Under what statue, Joe Horn was no-billed?

[Stupid]

Pardon me for my poor memory, I forgot what Chas said about Joe Horn. Under what statue, he's no-billed?

[Pinkycatcher]

You're not no-billed under any statute, but the one that probably sealed to deal wasn't the Castle Doctrine but;

§ 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.

[Frost]

I think it was self defense and a bit of nullification by the grand jury in buying it.

[lrb111]

Not to put to fine a point on it, but it was probably PC 59.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. Pretty much same rules as for your own, but just someone else's.

[skankpile]

Yep, in my CHL class the instructor used him as an example and said it was PC 59.43. The neighbor told Horn to watch his stuff... so they had an agreement.

Just remember to tell your neighbors when you are leaving town...

[Pinkycatcher]

Sorry! It was on the same exact page, I just copied the wrong section.

§ 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
(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.

[Stupid]

Pretty sure he, Chas, said 9.42 2B. I am really getting old.

Sorry! It was on the same exact page, I just copied the wrong section.

[/quote]

[Pinkycatcher]

Pretty sure he, Chas, said 9.42 2B. I am really getting old.

Sorry! It was on the same exact page, I just copied the wrong section.

Well I posted both of them up there, read the story, read the codes and figure out which makes most sense for you.

[Stupid]

Well I posted both of them up there, read the story, read the codes and figure out which makes most sense for you.

Thank you very much Pinkycatcher!!! Your post reminded me that he said 9.42 2B, which does make sense. Glad to live in TX.