It was not his property and there is no mention of the bad guys being armed. Me thinks the shooter is headed for jail.
I think you may be right... but what are neighbors for? He was just trying to be a good Samaritan.
Nah, it’s Howard County. He’ll get a medal (after the grand jury boots the case).
It was a 70 year old man; fearing for his life.
Plus, not sure “defense of property” has to be your property in Texas.
I'd say not. While there is no statute explicitly authorizing the use of deadly force to protect someone else's property, you sure as heck can do it to protect your own in Texas.
This has been referred to a grand jury in Houston, and you can be damn sure that each of them would like this ol' codger as their next door neighbor.
I’m glad you pointed this out early in the thread.
Because I’m not going to be high-fiving this guy, heeing and hawing. They were robbing his neighbor! He told the 911 dispatcher that he wasn’t going to let them get away with this.
I’m having a hard time understanding how this is self-defense or even remotely defendable.
For those interested in the law (the shooter may have a clear defense under Texas law):
“A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)”
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief.”
“Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child.”
It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time.”
“In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary.”
I doubt it. And to be more specific, if it's a jury trial...
Not guilty!
5.56mm