Homeowner Shoots Burglar Who Returns For Second Try

[Paladin]

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.as ... E5641516D7

"Homeowner Shoots Burglar Who Returns For Second Try
LAST UPDATE: 12/8/2006 11:54:29 AM
Posted By: Katy Camp


A homeowner takes matters into his own hands after he says a man tried to break into his home for the second time off Hunters Glenn on the northeast side.

His wife saw the man in her home during the first burglary.

“When I walked into the door, I heard strange noises in the back of the house,� Oralia Herrera told NEWS 4 WOAI’s Aubrey Mika.

“He had his jacket covering his face. He kept telling me, ‘Give me your money!’ And I kept yelling, ‘Don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me!�

That man ran away, but hours later, Herrera got a call from her husband.

“Gilbert called me and told me the guy had come back and he had shot him.�

He shot him in the leg after the thief woke him from an afternoon nap.

Police caught up with the robber in a nearby alley. Emergency crews took him to an area hospital. They say he should be okay.

But a woman who live a couple of houses down says her screen door was cut this morning. She believes someone tried to break into her house, too.

“My side gate had blown open and made it look accessible. That's probably why they picked my house,� Jane Grace said, “They probably just worked the street.�

Police say once the suspect is out of the hospital he'll be arrested. The homeowner will likely not face any charges and right now - officers are investigating to see if there was anyone else involved in this burglary attempt.

Note:

State Senator Jeff Wentworth wants to change the law to allow deadly force against anyone breaking into your home, car or business.

Currently, you cannot use more force than necessary to defend yourself. "

[kauboy]

Maybe he meant that it would be justifiable if someone was breaking into your car... with you inside. It could be seen that if someone is trying to carjack you, they are breaking into your property.

[Paladin]

It does sound to me like Katy Camp's off the cuff remark:

"State Senator Jeff Wentworth wants to change the law to allow deadly force against anyone breaking into your home, car or business. Currently, you cannot use more force than necessary to defend yourself."

Is a bit off the mark.

[txinvestigator]

Currently the law is already you can shoot first and ask questions later anybody that is on your property without your permission at night time. I think that is sufficient.

No, it does not!

The section below that you highlighted does not include trespass. The law does not say anything either about "shooting first and asking questions later" You had better ask your self FIRST, "is deadly force 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?"

PC §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.



Also, you may already use immediate deadly force if someone is breaking into your house. I don't understand what he means by saying you can't use deadly force against someone breaking into your home:

Again, only when you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of burglary.

Those word; reasonable belief, immediately necessary, and imminent commission have are critical for you to have your defense.

The section quoted below does not cover you for a person burglarizing your home. The below section is defense of YOU. its just that there is no requirement to retreat if a person is using deadly force against you in your home

PC §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

I suppose you could take away the "when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary," however if someone is crawling through my window or knocking down my door, it darn well is immediately necessary to give them a couple of rounds in the chest!

That's a dangerous, for you, predetermination to make.

[txinvestigator]

Note:

State Senator Jeff Wentworth wants to change the law to allow deadly force against anyone breaking into your home, car or business.

I wonder what he means by that?

Currently, you cannot use more force than necessary to defend yourself. "

That is true.

[txinvestigator]

I was going by what the instructor told me as far as reading into the law.

His quote, and I swear, was "By Texas law, even if somebody is outside messing with your garden hose, you can stick your hand out the window and blow them away. I'm not saying you should, but you can."

Well, he was wrong. You can see from the law you quoted that is not the case.

Also as far as somebody breaking into my house, it is quite obvious I am not going to "blow anybody away" until I can determine that they aren't somebody I know ;)

How about drawing down on the person and telling them to stop? Isn't that a better option for

if someone is crawling through my window

. Then you act based on his response?

Just askin................

[kauboy]

Thats not a very good perspective. What if the poor fool crawling through your window is some drunk that thought he was at his house and had locked himself out? Now you have shot and killed a man who was not a threat. However, if you asserted yourself, and made if very clear to him that he needed to leave, and he persisted and became violent... then your options change.

As a side note, this is the very reason that we have senators pushing for a Castle Doctrine law down in Austin. If that passes, certain things will be changing with regard to a person illegally entering your home.

[txinvestigator]

Perhaps it would be, but I tend to take offense at somebody that has the gall to come break into my home, take my hard earned posessions away from me, and put my family and I in danger.

Me too!! Unfortunately, the law does not care about to what I take offense. Putting your family in danger is another story. If that is the case, then you are using deadly force to protect lives, not property.

Criminals have no rights in my eyes

They do in the eyes of the law.

[kauboy]

Found a link explaining the "Castle Doctrine" bill by the Senator who will be proposing it. You can read a little about it here.
Of course, until the law is actually proposed, we have no real idea of what it will contain, but this is a pretty good summary.

[casselthief]

Found a link explaining the "Castle Doctrine" bill

you know, it's called the Castle Doctrine because of Frank Castle.
who was, of course, The Punisher!!!!!

[kauboy]

[KBCraig]

Found a link explaining the "Castle Doctrine" bill by the Senator who will be proposing it. You can read a little about it here.

From Wentworth's site:
The principle of the "Castle Doctrine" began in the 16th century with English common law which held that citizens had the right to protect themselves inside their homes.

When the 80th Legislature convenes in January, Texas legislators will have the opportunity to turn the concept of the "Castle Doctrine" into state law. I intend to file a bill which would ensure that Texans have the right to forcefully protect themselves and their families from criminals who invade their homes.

What a corrupted history that is. Before America became a nation, the William Pitt version of "castle doctrine" was in effect through the kingdom. From Pitt's speech to Parliament:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter -- all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!

If we want true sanctity of our homes, we should be more concerned with the threat from the "King", than from burglars.

Kevin