TexasCHLforum.com

An Estill Springs man is out on $125,00 bond after police say he fired a shotgun at teens who were toilet papering their principal's yard.

The guy that did the shooting wasn't even the toilet papering teen's target, he lived "a couple of houses over." Does this qualify as "criminal mischief during the night time"? Yes, this is Tennessee and not Texas, but just wondering out loud.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... al-s-House" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jaguar wrote:

An Estill Springs man is out on $125,00 bond after police say he fired a shotgun at teens who were toilet papering their principal's yard.

The guy that did the shooting wasn't even the toilet papering teen's target, he lived "a couple of houses over." Does this qualify as "criminal mischief during the night time"? Yes, this is Tennessee and not Texas, but just wondering out loud.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... al-s-House" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMO NO. There is no ethical or moral justification for shooting a teenager that is toilet papering your house. On top of that this was not even the suspects house so he wouldn't be defending "his" property. On top of that what damage is caused by toilet paper? Trespassing would be a more appropriate charge.

§ 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys
the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the
tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or
substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings,
including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the
tangible property of the owner.
(b) Except as provided by Subsections (f) and (h), an
offense under this section is:

Jaguar wrote:

An Estill Springs man is out on $125,00 bond after police say he fired a shotgun at teens who were toilet papering their principal's yard.

The guy that did the shooting wasn't even the toilet papering teen's target, he lived "a couple of houses over." Does this qualify as "criminal mischief during the night time"? Yes, this is Tennessee and not Texas, but just wondering out loud.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... al-s-House" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes it would. However, TPC 9.42 says

3) he reasonably believes that:(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;

This is the 'gotcha' on deadly force for criminal mischief. I think if you walked into the yard and yelled at them they would take off. You would have a really tough time convincing a grand jury that there was no other way to stop the TP'ing teens than by shooting them.

Keith B wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

An Estill Springs man is out on $125,00 bond after police say he fired a shotgun at teens who were toilet papering their principal's yard.

The guy that did the shooting wasn't even the toilet papering teen's target, he lived "a couple of houses over." Does this qualify as "criminal mischief during the night time"? Yes, this is Tennessee and not Texas, but just wondering out loud.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... al-s-House" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes it would. However, TPC 9.42 says

3) he reasonably believes that:(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;

This is the 'gotcha' on deadly force for criminal mischief. I think if you walked into the yard and yelled at them they would take off. You would have a really tough time convincing a grand jury that there was no other way to stop the TP'ing teens than by shooting them.

Got to agree with you, good explanation. Thanks Keith.

I never thought that this type of stuff was funny.

The first time our house was targeted when my sons were young I had come home about 1 AM from an EMS response and found the yard in a mess. I woke them up and made them clean it up. Not so much fun.

My sons warned their friends about such night time mischief. They advised their friends that they did not want to wake me up at night. We lived in the rural county and I often got up at night to investigate noises.

Not that I would have shot anyone over TP in the yard, but actions have consequences.

I found out that often some of the parents actually participated in these events. I advised them that they had better rethink their actions.

Never had any issues after that.

ANygunanywhere

texanjoker wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

An Estill Springs man is out on $125,00 bond after police say he fired a shotgun at teens who were toilet papering their principal's yard.

The guy that did the shooting wasn't even the toilet papering teen's target, he lived "a couple of houses over." Does this qualify as "criminal mischief during the night time"? Yes, this is Tennessee and not Texas, but just wondering out loud.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... al-s-House" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMO NO. There is no ethical or moral justification for shooting a teenager that is toilet papering your house. On top of that this was not even the suspects house so he wouldn't be defending "his" property. On top of that what damage is caused by toilet paper? Trespassing would be a more appropriate charge.

If deadly force was justified in 9.42, then 9.43 would be applicable

Sec. 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.

But it would have to be justified in 9.42 first, and criminal mischief is gonna be a far stretch to show justification for deadly force.

Keith B wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

An Estill Springs man is out on $125,00 bond after police say he fired a shotgun at teens who were toilet papering their principal's yard.

The guy that did the shooting wasn't even the toilet papering teen's target, he lived "a couple of houses over." Does this qualify as "criminal mischief during the night time"? Yes, this is Tennessee and not Texas, but just wondering out loud.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... al-s-House" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMO NO. There is no ethical or moral justification for shooting a teenager that is toilet papering your house. On top of that this was not even the suspects house so he wouldn't be defending "his" property. On top of that what damage is caused by toilet paper? Trespassing would be a more appropriate charge.

If deadly force was justified in 9.42, then 9.43 would be applicable

Sec. 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.

But it would have to be justified in 9.42 first, and criminal mischief is gonna be a far stretch to show justification for deadly force.

One cannot shoot a teen for TP a house. There is no damage being caused. This would be a case IF ever charged of criminal trespass. In reality the kids would be told to clean it up and receive a lecture. The leo's made the correct decision to arrest this suspect.

george wrote:I have been shot at by a farmer with a shotgun when I was sneaking in to fish his stock tank. He was several hundred yards away, and we both knew this was not "lethal force".

It used to be common to keep the little rascals out of your watermelon patch by peppering them with rock salt. That wasn't "lethal force" either, in my opinion.

Just because the neighbor had a shotgun, and shot it doesn't mean he was trying to hurt someone.

My crazy liberal sister once used her shotgun to chase off a guy sitting in his truck in front of her house honking his horn in her Lubbock neighborhood. First she walked outside and yelled at the guy. He looked at her and stopped honking but as soon as she got back inside it started up again. So she grabbed her pistol gripped 12 gauge, walked outside and yelled at the guy, he looked at her and she racked the slide and fired off a shell in early evening air, shooting visible fire a foot long out of the barrel. The guy ate dashboard diving for the floor of his truck. She walked back inside, sat the shotgun by the door and waited for the cops. The guy in the truck started it up and drove away without even revving his engine. Apparently everyone within hearing distance didn’t mind the shotgun blast, the cops never did show up.

george wrote:I have been shot at by a farmer with a shotgun when I was sneaking in to fish his stock tank. He was several hundred yards away, and we both knew this was not "lethal force".

It used to be common to keep the little rascals out of your watermelon patch by peppering them with rock salt. That wasn't "lethal force" either, in my opinion.

Just because the neighbor had a shotgun, and shot it doesn't mean he was trying to hurt someone.

Two shoots, at least one teen is hit and recovering. There is no mention of this being rock salt.

texanjoker wrote:

Keith B wrote: But it would have to be justified in 9.42 first, and criminal mischief is gonna be a far stretch to show justification for deadly force.

One cannot shoot a teen for TP a house. There is no damage being caused. This would be a case IF ever charged of criminal trespass. In reality the kids would be told to clean it up and receive a lecture. The leo's made the correct decision to arrest this suspect.

Uh, just like I said, it would have to be justified in 9.42 and that would be a far stretch on TP'ing.

Keith B wrote:This is the 'gotcha' on deadly force for criminal mischief. I think if you walked into the yard and yelled at them they would take off. You would have a really tough time convincing a grand jury that there was no other way to stop the TP'ing teens than by shooting them.

100%

When my son was 14 our house was "forked".

Much better than being tp'd

philip964 wrote:When my son was 14 our house was "forked".

Much better than being tp'd

Our neighbor had their house forked. Sure looked funny seeing all of the plastic utinsel's growing in their front yard. LOL

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Two shoots, at least one teen is hit and recovering. There is no mention of this being rock salt.

I was curious what the load was myself. While I wouldn't want to be shot with any load, I'd rather it be #8 birdshot than 00 buck if I were.