TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:Right now, after eleven hours of deliberation, the jury is hung. I found this interesting:

However, prosecutors argue Romero committed murder because Vielma ran away, dropped the beer, and did not have a weapon.

The law reads:

§ 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.

So the prosecutors are arguing that he followed the law and therefore should be found guilty of murder? I can see why the jury is deadlocked. Some jurors are saying, "The law says....and therefore he's not guilty" and other jurors are saying, "But he didn't have to use deadly force...."