Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Protecting Neighbor's Home Self-Defense? [Testing "Castle Doctrine" -Texas]
CBS3.com ^ | Nov 16, 2007 | staff reporter

Posted on 11/16/2007 4:59:15 PM PST by Daffynition

HOUSTON (CBS) ― It will be up to a Texas grand jury to decide whether a man who fatally shot two men he thought were robbing his neighbor's home acted within the state's self-defense laws.

The man, who is in his 70s, shot the two suspected burglars Wednesday afternoon in a quiet subdivision of the Houston suburb of Pasadena. He confronted the men as they were leaving through a gate leading to the front yard of his neighbor's home.

No identities have been released.

Police say that just before the shootings, the man called 911 to say he heard glass breaking and saw two men entering the home through a window.

911: "Pasadena 911. What is your emergency?"

Caller: "Burglars breaking into a house next door."

A police spokesman says the man told the dispatcher that he was going to get his gun and stop the break-in.

Caller: "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"

911: "Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

The dispatcher repeatedly urged the man to stay calm and stay in his own home, reports CBS News correspondent Hari Sreenivasan.

911: "I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."

Caller: "I understand that, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself."

A Texas law strengthening a citizen's right to self-defense, the so-called "castle doctrine," went into effect on Sept. 1. It gives Texans a stronger legal right to use deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.

The telephone line then went dead, but the man called police again and told a dispatcher what he was doing.

Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.

He shot one suspect in the chest and the other in the side.

Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said a legal expert.

If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in the shooter's favor, defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor, told the Houston Chronicle. "That could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role."

The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property.

It "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth told the newspaper. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-230 next last
To: ButThreeLeftsDo

In light of current law, you’re probably right.

However...

In light of what law should be, this was a clean kill.

More power (law changes) to you, old man!


21 posted on 11/16/2007 5:17:11 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

thanks for putting that up. I hope he is not prosecuted.


22 posted on 11/16/2007 5:18:39 PM PST by bobby.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo
Sorry......Bad Shoot.

In most places, but not necessarily in Texas.

Texas Penal Code Chapter 9

	§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.  (a) A person in 
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is 
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the 
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to 
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful 
interference with the property.
	(b)  A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, 
movable property by another is justified in using force against the 
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force 
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the 
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit 
after the dispossession and:
		(1)  the actor reasonably believes the other had no 
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor;  or
		(2)  the other accomplished the dispossession by using 
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994.


	§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994.


	§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 
1994.

But it will probably go a jury
23 posted on 11/16/2007 5:18:53 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition
There was a time in this country when this man would have received recognition from the city and a framed certificate of gratitude

Today he has to worry about being prosecuted

24 posted on 11/16/2007 5:19:48 PM PST by Popman (My doohickey is discombobulated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Wow. That’s Texas!


25 posted on 11/16/2007 5:20:06 PM PST by Wally_Kalbacken (Seldom right but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

The man is going down for murder probably. Shooting has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.


26 posted on 11/16/2007 5:20:22 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 38special
Having helped a neighbor break into his own home after he'd retrieved control of it from a deadbeat tenant, I'd say we'd been very disturbed if one of our other neighbors shot us.

That's why this guy is going to have some difficulty with his defese (whatever it might be) in court.

27 posted on 11/16/2007 5:21:07 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: exit82
In the second call, he says the perps came into his yard.

The two were already shot, it is an after the fact statement.

28 posted on 11/16/2007 5:23:25 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 38special

Gee, what a friggin surprise. Illegals with criminal records.

“No sir, you can’t shoot them. You have to let them get away, and then come back and try to rob your house becuase they think the neighborhood is easy to steal from before you can protect yourself.”

In the past the guy would’ve been a neighborhood hero. Looking out for your neighbor’s well-being. What if they had broken in and killed the neighbor and he got them as they were trying to leave? That could have easily happened.

Friggin PC nutjobs. If I was him, I’d be thinking it could have easily been me (or I’d be next) if I didn’t stop them now.


29 posted on 11/16/2007 5:23:36 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

Shoot them all. They’re taking over all towns, counties and states. Enough is enough. The government has already proved they won’t defend us so we must defend ourselves. Imagine how the crime rate would drop if these criminals knew they’d get their butts shot if they chose to commit such crimes. I hope this defender gets off scott free, with a pat on the back.


30 posted on 11/16/2007 5:24:30 PM PST by NoGrayZone (Thompson/Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition; Lijahsbubbe
911: "Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

And that's how we get brazen criminals who think, "Ain't no reason to stay home and watch TV."

Here's a guy who's willing to defend his neighbor's property as if it were his own. He's done more to reduce crime than a thousand do-gooders spouting good-for-nothing platitudes.

He should throw the PC vocab right back at them and say, "I have a strict zero-tolerance policy. You understand."

31 posted on 11/16/2007 5:27:16 PM PST by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Damn right you’d be next. Us doing nothing only encourages them to continue. You’re correct....friggin PC nutjobs!


32 posted on 11/16/2007 5:28:06 PM PST by NoGrayZone (Thompson/Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi

As multiple posts show, in Texas you can use deadly force to defend someone else’s property. That law predated the “castle doctrine”, which addressed a different problem.


33 posted on 11/16/2007 5:30:44 PM PST by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Yes, I realize they were both shot at that point(although it sounds from the words that one is still running down the street, probably after being shot) but he is saying why he shot them.

The perps may have run toward him, and once they were in his yard(his claim) he may have thought his life was in danger and defended himself.

Whether he is telling the truth or not, others will decide.


34 posted on 11/16/2007 5:31:04 PM PST by exit82 (I believe Juanita--Hillary enabled Juanita's rapist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Just curious, why didn’t your neighbor call the local police dept., advise them what he needed to do and have a uniform come out, that way no one would suspect any hanky panky? Especially law enforcement.


35 posted on 11/16/2007 5:31:32 PM PST by NoGrayZone (Thompson/Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

***The legislator who authored the “castle doctrine” bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor’s property. ***

Then what good is a Neighborhood Watch?


36 posted on 11/16/2007 5:31:34 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

What was he supposed to do? Tell the scum to wait a minute while he called 911 to let them know they have now stepped onto his property so now he will shoot them? Unless I’m understanding differently than you.....The way I see it, he went out there w/ his shotgun, yelled something at them and they came towards him, onto his property and he went bang bang. He then called 911 back.


37 posted on 11/16/2007 5:35:24 PM PST by NoGrayZone (Thompson/Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
Vicarious self defense does not extend to property,

Not in Florida maybe. Deadly force to protect private property is allowed in Texas. It applies to your nieghbors property if he asked you to watch it for him. Don't assume all state laws are the same.

38 posted on 11/16/2007 5:36:44 PM PST by chesty_puller (70-73 USMC VietNam 75-79 US Army Wash DC....VietNam was safer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Interesting. Under that law, it looks like you could go to the mall and shoot shoplifters.


39 posted on 11/16/2007 5:37:11 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo
I agree, but before I thought it was Pasadena California. With a jury trial in Texas.....maybe he makes it.
40 posted on 11/16/2007 5:37:12 PM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-230 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson