My comprehension skills are outstanding, thank you. Have yours been tested???txinvestigator wrote:I can't help you if you can't comprehend normal English. The very first section of the Penal Code I quoted dealt with protection of persons. My comment was that IF he was fleeing when he was shot, he was NOT in the imminent commission of one of those crimes.Kyle Brown wrote:I read exactly what you wrote..."Unless he was fleeing with property she can't claim defense of property." I responded and said you ignored her right to prevent the imminent commission..." You now say you addressed that part of the statute. Where???txinvestigator wrote:Chapter 9, Texas Penal CodeJim101 wrote:We are all proud of her and what she did, and as I understand it the NRA called her and wants to do a story on her.
Now for an interesting question: as I understand it, she shot through the door as he was leaving and caught him in the leg. Since he was in "retreat" mode, can she get in trouble?? Just wondering... I may need to know someday....
Jim
§9.31. Self-defense.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree he
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect
himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
Text
§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not
have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) 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.
A person fleeing is not in the imminent commission of one of those crimes, nor is he using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force.
§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.
§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.
Unless he was fleeing with property she can't claim defense of property.
Now don't get me wrong, I am in support of this woman, but if she keeps talking its going to cause her problems.......
I would appreciate any information you could pass along re the first shooting in your area. I have heard civil action followed the shooting but as of yet no one has been able to furnish the name of an attorney on eiither side of the matter. Again, any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. I have researched this "civil action" question for several years now to no avail.
Civil actions have never been inexpensive. Unless the person sued has adequate assets (deeper than the average pocket), the whole exercise is fruitless, so to speak.
Now, in re the granny shooting in your area. The article clearly states she found this man in her hall closet at 1AM. There was no mention of his fleeing. His grabbing her gun is very significant. Do you believe that, if in fact he did attempt to flee, that he is protected from her use of deadly force under the statute you quoted? Do you believe that, if in fact he was attempting to flee, her use of deadly force is prohibited under the statue you quoted?