TexasCHLforum.com

KD5NRH

stevie_d_64 wrote:Hmmmm, man with tire iron and a bag of stuff coming out of my nieghbors window to their house, heading straight for me...

It all depends on whether his attorney pushes self-defense or protection of a third person's property. Unless there's other evidence of self-defense we don't know about, it wouldn't be my preference. See my previous post in this thread; I think he's got a much better case with 9.43, but then, IANAL.

KD5NRH

lawrnk wrote:Well, this is not good news for Joe if it was in the back.

Why not? Let's rehash the whole stack of Penal Code arguments in one place, for easy reference:

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 OK, so we can establish that he would be justified in using -force- to stop the interference had the property been his own.
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Â§ 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 done, see above
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:His belief of immediate necessity is pretty well shown by the 911 call.
(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 This has been argued as a reasonable assumption, however, that "or" means we can pick one, and while I'd gladly accept (A), (B) is much easier to prove, IMO.
(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. Now you're not going to claim that an elderly man could, without substantial risk of serious bodily injury, tackle the BGs and wrestle the property away, are you? So, now we have him justified in using deadly force, had the property been his own.

Â§ 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 The "or" makes (2) irrelevant if (1) can be proven. Mr Horn's 911 call supports his belief of (1).
(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.

Now, would someone please point out where that says "unless the other is facing away from the actor" or "unless the actor previously expressed intent to do what this law specifically justifies?" He attempted to use lesser force by the threat of deadly force and the command to stop, and it didn't work. No other level of force was available to him under the circumstances.

KD5NRH

stevie_d_64 wrote:Quannel the tenth incited a riot...If they had not shown up, there would have been no problem...I do not see their rhetoric going away anytime soon...

“If you’ll notice, nobody with us has pushed anybody. Nobody with us has made a racial remark … It’s what I expected. It’s not what I wanted, but it’s what I expected,” Quanell said.

Boy, if you want to talk about a comment that can be used against somebody, that sure looks to me like he's saying he wanted violence and race-baiting.

Search found 3 matches