This is not a black and white case. I will bet there is a lot more to this that the little bit the press has put out.cb1000rider wrote:The legal system is on crack. $35000 bail for murder. $500000 bail for a kid that makes "threats" on facebook. Seriously?philip964 wrote: $35000 bond. So that is $3500 he will lose if he goes to a bail bondsman. Not a real big bond for murder.
I'm unclear on why he was charged at all. It just goes to show that you that you can have what appears to be the most black and white legal justification in the world, but it can still cost you your liberty and a good deal of money...
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Texas store owner arrested after killing robber at night”
- Mon Sep 30, 2013 2:50 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Texas store owner arrested after killing robber at night
- Replies: 68
- Views: 9981
Re: Texas store owner arrested after killing robber at night
- Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:51 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Texas store owner arrested after killing robber at night
- Replies: 68
- Views: 9981
Re: Texas store owner arrested after killing robber at night
There are too many questions here. This is the statute:
Without being able to see the video surveillance or know what transpired, we don't know. I personally would not even draw on some dude taking a 12 pack, legal or not. That loss of $10 worth of property is gonna cost you thousands in bail and legal fees.
The highlighted sections above are going to be the question. Did he just immediately go to guns on this guy to stop him? Did he believe the use of deadly force was immediately necessary? Did he try to stop the guy with force, only to be driven to deadly force, or did he reasonably believe trying to stop the guy with just force would expose him or another to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury?Sec. 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.
Without being able to see the video surveillance or know what transpired, we don't know. I personally would not even draw on some dude taking a 12 pack, legal or not. That loss of $10 worth of property is gonna cost you thousands in bail and legal fees.