TexasCHLforum.com

And another one gets what they deserve.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31944964/ns ... ouston_tx/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I used to live about a block from there when I was a kid.


Good job!

Add another notch for the good guys!

What I like about this article (aside from the outcome), is the wording. Quotes from the story

"A teenager fought back against a person who broke into his northwest Houston home"

"He saw the guy's in there with a gun and he did what he had to do."

"I can't blame him," she said. "I'd shoot him if he was in my house."

"The intruder died at the scene" -> Notice how they used "intruder" instead of "victim"

The choice of wording works to support the actions of the individual. To me, the chosen words can really make a powerful impact to how people perceive the story

B.B.D. Well put.

By law, anybody breaking in your room is a free target, right?

However, if you forget to lock the door and someone just waltzes in, you cannot just shoot him legally, right?

Stupid wrote:By law, anybody breaking in your room is a free target, right?

However, if you forget to lock the door and someone just waltzes in, you cannot just shoot him legally, right?

I think there is an implicit illegal entry into the home. Fair game. I think if I found a stranger in my home I'd shoot first and let the police figure out what they were doing there.


Edit: That was a really cavalier response. But I can think of very few good or valid reasons why a stranger would be in your home without malicious intentions.

Drewthetexan wrote:

Stupid wrote:By law, anybody breaking in your room is a free target, right?

However, if you forget to lock the door and someone just waltzes in, you cannot just shoot him legally, right?

I think there is an implicit illegal entry into the home. Fair game. I think if I found a stranger in my home I'd shoot first and let the police figure out what they were doing there.


Edit: That was a really cavalier response. But I can think of very few good or valid reasons why a stranger would be in your home without malicious intentions.

would like to see the penal code on that.

Like Venus' signature says, they're probably not there for tea.

Stupid wrote:By law, anybody breaking in your room is a free target, right?

Umm, not quite. I would have to look up the statute to be absolutely sure, but in plain terms, you are legally authorized to use deadly force (or force in general) against someone who is unlawfully breaking into your home.

Stupid wrote:However, if you forget to lock the door and someone just waltzes in, you cannot just shoot him legally, right?

Again, I believe the legal definition of "breaking in" encompasses someone who merely turns the doorknob and comes in, as long as the entry was unlawful.

I have broken into homes before, but not unlawfully...I would appreciate people not shooting at me when I do so.

Believe I will go review the statutes just for grins.

I would like to know the teens adress and send him a little letter of comfort. Let him know that even though we are a rare breed nowindays there still are good people.

"He's a really good friend for everybody. He's nice. He's generous. It's kind of depressing because he's a real good kid.

What I think is going to bug and bother him the most is

Roberts said the intruder's weapon turned out to be a BB gun

all those maybe's are going to flutter in his head.

Key points:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;...

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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 actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

The following is important! Especially to me! It appears under the Criminal Trespass section rather than the deadly force sections, but never the less, you may not legally shoot at anyone who enters your house -- only those who enter unlawfully...

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor at the time of the offense was a fire fighter or emergency medical services personnel, as that term is defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty under exigent circumstances.

I'm still looking for what exactly "...and with force..." means with respect to these statutes. I am pretty sure it does not require at least a splintered door or broken glass... but I am having trouble finding where I came across it before.

ELB just beat me to the Penal Code section, but I had a different point to look at than he did. He is correct about the unlawful definition too (for example a cop with a warrant could be using force but that is not justification for the homeowner's shooting them).

The whole question to answer is what constitutes "with force". The Penal Code defines deadly force, but not force. Is it force to open a door by turning a knob? I really don't know. Most of the courses I have seen since this passed believed that this implied any physical force, but some did think it would require what used to be called "forced entry", such as breaking a window or using a prybar on a lock.

from the news reports so far, I think the police are going with the unlawful entry and not worrying about the amount of force used to enter. I think this is also the general public's opinion on the matter, at least in Texas.

srothstein wrote:The whole question to answer is what constitutes "with force". The Penal Code defines deadly force, but not force. Is it force to open a door by turning a knob? I really don't know. Most of the courses I have seen since this passed believed that this implied any physical force, but some did think it would require what used to be called "forced entry", such as breaking a window or using a prybar on a lock.

I knew one o' them sneaky lawyer-types had chimed in with something more substantial on this before. Fortunately, when he hid the thread where he said it, he forgot to hide the other thread where I'd already quoted him:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:During the debate on SB378, one of the Senators stated that he too didn't like the "with force" requirement and he too gave the example of a burglar opening an unlocked door and coming in. Quite by accident, one of the ADA's gave testimony that was helpful. He testified that, for purposes of unlawful entry, burglary, etc., pushing a door open constitutes the use of force. When he said this, I looked around the room and all of the criminal attorneys (prosecutors and defense lawyers) were nodding their heads in agreement. Even Sen. Henajosa, a criminal defense attorney, agreed. This went a long way toward easing my concern about the "with force" requirement.

(Just goes to show, if you don't want it to live forever, don't write it down in the first place )

re: unlawful entry with FORCE --- I just googled this, and found a few teaching outlines and presentations that dealt with it, most of them related to Texas law. They pretty much all note that it doesn't take much to meet the "force" (or as it was originally known, "breaking") element of burglary. A frequent example was pushing open an already partially open window. Some stated that pushing open a door sufficed. It seems about the only time the "force" element would not be present would be where the suspect was in someway invited in or had consent. For example, in a public store during opening hours, a person who walked in and swiped something of the shelf would not be guilty of burglary. Theft/shoplifting, but not burglary. Similarly, in some jursidictions at least, someone you brought into your house (say to paint it) who then stole your TV would not be a burglar, because he did not use force (and was not there unlawfully). He'd be a thief, but not a burglar.

However, I am pretty confident that someone who opened your front door, walked in, and swiped your jewelry box would be successfully charged with burglary -- if he survived the encounter.

Aha, I see when previewing this that KD5NRH came up also with the door-pushing example from a source close to home...

Good reasons to do several things in my book:

A) Make sure all windows and doors are LOCKED.
B) Know your neighbors
C) Leave a few lights on so you can clear the house and properly identify a target (I'd hate to shoot a drunk neighbor who wandered into the wrong house. I'm in college. I may be more responsible than that, but I know for a fact some of my neighbors are not.)