the ten year average but the rate is relative stable over the last decade. (min: 9471 (2004), max: 11194 (2006), avg: 10317, last year: 11168) OTOH weapon violations are way up over the last decade. (min: 531 (2001), max: 1144 (2007), avg: 728, last year: 1144)

Edit: Forgot: population grew from 1,256,353 in 1998 to 1,609,935 in 2007.

So far more people, in all likelyhood far more firearms, and little or no increase in violent crime. "Weapon violations," whatever that means, could just be better prosecution, something the NRA has been demanding forever -- why have ANY firearms laws if you're not going to prosecute violations of them? (There's even a train of thought that says they purposely do not prosecute those laws so they can easily pass even more of them: "We need more laws!")

I see it all the time; A multiple felon on parole commits a crime and they drop several of the charges to make prosecution easier and in almost every instance, they drop the firearms charges. Yeah, it streamlines the procedure, and yeah, the crime itself is usually heinous enough to send them away for a long time (rarely long enough, in my opinion, but that's another story), but ... if you're never gonna prosecute for violations of the firearms laws why have 'em? To placate the populice? "We passed a bajillion firearms laws to make you safer!" BUT YOU DON'T PROSECUTE THEM!

A felon who is doing nothing else wrong but is in possession of a firearm is supposed to go to prison, he's breaking the law just by having possession of one. Rarely happens. I don't really know why.

I think it was Virginia that decided to prosecute firearms laws EVERY TIME (there's a fancy nick-name for what they were doing but I forget what it was). One motto was, "Use a gun, go to prison." Crime dropped dramatically. Imagine that.

[JDoors]

... So, they refer it to the grand jury to confirm the circumstances; identities etc and that it was not some setup etc.

That is one sad chain of events.

I suspect the shooter will be prosecuted as he only has his word to indicate the kids might have been stealing his property, and he made no mention of feeling physically threatened. Kinda has to be one or the other, life & limb or property, and he can't prove it was either.

[Pete_C]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R...ml/SB00378I.htm

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...le.241e482.html

a person is

justified in using force against another when and to the degree the

actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary

to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted

use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was

immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed

to be reasonable if...

the person against whom the force was used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter

unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business

or employment;

(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated

kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,

robbery, or aggravated robbery.

For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether

an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the

use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider

whether the actor failed to retreat.

DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person

is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force

against the other under Section 9.31

( The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the

deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that

subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had

reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was

used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter

unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business

or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove

unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or

place of business or employment of the actor; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense

described by Subsection (a)(2)([The requirement imposed by

Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against

a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense

of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor]

Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative

defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death

that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was

justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,

Chapter 9 [section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the

time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry

in the habitation of the defendant].

[JDoors]

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Pete_C]

The key is the use of the word Presumed

The presumption that the act is justified under the law pretty much removes the chance of getting a conviction even if they are charged.